NP no facts only interpretations

Doug Millison DMillison at ftmg.net
Fri May 18 19:16:49 CDT 2001


I've seen nothing here yet that disputes Bauerlein's assertion in his
article: "Save for a few near-retirement humanists and realist philosopher
holdouts, academics embrace constructionist premises as catechism learning,
axioms to be assimilated before one is inducted into the professoriate. To
believe that knowledge is a construct, that truth, evidence, fact, and
inference all fall under the category of local interpretation, and that
interpretations are more or less right by virtue of the interests they
satisfy is a professional habit, not an intellectual thesis." The best
"jbor" has been able to do was, after spewing a few insults in Bauerlein's
direction, to assert that everybody knows the constructionist model is true,
thus confirming the argument that Bauerlein puts forth in his article  that
a sort of religious belief in the unassailable truth of the constructionist
view prevents any real discussion of its validity. 

Bauerlein:
"Given the breadth of constructionist ideas, proponents might submit them
tentatively as speculations, hypotheses, or opinions, but in fact, this
spirited confidence phrases them as bare simplicities whose contradiction is
intellectually indefensible, and perhaps politically motivated. The aplomb
turns the issue from the truth or falsity of the premises to the mindset of
the antagonists. Since no enlightened mind would doubt the premises, dissent
from them can only stem from the wrongheadedness of the dissenters. As the
intentions of the other side come under scrutiny, the premises themselves
remain untouched. A philosophical quarrel becomes a psychological
speculation."
http://www.bu.edu/partisanreview/archive/2001/2/bauerlein.html




More information about the Pynchon-l mailing list