[PEN-L:2531] Re: 1998 Bad Writing Contest

[Colin Danby <danbyc@xxxxxxx>]

On the general point, Butler's work, if scarcely
Hemingwayesque, is quite intelligible to anyone
with a background in W. philosophy and post-
structural thought.  Precisely how important a
theorist Butler is really doesn't interest me
here; but I did want to take a swat at the idea
that difficulty per se is reason to put something
aside because it is too often used to avoid new
ideas.  The irascible Bill L, to his credit, is
willing to take Butler seriously enough to read
her, and maybe we can isolate an idea or two to
discuss further.  Bill also makes my point in his
quantum physics example -- understanding it
requires enough math and pre-quantum physics that
you have a context for the particular ideas of QP.

Question for Lou: I think I understand your reasons
for putting aside the whole project of w. phil, but
what do you make of Lenin's comment that you need
to learn Hegel's _Logic_ to understand _Capital_?
Are you arguing that Marx is simply the end of w.
phil as a worthwhile project?

Now to reply to Ellen.

CD:

>>Read a page or two from any of the more theoretical
>>chapters of _Capital_, with its highly abstract terms
>>and sprinklings of Latin, and ask yourself what
>>audience its author had in mind.

ED:

>Just quoting a wee bit of Colin's remarks. It seems to me there's a
logical
>problem here. He seems to be saying that because Marx or Hegel were
smart
>folks and could write impenetrable prose this means that if you write
>impenetrable prose you must be smart.

This proposition is not in anything I wrote and
does not follow from anything I wrote.  Whatever
"logical problem" there is here is not mine.

After that, Ellen explains how she writes so well.
Then:

> I wonder what is so threatening about a suggestion
> that people, esp. those who claim to have a connection
> with workers, write for the workers?

which sounds like another false inference.

Best, Colin