# Does Anyone Read "The Last Psychiatrist"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [December 24, 2013, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-read-the-last-psychiatrist/677105 "2013-12-24T21:11:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Why\_Bother](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e19adc/32.png) [@Doctor\_Why\_Bother](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Why_Bother)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-read-the-last-psychiatrist/677105/41 "2014-06-27T22:26:08Z")
> [@cilla](#): > > I am a dedicated reader of TLP Yes, you _are_ dedicated. The fan boy vibes are coming off you in waves. It’s pathetic. > [@cilla](#): > > I think it’s safe to assume that he is actually a psychiatrist, yes. I don’t think I ever doubted that he was a psychiatrist. He could be a lion tamer for all I care. > [@cilla](#): > > Actually his more recent posts are much less directly related to psychiatry in their subject matter, so it’s somewhat understandable that you might suspect he is just posing as one. I didn’t suspect anything about his profession one way or the other. I don’t _care_ about his profession. When you’re wrong, you’re wrong. It doesn’t matter if you’re a psychiatrist, a rocket scientist, or a trapeze artist. His being a psychiatrist doesn’t give his arguments any extra weight in my mind because they’re just so obviously wrong and/or incomprehensible, not to mention almost completely uncited. > [@cilla](#): > > However I do think YOU sir are a tad judgmental, beyond your jurisdiction. My jurisdiction? Please, tell me, what _is_ my jurisdiction? What am I _allowed_ to comment on? Be specific. > [@cilla](#): > > And let me preface this by saying that I am not trying to sound any more smart than I am, Damn right you’re not. > [@cilla](#): > > nor do I think TLP does, either. Well, there we differ. I think everything from his uncited declarative assertions, to his seemingly haphazard deployment of pop culture references, to his frenetic style which leaps from point to point without any semblance of real structure, to that _stupid_ German strapline which I’ll get to in a minute, all combine to indicate that the guy is either (a) _unbelievably_ pretentious or (b) trying to sound smarter than he really is…which isn’t that different from option (a), really. > [@cilla](#): > > I am actually trying to express something, through the medium of writing yes because how else do you relay a message to be understood remotely? It would basically have to be either an auditory or visual method. So I’m not leaving you a voicemail, I’m writing the message. Forgive me, overlord… Jesus Christ, will you drop the persecution complex? So I didn’t like your favourite little blog. Get over it. > [@cilla](#): > > My criticism of how you are coming off is that you read one post and decided to pass all these judgments. Note the subtitle of TLP (it’s relevant) – it’s German for “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” Think about it (don’t speak). Yes. I know that. It’s Wittgenstein. Specifically, it’s the last line of his first major work _Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus_ wherein he outlined his philosophy that metaphysics was logically incomprehensible because the words that metaphysicians tend to use (‘God’ or ‘afterlife’ for instance) don’t have real-world referents. What Wittgenstein means is that if something doesn’t have a tangible physical presence we can’t talk about it in any meaningful way (Whereof one cannot speak) and so therefore we shouldn’t even try (thereof one must be silent).[sup]1[/sup] I got all that immediately, but it _proves my point!_ If I didn’t know Wittgenstein, and if I didn’t happen to already possess a smattering of German, I would have had to spend Christ knows how long Googling about, just to figure out the strapline on this guy’s shitty little wordpress blog. Now, a familiarity with philosophical catchphrases might impress you, but they don’t impress me. They just don’t. To me, that strapline is just another sign of the contemptible pretension which makes this guy’s blog such a chore to read. If he’d had it in English then maybe he could have gotten away with it, but no. He had it in German. _Why_ did he have it in German if not to be obscurantist? I don’t like obscurantism. Sue me. > [@cilla](#): > > That article of his that you reviewed is just one sample, for one thing. The significance of a single standalone sample of a whole body of work or as a representation of an individual should be fairly obvious, as not heavily weighted. Yes, you’re absolutely right. As soon as I’ve divested myself of my responsibilities to my friends, family, and employer, as well as of all my not inconsiderable health problems, I will immediately undertake a rigorous Talmudic analysis of this weird little blog that I’d never heard of until I opened this thread (and Christ, do I ever regret doing _that_). I will leave no stone unturned, no post unannotated, and no article of punctuation unscrutinised so that when my intellectual Odyssey is complete I will be able to stand tall and, in the sight of Gods and men, proclaim to the world that I _earned_ the right to say…I don’t like it. Look, it’s just a blog, all right? Someone asked the board at large for opinions on its content and mine were negative. I gave my reasons. I don’t have to go through every line this guy’s ever written to ensure my opinion takes his every damn keystroke into account. He already lost me. When you give up on a book after fifty pages, do you force yourself to read the remaining six hundred just so you can justify to yourself your decision to go read something else? ‘Cos if you do, let me tell you, most people don’t. And when most people are asked for their opinions of a book they discarded, they _don’t_ say “I’ve no right to an opinion because I didn’t finish it”, they say “I didn’t like it because of X,Y, and Z’. Is that terribly unfair to the author? No! It’s the author’s job to retain the reader’s interest. If he fails, that’s _his_ fault. > [@cilla](#): > > Then there’s the title of the blog which you also went ahead and took the liberty to criticize/complain about, as being “unclear”. Maybe you should take a step back and realize first of all that you are not god, nowhere near, even. Everything is a matter of perception. That’s one thing. So what may not be clear to you… you know… It’s clear to me, for instance. The title “The Last Psychiatrist” never confused me one bit. I interpreted it as something along the lines of being the last true psychiatrist left to take his business seriously enough to apply logical thinking. Right, well you fucking got it wrong then, didn’t you? Because **Cudgel** who, according to you, “knows what you’re talking about” said quite clearly that it was actually a reference to the Nietzchean concept of the ‘Last Man’ (look it up). See what I mean about the lack of clarity being a problem, yet? > [@cilla](#): > > Not literally THE ONLY LAST SOLE individual but at least one among the few remaining contrary to the nonsensical stupid masses, many of which still become psychiatrists or political figures or most anything. Good thing I never said that then, isn’t it? If you’re going to throw a hissy-fit could you at least do it without straw-manning me? > [@cilla](#): > > He does not claim to be a writer, anyway; he claims to be a psychiatrist. So I don’t know why you’ve got to dog on him for that shit. _Because people asked!_ **Lakai** started this thread for general opinions about the blog. One, just _one_ of the opinions I have about it is that it is badly written. Occasionally, it’s exceptionally badly written. Here’s a question: Why have _you_ got to dog _me_ for that one opinion? I _also_ took issue with the way he summarily redefined the concept of “agency” to suit his purposes in his _Hunger Games_ article, but I notice that you’ve left _that_ objection completely alone. Why is that? It’s really quite amusing. I criticise the guy’s style _and_ substance. Then you come along and criticise me for criticising his style and then accuse me of having no substance! _What about my criticisms of his substance?_ Why haven’t you addressed ANY of that? > [@cilla](#): > > Which actually goes to show that you’re stupid, careless, full of your own shit. Try not hating without sufficient reason. It’s so not worth the energy. Says the guy who just wrote a hysterical 1,000 word screed because some random on the internet dared to criticise his favourite blog. Click on this link: [xkcd: Duty Calls](http://xkcd.com/386/) See the guy in that cartoon? That’s you. > [@](#): > > Cudgel knows what I’m talking about… I’m glad someone does. [sup]1. - Apologies to any philosophy majors reading. It’s been nearly 20 years since I read the Tractatus. I hope I got the gist of that bit right, at least.[/sup] ---
**Author:** ![joyfool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/df788c/32.png) [@joyfool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joyfool)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-read-the-last-psychiatrist/677105/42 "2014-06-27T23:02:13Z")
**Doctor** , that was most excellent. I applaud you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-read-the-last-psychiatrist/677105.md?page=2)