Stanley Fish...

[Zarquon]

is a son of a bitch (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/are-there-secular-reasons/):mad:
Seriously, he never ceases to infuriate me with his subjective and ignorant drivel.

[Donkey]

I only got through the first couple of paragraphs. Is there anything particular different in the rest?

Ugh. What nonsense.

[Americano]

is a son of a bitch (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/are-there-secular-reasons/):mad:
Seriously, he never ceases to infuriate me with his subjective and ignorant drivel.

First time I've read him, and last. At least the Times put it in their opinion section.

[Non Sequitur]

I'm confused about what is worth getting mad about? Sure it's not substantive and doesn't contribute anything new, but what is so irritating? More than anything it's just boring.

[Michael]

is a son of a bitch (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/are-there-secular-reasons/):mad:
Seriously, he never ceases to infuriate me with his subjective and ignorant drivel.
Just another Christian in the media using a bullhorn and strawmen arguments to bash liberalism with. That type of columnist and column is very common on US newspaper opinion pages and always has been. :shrug:

The real strawman is hidden at arm's length... follow the link to Steven D. Smith's book and that's where the real strawman that this Stanley Fish fellow is riffing off of.

From the link to the description of Smith's book...

Prominent observers complain that public discourse in America is shallow and unedifying. This debased condition is often attributed to, among other things, the resurgence of religion in public life. Steven Smith argues that this diagnosis has the matter backwards: it is not primarily religion but rather the strictures of secular rationalism that have drained our modern discourse of force and authenticity.
This strawman is 100 feet tall.

No one seriously asserts that the 'resurgence of religion in public life' has any effect on anything - quite simply because there has been no 'resurgence of religion' in anything, anywhere at all.

The 'malaise of modernity' is a pet issue of mine and has been for well over twenty years. Suffice it to say that I follow the topic at its most cerebral and academic level. And I've never heard of this assertion ever. This point of view is just not credible from an academic or philosophic basis.

Fact is, many liberal philosophers do take seriously the concept that the retreat of religion from public life represents a loss to civility. Certainly relativism makes such discussions challenging, but relativism doesn't suck the life out of anything but authoritarian dogma (hence the forced retreat of religion from public discourse).

And that's what is most annoying about Stanley Fish and all his fellow travellers in the media. They take a real issue of concern and then turn it upside down and twist it into support for their own subjective bias - which is usually the categorical opposite of the original issue of concern.

Bottom line is that Stanley Fish is publishing propaganda.

I'm confused about what is worth getting mad about? Sure it's not substantive and doesn't contribute anything new, but what is so irritating? More than anything it's just boring.
The effect is subtle. This particular piece of propaganda seeks to define public discourse as a function of religious participation. That's the longstanding goal of the religious right in America - to define politics as religion - and to blame liberalism for the failure of religion.

[Non Sequitur]

The effect is subtle. This particular piece of propaganda seeks to define public discourse as a function of religious participation. That's the longstanding goal of the religious right in America - to define politics as religion - and to blame liberalism for the failure of religion.

OK, but still is it something to get worked up over? As you said, they have been playing this game for a while.

Plus, the Christian right is a dying bread. relatively soon we won't have to deal with this anymore and we will have new nonsense.

[dilettante]

I'm not sure I quite see where he's wrong here, except in setting out a false secular/religious dichotomy. Since he seems to be defining "secular" as 'that which is related to purely indicative data' or as 'that which entirely lacks "a priori stipulations of what is good and valuable"', there should be plenty of room for a non-religious, non-"secular" worldview. I.E. One could be secular by the common definition but not "secular" by Stanley Fish's definition.

His misuse of labels may have propagandist motivations, but within his own curious definitions, I don't see how he's incorrect: bare facts and statistical analysis, in and off themselves, will never logically lead to values or meaning.

[The Drunk Guy]

You think if I made a serious argument that fans of the X-Men movies aren't fans of the X-Men comics that it would be printed in the newspaper? :ummm:

[Michael]

OK, but still is it something to get worked up over? As you said, they have been playing this game for a while.

Plus, the Christian right is a dying bread. relatively soon we won't have to deal with this anymore and we will have new nonsense.
I agree in theory, except the fact that the US government and US media tend to reflect values from 20-30 years ago (when the religious right was in the ascendant) or even back further - lots of evidence is available that the media still likes to frame issues in terms of 1960s politics. It will take at least that long before present trends are reflected at that level.

But I agree, not much worth getting too worked up about given that there is nothing new here, just the 'same old, same old'. :shrug:

I'm not sure I quite see where he's wrong here, except in setting out a false secular/religious dichotomy. Since he seems to be defining "secular" as 'that which is related to purely indicative data' or as 'that which entirely lacks "a priori stipulations of what is good and valuable"', there should be plenty of room for a non-religious, non-"secular" worldview. I.E. One could be secular by the common definition but not "secular" by Stanley Fish's definition.

His misuse of labels may have propagandist motivations, but within his own curious definitions, I don't see how he's incorrect: bare facts and statistical analysis, in and off themselves, will never logically lead to values or meaning.
If you are speaking about Stanley Fish, then I agree. He probably is being consistent with himself here and not overtly playing a propaganda game. He probably honestly believes what he is writing.

My issue is that the whole issue is entirely predicated upon a 100' tall strawman here - and that strawman is at the root of the article that Fish is writing about.

I'm referring here to Stephen Smith's assertion...

Prominent observers complain that public discourse in America is shallow and unedifying. This debased condition is often attributed to, among other things, the resurgence of religion in public life. Steven Smith argues that this diagnosis has the matter backwards: it is not primarily religion but rather the strictures of secular rationalism that have drained our modern discourse of force and authenticity.
Fish apparently agrees with Smith and that's the root of Fish's column.

But please note the opening line here. Apparently, some unidentified observers, who are never mentioned or identified, are making an assertion that has no evidential basis.

As I noted above, actual liberal philosophers tend to make the opposite argument. No known philosopher actually makes the argument that is being cited here, from which a whole book is launched and Stanley Fish writes a column about. All are just chasing a strawman - and that's why I'm dismissive of this Fish-fellow's game.

The philosophical issue of authenticity and the tenor of public discourse is an interesting topic for discussion - one I've often pushed. But Stanley Fish makes no contribution to that debate. He apparently likes to push his ideology (he's an opinion columnist) and is using a convenient strawman here to do it.

Btw, I might add that the only thing "our modern discourse" has drained "of force and authenticity" is the domination of religious rhetoric standing for political values. Some people regret this development. But the fact of the matter is, there has never been much authenticity in US civil discussions (or any other nation's civil discourse for that matter).