Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Keith Maitland on October 08, 2015, 06:40:58 AM
-
I think this is the best academic abstract I have read in years.
Begin:
In this paper, I take the position that a large portion of contemporary academic work is an appalling waste of human intelligence that cannot be justified under any mainstream normative ethics.
Part I builds a four-step argument for why this is the case, while Part II responds to arguments for the contrary position offered in Cass Sunstein’s “In Defense of Law Reviews.”
First, in Part I(A), I make the case that there is a large crisis of suffering in the world today. (Part I does not take me very long.). In Part I(B), I assess various theories of “the role of the intellectual,” concluding that the only role for the intellectual is for the intellectual to cease to exist. In Part I(C), I assess the contemporary state of the academy, showing that, contrary to the theory advanced in Part I(B), many intellectuals insist on continuing to exist. In Part I(D), I propose a new path forward, whereby present-day intellectuals take on a useful social function by spreading truths that help to alleviate the crisis of suffering outlined in Part I(A).
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2655751
(The full paper won't be available to read until next month)
-
many intellectuals insist on continuing to exist
How dare they.
-
KM with yet another cheerful thread! ;D
-
My irony meter is struggling, here, with an academic paper regarding the need to rid ourselves of intellectuals...
O.
-
What is 'a large crisis of suffering'?
-
What is 'a large crisis of suffering'?
It's an re-usable summary of pretty much any of Keith's posts :)
O.
-
NS,
What is 'a large crisis of suffering'?
Yeah, I was wondering that. Maybe the author gets his understanding of the world from newspapers - a highly distorting lens for that purpose.
-
Yeah, I was wondering that. Maybe the author gets his understanding of the world from newspapers - a highly distorting lens for that purpose.
It's not even a sensible phrase - it's the sort of gussied up writing that has lost all meaning.
-
NS,
It's not even a sensible phrase - it's the sort of gussied up writing that has lost all meaning.
Quite. He tells us too that he makes the case for it in Part 1, and that "Part I does not take me very long". What knock down argument for this "large crisis of suffering" can he know about that the rest of us have missed I wonder?
-
Quite. He tells us too that he makes the case for it in Part 1, and that "Part I does not take me very long". What knock down argument for this "large crisis of suffering" can he know about that the rest of us have missed I wonder?
And all caused by someone writing a thesis on the use metonymy and its relationship to the portrayal of the ancien regime in the works of Chappuzeau