Certainly he's not an analytic philosopher.
On Jan 19, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Christopher D. Green wrote:
Although slagging "philosophy" is a venerable sport among
psychologists
(makes them feel more like "scientists," I suspect), it is not a
particularly productive one (mainly because most psychologists have no
clue what it is philosophers actually do, but like to use the term
as a
pejorative for people who hold views that psychologists did back
before
the behaviorist "awakening"). In point of fact, there is very little
about Fish that would count as a philosopher. He was trained as a
literary critic. He became a cultural critic (I think this aspect
of his
work leads some to confuse him with the "philosopher" of their
imagination). He made a name for himself as a post-modernist (which is
not equivalent to a "deconstructionist" -- there are lots of other
kinds
of post-modernists). He has since moderated his position somewhat (at
least, he doesn't advocate the very extreme position that was often
purported to be his by his critics). Since he has been writing for the
NYT, I have found him to be thought-provoking and interesting. Far
from
the "radical" he is often taken to be, he has repeatedly argued that
politics should be absent from the classroom; that the job of a
teacher
is to explain how things work, to lay out various approaches to issues
of interest, not to take specific positions and foist them on one's
students. I don't agree with everything he says, but I'd rather
read his
column than, say, Bill Kristol's (who seems to be continuing his late
father's end-of-life mission to publicly repent for his (the father's)
early life as a Trotskyite agitator).
And just for the record, I know of no philosophers who are "big on
Freud" (for the past several decades anyway). Certainly there are more
psychologists who fit this description than there are philosophers.
Freud is pretty passe in Lit Crit as well.
Best,
Chris Green (PhD, Philosophy, 2004)
York U.
Toronto
===============
Paul Brandon wrote:
There's a fine line between Philosophy and English Literature these
days (they're both big on Freud ;-).
Functionally, I'd call him a philosopher (he's a big fan of Sidney
Hook).
On Jan 19, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Ken Steele wrote:
Paul Brandon wrote:
I haven't read this article, but I do occasionally read him for
amusement.
He's a philosopher, which means that he doesn't feel any need to
tie
his
statements to reality, and has no appreciation for systematic data
collection.
Internal consistency is all!
Sounds like he's talking about himself.
Fish's degree is in English and he is a prominent
deconstructionist. I think he would agree with Paul that he
doesn't feel any need to tie his statements to reality because he
questions the existence of "reality."
A famous story illustrates Fish's view:
"A simple illustration of interpretive communities is Fish's
story of baseball umpire Bill Klem, who once waited a long time
to call a particular pitch. "Well, is it a ball or strike," the
player asked impatiently. To which Klem replied, "Sonny, it ain't
nothing 'til I call it" - saying, in effect, that balls and
strikes are not facts in the world but "come into being only on
the call of an umpire." This example shows how his scholarship
questions our conventional assumptions about fairness, justice,
and truth."
from http://www.biographybase.com/biography/Fish_Stanley.html
But substitute "surgeon" for "umpire" and "liver" for "strike"
and "lung" for "ball." I'm glad Fish doesn't teach in a med school.
Paul Brandon
Emeritus Professor of Psychology
Minnesota State University, Mankato
[email protected]
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([email protected])
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([email protected])
Paul Brandon
10 Crown Hill Lane
Mankato, MN 56001
[email protected]
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([email protected])
