In a linguistic version of Gresham’s Law, the inflated term is thrown around promiscuously precisely because it does not have to be redeemed, while genuine TAs are carefully hoarded precisely because they have real value and are costly to deploy. Otherwise, the putative TA will suffer from inflation. The person who presents the term must be able to obtain cold, hard, cash value (to use William James' term) - that is, a clear account of the TA’s sense, reference, or use (take your choice) - from the issuer. The critical point about promissory notes is that they must be redeemed on demand. Think of “TA” as a promissory note, a means to simplify conversation among the initiated by making bulky concepts more portable. Burns,” the “Euler–Lagrange equation,” pi, and “offsides” (as in soccer) are all examples of technical abbreviation (herein illustratively denoted “TA”). (Okay, that last is just to provoke you across the “jump”: I’ve really nothing more to say about Butler).ġ) The technical abbreviation is simply a term, phrase, proper noun, Greek letter, or other symbol that substitutes for a complex but uncontroversially well-defined concept. What follows is (1) how technical abbreviation differs from shibboleth (2) why the former is good and the latter, evil and (3) why I think that Judith Butler – or, at least, her epigoni – tend to use the latter rather than the former. (By the way, I do not claim that this dichotomy is an exhaustive taxonomy of obscurity: I’m leaving out three other varieties of obscurity, denoted by myself with appropriate obscurity as “foundational ineffability,” “exoteric self-protection,” and “parabolic mimesis.” Holding the copyright on all but the second term – Leo Strauss’s estate’s got that one – I’ll provide a definition of all them in a later post). To make some amends, here’s an initial distinction between two types of obscurity, which I hereby dub “the technical abbreviation” and “the shibboleth.” The first seems to me useful the second, pernicious. My critics are right: I ought to have something to say about the matter. Why, I ask myself, do I like puzzling through some stuff that many find obscure (say, Quine’s arguments against the analytic-synthetic distinction), whereas even reading a book review by Judith Butler on Arendt’s Jewish Essays induces nausea (of the non-Sartrean variety)? When I denounced the obscurity of intellectuals last week, several (perhaps justifiably) irate responders noted that I did not explain why I liked some obscure writers and disliked others: I had no definition of permissible obscurity, beyond my own prejudices (and an admittedly unwholesome desire to tap on the glass just to watch the snakes jump). | Right-wing "Dworkinianism" » Monday, JThe obscurity of intellectuals: An initial taxonomy Getting a Job on the Law Teaching Market.Wayne Unger on Lawsky Entry Level Hiring Report 2023 - Call for Information.Laydi on Yale Journal of Regulation Book Symposium - The Equality Machine.Bruce Wayne on Yale Journal of Regulation Book Symposium - The Equality Machine.Helene Hadsell on Yale Journal of Regulation Book Symposium - The Equality Machine.Joe on Blast from Leiter’s and My Past: Phyllis Schlafly and Slippery Slopes.Baraksa on The Law of AI for Good - just posted on ssrn.nail salon at walmart on Taking away rights?.bp station finder on JOTWELL: Coleman on Reda on data and inequality.Tower Defense on The Trustworthiness of American Lawyers (Part V).Orbi Pink Light on Yale Journal of Regulation Book Symposium - The Equality Machine.Anon Anon on On "Asymmetry" and "Civil Discourse" - Or, Why Howard is Wrong.chandu on The Trustworthiness of American Lawyers (Part II).JOTWELL: Smith on Sohoni and procedural originalism.Judicial immunity and other civil rights hurdles (Update). UCLA Seeks Legal Research and Writing Faculty.Call for Papers - Northwestern University Law Review Online - Government Secrecy, Surveillance, Censorship.A Useful Opportunity for Golden-Rule Law Review Reform.Stanford, preferred first speakers, and the nonsense of "civil discourse".On "Asymmetry" and "Civil Discourse" - Or, Why Howard is Wrong.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |