Ordinarily I’d agree with you, but there has actually been some content and not just names. Except for Scylla’s post.
Don’t be knocking my buddy Nicky M.
But names and words convey a whole host of meanings, which all vary. (Derrida) Why expound the whole theory when I can simply refer to thinker’s body of work by name. That way, when I refer to Plato’s forms, non-academics know what I’m talking about, nod and figure out how to steer the conversation back to Big 10 football and silly academic girls who don’t “do sport” can run off screaming, knowing how shallow I am without ever having to hear how I don’t care for the symphonies of Mozart or novels of Joyce.
Although given the two, I prefer to be tortured by Mozart, as one has to particpate in the work of reading Ulysses, and I’m not a masochist.
It is quite noncontroversial that names and words convey meaning.
Throwing down a name in place of “expounding the whole theory” is objectionable when it takes the place of rigorous explanation and instead shifts an unfair conversational burden to the listener. If the analogy of the cave comes up in natural conversation, then no, perhaps you don’t have to rehearse the entire Republic. Dropping a name should aid understanding, not increase confusion. One should never have to say, “you’d know what I’m talking about if you read Derrida.”
Name dropping also relies on the listener’s perhaps shoddy understanding of the author in question. If your partner’s understanding of Plato is superficial, then you run the risk of shooting yourself in the foot. On the other hand, if only a superficial understanding is required, then you lose little by explaining it yourself.
Name dropping is great for hermetic poetry. Not so much for real conversation.
And in all fairness, we were doing just that (following each other) until Laurange had her little hissy fit and I started charactaturing myself to have a little fun. No, Derrida has nothing to do with this, and neither does Joyce, neither of whom I really understand. (Shit, does anyone understand Joyce?)
I dunno. A lot of it was pretty weak, along the lines of, “I read Sun Tzu, too,” or “I tell all my employees to read The Melian Dialogues,” or “I learned to read in utero.” Most of it was really content-free, hence susceptible to accusations of pretentiousness.
But, like the not-dead dude in The Holy Grail, the thread “got better.”
Oh, sure, you were all following each other. You were also patting yourselves on the back for being able to say “I read Sun Tzu!” “Oh, I read Gibbon.” I could just SEE noses turning upwards.
I’m in ancient history, by the way. And I still say that when you start using Gibbon to discuss the effects of the disparity between the rich and the poor, you need to go check your head.
You mean the Fisher King?
Or Parsifal?
I know, It was a reference to Monty Python, not Arthurian Romance. Just trying to drop some names. Please don’t hurt me.
I can’t tell you what his name is. I’m sorry.
Allow me to save you the pain by presenting an abridged version of Joyce’s Ulysses:
Pot, I’d like to introduce you to my friend Kettle, I think you two will have a lot in common.
The only thing in that entire quote I could construe as pretentious was the very fact of being in ancient history. Anything else? Because, really, that’s not so bad.
Well basically, it’s your coming into a thread and talking about your academic lifestyle and how it qualifies you to pass judgement on when other people are being pretentious academics.
The second part of it was making fun of someone for using Gibbons in the context in which it was used. See, here’s the rub. I’m not a pretentious academic, I’ve never been to college, so I never received the indoctrination that would tell me why Gibbons is wrong. In fact I am only now delving into the history of Rome and why it might have fallen. So what is pretentious about your statement is that you didn’t actually attempt to impart your superior knowledge, you just chose to display it for the basis of comparison to my inferior knowledge.
So you up in your ivory tower have reason to believe that what Gibbons says is false. But down here on the lowly ground in my experience I see a lot of people who are poor who have zero faith in the system. I see the New York Times writing articles that are totally out of touch with the reality here in New York. Saying things like you have to make $ 500,000 a year to live comfortably in New York.
Under Giuliani and Bloomberg in New York we have seen a nightlife taskforce that shuts down warehouse parties that my friends throw. Bloomberg makes it difficult to get mass gathering permits. I don’t see rich people’s parties being shut down ever. In fact not even the upper middle class parties get shut down, but god forbid some ravers through a party in the middle of an industrial district! I’ve seen people shouting that they have drugs for sale in more bourgeois crowds without repercussion, so it can’t be that the cops are trying to stop drugs can it? Why don’t you go to the projects across the street from my house and ask them whether or not they think that the government represents them or if it’s a society for the rich? Oh, you probably wouldn’t because walking into the Marcy Projects would scare your little academic ass shitless.
Of course though, you probably know more about the way the rich and poor interact and how such an application of Gibbons is bullshit because you “study ancient history”.
Erek
I know absolutely nothing about how Gibbon applies to the modern New York scene. I know more about how he applies to actual Roman history - which is not as well as he apparently does to New York.
And the academia thing is a joke. You know, we’re supposed to be the pretentious ones?
Nah, Pretention abounds everywhere you go.
You ain’t kiddin’. Erek, should I just consider my questions in post #28 a lost cause?
Actually the Prince does have an applicability to one’s day to day life in that anything that teaches you about politics does. It’s good not to piss off the base of people who’s support you need. That’s simply good sense.
As for an application for an individual’s relationship to their government, I simply wanted to point out that if you’re going to support the war, at least support it being successful, and I used the accepted wisdom of literature that gives us good advice on how to be successful.
I’m clearly not in a position of power, otherwise I wouldn’t be posting on the SDMB about this, I’d be writing for Foreign Affairs or the economist about this, but as I see it, if I can look at the way we are fighting this war, and see how stupid our tactics are on a fundamental level, then there is something seriously wrong.
So yes, I can apply the Prince in a broad sense to my life because I work in a political arena based around a fairly large community, and deal with a lot of people on a regular basis, as I don’t run a principality, I can’t apply it directly to my day to day.
I don’t know much about county politics since I live in a strange city where the counties are actually smaller than the city, and the city has multiple counties within it.
Erek