Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Dawn Lacks Rosy Fingers, Astronomers Announce

Oh, no, David Brooks! Um, Homer wasn't a philosopher. Homer was a poet. Homer was an oral poet. All those rosy-fingered dawns and wine-dark seas and cunning Ulysseseseses . . . those were to help him remember the words. You're out of your element.

Seriously. What the hell philosopher is Brooks talking about? "The philosopher’s view is shaped like a funnel. At the bottom, there is a narrow thing called character. And at the top, the wide ways it expresses itself." Ah yes, I recall in the Tractatus, when Wittgenstein elucidates his oft-quoted seventh proposition: Where, or of what, one cannot speak, one pours into a funnel.

David Brooks, if nothing else, proves Pope's adage about a little learning. When he abandons his milquetoast ramblings on coastal Republicans who shop at Williams Sonoma and Appalachian Democrats who prefer Dunkin Donuts, or, you know, whatever, and sallies forth into the Great Books curriculum like a punch-drunk Quixote clutching an extra-large bottle of Tussin in his lance-hand, the Western canon, whatever it may be, better duck and cover. He has read widely, but seems to lack context entirely, and so, for example, he has confused the epic for the philosophical, synechdoche for proposition, metonym for definition.

UPDATE: Looks like Prof Crispy and I were reading the same papers ce matin.

30 comments:

TGGP said...

Even when Brooks sticks to his main schtick of amateur pop-sociology, he's still wrong.

Anonymous said...

That should be "Tractatus" up there.

IOZ said...

Thanks 10:25 - bad morning for typing. To my relief, you did not arrive soon enough to catch my original spelling of Appalachia.

Montag said...

but have you read Bill Donohue's column in the Washington Post?

Anonymous said...

Yea. Psychology doesn't challenge anyone to do anything. It certainly is NOT a discipline. Say what you want about the tenets of epic poetics dude, at LEAST it has an ethos. It believes in nothing, Homer, nothing!

We WANT the CONSCIOUSNESS, Homer, or tomorrow we come back and we cut off your johnson!

Anonymous said...

this is the IOZ that i enjoy.

Michael Dawson said...

Here's a pop-soc-psych theorem for Senor Brooks: Every single peckerwood who has ever carped about the erosion of concern with unitary "character" is a fraud and a fool who doth protest WAY too much.

Christopher said...

So, this reminds me of Brooks' column of last month, where he argued that a group of Tea Party protesters couldn't possibly be racist, because there was also The Black Family Reunion celebration going on nearby, and none of the Tea Partiers were shouting racial epithets at the black people.

To put it another way, his column is largely based on the idea that racism is a deeply ingrained character trait that will come out in any given situation.

Otherwise intelligent people seem to like David Brooks, and I can't fathom why. I guess you could give him points for trying, but I'd rather the Times employed people who are ACTUALLY interesting and thought-provoking.

Kafka said...

He could have explained the concept of sublimation and been done with it. Coined by Nietzche and appropriated by psychology. Or at least that's what he seems to be getting at near the end.

The 'philosopher’s view' I think he may have had in mind is Stoicism. If so, I don't know why he tries to connect Homer to it...

Another Lawyer said...

I am a IOZ fan, and as for the spellchecking crowd, I think its synecdoche rather than "synechdoche"...rather sad that I missed appalachia.

Rowan said...

It wasn't even just to help remember the words - it was also to keep the meter. So depending on what the meter of the lines was, characters would be assigned generic attributes. I think half the warleaders in the Iliad were X of the Great War Cry.

Brooks scares me. He's a competent writer, and has the form of making a coherent argument, but he's a complete fucking moron. He works in syllogisms where the major premise is simply wrong, the minor premise bafflingly decontextualised, and the conclusion not logical from the above anyway.

lucid said...

Hmm... I'm not entirely sure how he gets from Iliad to Book VII of Republic especially given that the actual ethical philosophy found in Iliad is completely antithetical to that of Plato... But, as we know, pundits say the darnedest things!

Anonymous said...

To Rowan - it wasn't precisely to "keep the meter" but rather to "fill the meter" and thereby give the poet a break from de novo composition. What you're thinking of is Milman Parry's work on oral formulaic poetry, but you've got it slightly askew.

Anonymous said...

There's a reason kalos means both good and beautiful, lucid. Think Thersites.

mistah charley, ph.d. said...

While we're speaking of funnels, I think we should mention Kurt Vonnegut's "chrono-synclastic infindibulum" - for a discussion I refer you to the Wikipedia article on The Sirens of Titan.

Rowan said...

Been a long time since my community college humanities class. Well, better slightly askew than Brooksian-askew.

Anonymous said...

to Rowan - well, look at this way - you did a damn sight better than our esteemed host.

lucid said...

Not quite sure what your getting at anon 4:32, but Homerian ethical philsoophy rests in charis - reciprocity - and is most clearly demonstrated in the Briseis affair. This was a thread picked up by both the democrats, tragedians and the sophists and lay at the very origin of Greek religion as well, the moiraie. Of course, Plato returned to Kalos as the good because it derectly refers to nobility.

Anonymous said...

to lucid - I apologize for being flip - but that being said, I still think there's a slight problem in the fact that (as you say) Plato returned to kalos despite the fact that esthlos was readily available. In other words, I still think Plato knew he wouldn't lose any adherents by conflating the good and the beautiful.

lucid said...

Of course not - he wanted a reinstatement of aristocracy against the sophists and the democrats [not that Greek democracy wasn't aristocratic to begin with, but...]. Plato hated the sophists and the burgeoning humanism they represented.

Anonymous said...

burgeoning humanists maybe, lucid. but also those who would argue ANY position for a client for the right price. Kind of like the lineal ancestors of Clarence Darrow, if you think about it.

Anonymous said...

It was not Homer, but someone else who dubbed David Brooks an "elitist fuckhead." I like to think that Homer would abide.

Keifus said...

The guy who wants to get all physics on the rosy-fingered dawn is, um, a different kind of douchebag.

I imagine Brooks as less infundibular, more like a Klein bottle. Hard to follow the continuity in normal space, but given an extra dimension, yes, he can get his head up there.

Anonymous said...

One of your best in a while, IOZ.

Anonymous said...

i blame the Editors at NYT; brooks obviously meant "The Philosopher," and was referring to the lesser known work "de funnelibus,"* which has a surprising amount to say on "character."

*aka "epi phounnelois" for all the greek scholars posting lately.

(& ioz, anon at 1100 can go fuck him/herself.)

mds said...

this is the IOZ that i enjoy.

So you can let that breath out now, Monsieur. Anonymous approves.

he wanted a reinstatement of aristocracy against the sophists and the democrats [not that Greek democracy wasn't aristocratic to begin with, but...]. Plato hated the sophists and the burgeoning humanism they represented.

Plato was a Republican? Who knew?

Anyway, if you'll all excuse me, I've reconnected with my small-town Iowa roots by making a lunch reservation at Applebee's. I'm looking forward to their salad bar.

Anonymous said...

david brooks is a serious scholar

lucid said...

nony - 'of that which is, that it is, humanity is the measure'. Protagoras here has an earliest formulation of Kant's Copernican turn. And the idea of going out and teaching anyone how to participate in civic discourse [i.e. debate and public speaking] is a far cry from 'getting paid to argue any position'. The former is what the sophists did and is what pissed off the aristocracy [and Plato] so much.

MDS - I would certainly hope you're being ironical. Neo-Platonism is the basis of modern rightist ideology, be it Scheler and Heidegger or Strauss and Bloom.

mistah charley, ph.d. said...

Speaking of reconnecting with one's small-town roots and having lunch at a national chain restaurant, I recently had the pleasure of having lunch at the Olive Garden restaurant now found in the town I went to high school in.

Although supplied by a soulless corporation, not an indigenous proprietor, it was a much better lunch than we used to get when the Kiwanis Club would host a couple of Key Club members.

Premier Financial Alliance said...

If you want to earn money and wants to fulfill your financial dream, Premier Financial Alliance is here for you. You do not need to spend money. Just you can join our professional company with nominal fees and you can work together and earn more than what you may have expected. This Financial Alliance has a lot more than you may have expected.Premier Financial Alliance