[PEN-L:30080] Deirdre McCloskey. was Re:Post-Autism in the Micro

[Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>]

Eugene Coyle wrote:
>
> I have been reading the exchange.  I was most impressed by the essay that triggered the
> debate.
>
> The Deirdre McCloskey piece in the current issue seems to me to be defensive and missing
> the point.  I think I could pass the test he poses at the end

In September of  1997 I had never heard of Deirdre McCloskey, and
certainly had no inkling that she was such a big cheese in the field of
econ. I encountered her on the femecon-l maillist, and at one point an
interesting exchange occurred. I thought the posts cncerned were lost,
and for that reason have never mentioned it on any list, but recently
sorting through old papers I found a printout of one of my posts, which
contains the essence. First I will copy out the post here, then explain
the context a bit more at the end.

Date: Tue. 30 Sep 1997 18:49:35 -0400
From: cbcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Carrol Cox)
To:  Multiple recipients of list (femecon-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Achilles and Plato

Deirdre,

	I posted a whole page + of the Republic just 30 minutes ago. It should
have reached you by this time. In case it hasn't yet, the text is from
Waterfield's translation (Oxford World's Classics), p. 81-2; paragraphs
or whatever (I never have understood this notation system for Greek
works) 387d-388b, and brief quotation and paraphrase from 386b-387a,
including a comment on Plato gutting the Odyssey with his excision of a
sentence by Achilles in book 11.

	Don't let wishful thinking get you dow. I have vague memories of some
texts, and can pull bloopers, but I *do* know quite a bit (which is in
its way only a little) about the Reppublic.

	If I don't see my original post fairly soon, I'll retype it. I'm
retired. I can waste my time if I please.

Carrol
>
>Dearest Carroll,
>
>Oh, dear. I'm afraid I've apprehended you in Boyish Blustering, and now you're just going to keep it up until I fall silent. All right, I will! No need to provide that citation to back your odd assertion about Plato. Really, don't bother: I understand. Just bluster and maybe she'll shut up, eh? I'm SO familiar with the impulse!
>
>Love,
>
>Deirdre
>
>
> On tue, Sep 1997, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> >you write (in part)
> > > Carroll,
> > <SNIP>
> > > I'd like to see the textual evidence that Plato regarded
> > > the un-macho qualities of A. as the reason the Iliad/Odyssey
> > > should be overturned as textbooks of Greek education, Really,
> > > I would. In some (aristocratic,
> > <SNIP>
> > --------
> > *Republic*. I refuse to acknowledge there exists a Ph.D. in
> > anything who is not familiar enough with the *Republic* to
> > find the passages. The *Republic* is required reading under
> > slogan of "Know your enemy." The enemy (enemy of emancipation)
> > has not found a single new argument in 2400 years that isn't
> > already in the Republic.
> >
> > Carrol

- - - - - - -

I can't find my original post that set this off, but McCloskey (as is
clear I think above) had sharply attacked the post as showing ignorance
of Plato. Someone else had submitted a long and interesting post on
Achilles in the Iliad, and I had posted pointing out that Plato disliked
having heroes & gods weep. I can't remember now just why McCloskey was
so offended by that characterization of Plato. She was obviously pretty
ignorant of the _Republic_, which means that she was pretty ignorant of
Plato in general. I would speculate that this exchange suggest that she
is regularly capable of basing factual assertions on what she _wants_ to
be true, and depending on sheer bluster (what she accused me of) to back
up such idiocies.

Had I been aware at the time of her position in the discipline I would
have been more careful to preserve the whole exchange. I don't know
whether archives of femecon-l from the past are available.

I believe Doug Orr has in the past posted on this list recounting the
terror tactics with which she succeeded in suppressing debate some years
ago on the femecon-l list.

On another list recently I have been arguing that "intelligence,"
"stupidity," etc. are not attributes of individuals but of social
relations. So I would say there is a fairly good basis, in those terms,
to say that McCloskey is stupid and ignorant, as well as being vicious
and a bully.

That said, her book on rhetoric is very good and worth reading.

Carrol