Fish????

[Terrance]

glthompson wrote:
> 
> Terrence, I have to confess that I'm puzzled--"Fish" seems to be
> standing in for some larger Presence here, some bete noir, but I don't
> really understand what.
> 
> OK, so Fish and two or three dozen others are posturing on their small
> stages. How is that to a threat to the Republic? IMHO, the sort of
> drivel going on during any broadcast day, not to mention Matt Drudge,
> far outpaces poor Stanley and all the output of Duke or Routledge.

I wouldn't call it a larger presence, but a larger
critical or philosophical controversy. Fish??? How did he
get into this? I agree that
poor (I'm in favor of teachers earning a good salary)
Stanley Fish is only the Rocker (the baseball player) in
this debate. In 1967 he was rookie of the year, he has
played on some great teams, managed great teams.  He's the
stuff of legend and
fiction--Zapp?, fair enough. The controversy is not about
Fish. Making it so only
prohibits the larger discussion from having a presence
where it may be recognized for what it is, an important
philosophical and critical debate that is transforming many
of the
literary and educational practices of the nation. 

> 
> I'm not the sort to get into this sort of thing on-list, and people may
> already be getting bored with this Wolfe strand, but this summary of
> Fish is a caricature. 

Yes, caricature. 


My Fish's a bit old, but from what I recall, his
> argument (one of them) is that values, and judgments about rationality,
> are constructed from _inside_ of contexts, and that there's no way to
> get _outside_ of these to come up with some allegedly objective
> perspective. I don't think that Fish is necessarily the only or best
> theorist or writer to venture this idea. (Personally, I see that insight
> as key to much of Pynchon's work, and a lot of what makes him
> postmodern, but that's a topic requiring more development.) It _is_
> possible to be rational and ethical without absolutism. And the Nazis
> weren't evil because they were relativists.

OK, here we may have a topic to discuss that is Pynchon
related. Is Pynchon a Postmodernism writer? What does that
mean? What does Pynchon and GR say about Absolutism (not
sure what you mean by Absolutism) and Relativism? Does
Pynchon agree that values, and judgments about rationality,
are constructed from inside of contexts, and that there's no
way to get outside of these to come up with some allegedly
objective perspective? If so, what are the implications of
this?  

These are not questions for you to answer, but they may
serve to keep us focused on Pynchon. 

> 
> Perhaps universities aren't what they should be? Sure--but it's not the
> tenured radicals who're the main problem--it's the rapid, nearly
> complete conversion of education to a corporate model. Hume and Kant
> wouldn't find employment not because they don't do jargon (hah!), but
> because they'd have eight students a semester and would be asked to
> teach ethics for lawyers or some such more practical course. We may live
> in a golden age for some things, but philosophy's not one of them. How
> does Wolfe's misrepresentation of professors help to correct that
> situation?
> 
> As I asked before, whose interests does he serve?
> 
> GT

Wolfe is not more self-serving than Fish. The main problem?
Couldn't it be both and a whole lot more?