tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post111601496764409244..comments2023-11-16T07:12:40.867-05:00Comments on Dissoi Blogoi: Now There's a Fudge!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post-1117149467519046552005-05-26T19:17:00.000-04:002005-05-26T19:17:00.000-04:00Both your original post and your final comment des...Both your original post and your final comment deserve response. While I have my own answers to your questions, most of which seem unfounded upon a careful reading of the review, I thought the best thing to do would be to get Kuklick's own reaction and response. He was nice enough to provide me with such a reaction via email, and has given me permission to post it as a comment on your blog. So, in the name of giving your readership the whole story, I paste it here:<BR/><BR/>"On reflection I certainly don’t like the ugly phrase 'reinforcement of the stultification' either. But I don’t think what I said is hard to parse or bizarre. White wanted Oxford to get logic, and Harvard to get an interest in the ordinary world. Instead, the experience with logic may have turned Oxford further from it; and, similarly, seeing the commitment in England to ordinary usage may have made Harvard more interested in logic. <BR/> Do I think that’s stultifying? Well, I was searching for an ambiguous phrase in 'what some would call.' Maybe I should have said what I believe more exactly: philosophy at each institution became more problematic after the 1950s. Ordinary language philosophy did not go anywhere. And yes, I find Quine after 'Two Dogmas' stultifying. He never did much, to my mind with the holistic epistemology hinted at in that essay and some other pieces, and I don’t think much of the epigoni. This opinion may be eccentric – I would prefer 'independent' – but I don’t think it’s bizarre."<BR/><BR/> <BR/> <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A>steve austinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post-1116278116869489862005-05-16T17:15:00.000-04:002005-05-16T17:15:00.000-04:00I guess I'm a little puzzled at when the stultific...I guess I'm a little puzzled at when the stultification set in at Harvard. Was it with Quine? Dreben? Albritton? Putnam? Rawls? Or maybe Cavell? As for Oxford, I suppose it's clear that Austin was a <I>stultus</I>  and <I>a fortiori</I> any lesser minds there.  <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A>Michael PakalukAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post-1116274919505463812005-05-16T16:21:00.000-04:002005-05-16T16:21:00.000-04:00He may also be reporting a general sentiment that ...He may also be reporting a general sentiment that people voice but don't consider worth defending in detail. He may in fact be taking a shot and dodging responsibility for it, or he may be saying what plenty of people think. Given the offense it's caused, I suspect that the opinion isn't so idiosyncratic at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post-1116210224885411792005-05-15T22:23:00.000-04:002005-05-15T22:23:00.000-04:00Also, his own personal opinion (what he thinks is ...Also, his own personal opinion (what he thinks is stultifacation) is irrelevant if what we're talking about is the sociology of philosophy, ie what some consider stultification.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post-1116210017260828962005-05-15T22:20:00.000-04:002005-05-15T22:20:00.000-04:00He didn't fudge throughout the rest of the review,...He didn't fudge throughout the rest of the review, so is there a reason for the fudge here? No fudge version: "It's ironic that the attempt to embolden may have lead to mutual stultification." He can't say that unless he wants to provide evidence to back it up, but he doesn't have the space for that. So the nameless others are used to introduce a fact (some consider it stultification) rather than an uncorrobated assertion (what I consider stultification).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com