<![CDATA[Stanley Fish Finds Right And Wrong Spectacularly Uninteresting - Gawker Comments]]> <![CDATA[Stanley Fish Finds Right And Wrong Spectacularly Uninteresting - Gawker Comments]]> <![CDATA[Stanley Fish Finds Right And Wrong Spectacularly Uninteresting]]> Wow, that was four nouns that start with I in a row! Methinks a PhD wrote that! Still, how sad for Mr. Fish that not even the wannabe smartypants snob undergrads will swallow his tripe. Signing off for this chain!

Disbeliever

]]> <![CDATA[Stanley Fish Finds Right And Wrong Spectacularly Uninteresting]]> This comment column reads like undergraduate evaluations. For a not very well-taught class. Students are grappling, but get all tangled in insult, indigestion, irony, and innuendo.

Smartypants snobs? More like wannabe smartypants snobs.

wretched_of_the_mirth

]]> <![CDATA[Stanley Fish Finds Right And Wrong Spectacularly Uninteresting]]> Given the general consensus that Fish is full of shit, it makes perfect sense that the Times thinks he is interesting enough to put under their masthead.

Fishman

]]> <![CDATA[Stanley Fish Finds Right And Wrong Spectacularly Uninteresting]]> @Disbeliever:
Thanks and duly noted. Fish's 1996 NYT attack on Sokal and apologetics in favor of Social Text were indefensibly dismal.
[www.physics.nyu.edu]

Insert joke about breasts/gravity/social construct.

rosaluxembourgeoise

]]> <![CDATA[Stanley Fish Finds Right And Wrong Spectacularly Uninteresting]]> To think that we will "never know" whether or not Stanley Fish believes in God!

Which is worse: not knowing whether or not there is a God, or not knowing whether or not Fish believes in God?

Asshole.

Johnny_boy

]]> <![CDATA[Stanley Fish Finds Right And Wrong Spectacularly Uninteresting]]> Why, isn't he clever? Just arguing for argument's sake?

How about his argument that it is irrational not to vote for Hilary Clinton? How was that an ironic non-argument?

The guy wrote a good book on John Milton about forty years ago. Largely everything else he writes is like the piece above. Just because you mean to be confusing doesn't mean that you are not confused.

Asshole.

Johnny_boy

]]> <![CDATA[Stanley Fish Finds Right And Wrong Spectacularly Uninteresting]]> @moff: Ha! We probably do.

I should have gone with my first draft comment:
"I thought Fish was more concise in Barney Miller."

rosaluxembourgeoise

]]> <![CDATA[Stanley Fish Finds Right And Wrong Spectacularly Uninteresting]]> @rosaluxembourgeoise: As a friend once stated "everyone eventually agrees with Stanley Fish." If nothing else, the man covers the tracks of his sketchy reasoning.

@Dickdogfood: His NYtimes blog re: identity politics is a good start. You can follow up with any and all of his literary crit. His work is regularly ripped by his academic colleagues.

Claystil

]]> <![CDATA[Stanley Fish Finds Right And Wrong Spectacularly Uninteresting]]> It's IRONIC, dammit!

famousauthor

]]> <![CDATA[Stanley Fish Finds Right And Wrong Spectacularly Uninteresting]]> @rosaluxembourgeoise: Fortunately, the disservice is mitigated somewhat by most people's inability to recognize cringe-worthy reasoning. So I don't know what we're so worked up about. We're just smartypants snobs, I guess. We probably drink wine!

I don't know what I'm talking about.

moff

]]> <![CDATA[Stanley Fish Finds Right And Wrong Spectacularly Uninteresting]]> @Claystil: No, I haven't, apart from an article here and there, some of them absolutely ages ago. I know his rep for being "contrary" but would be interested in the full scope of any possible jerkery, especially anything that might cast darkness on what's quoted above.

Dickdogfood

]]> <![CDATA[Stanley Fish Finds Right And Wrong Spectacularly Uninteresting]]> I think the deconstructed Fish comes with an instruction manual on how to put him back together again. Kind of like Humpty-Dumpty. Arguably. And ironically.

famousauthor

]]> <![CDATA[Stanley Fish Finds Right And Wrong Spectacularly Uninteresting]]> A friend of mine was at a Duke faculty meeting led by Fish years ago, and in debating whatever the issue of the day was an exasperated Fish exclaimed, "I just want to be right!"

The short of it, and given Fish's embrace of deconstructionism at the time it makes sense, is that Fish doesn't like to take positions that people can challenge him on later, so he is purposely vague on some things, always gives himself an out, and states things in a way that always allows him to claim the reader misinterpreted his position. He is just a pompous guy who is only interested in trying to claim the intellectual and moral high ground, despite his assertion that he is not doing that. Therefore, he is deconstructed.

Fishman

]]> <![CDATA[Stanley Fish Finds Right And Wrong Spectacularly Uninteresting]]> @moff: Fish would surely object to your suggestion that he's advocating a moral position in favor of rationality.

Snarkless, I know, but I don't find his formulations "risible", "pompous" or "superfluous". There are many crusading writers out there who master prose and defend positions I support, but whose scholarship is dismal, and reasoning cringe-worthy. Which does a great disservice to those positions I support. Carry on, Professor Fish!

rosaluxembourgeoise

]]> <![CDATA[Stanley Fish Finds Right And Wrong Spectacularly Uninteresting]]> Let's not forget that Stanley Fish is one of the guys who fell for the Sokol Hoax--stating gravity is a social construct--and published it as legit academic theory. But hey, if you're not interested in what's right and wrong, who cares about the true nature of gravity? How boring! If an argument sounds sophisticated, that's good enough for Stanley! Let's all go to Starbucks!

Disbeliever

]]> <![CDATA[Stanley Fish Finds Right And Wrong Spectacularly Uninteresting]]> @Dickdogfood: Have you read much Stanley Fish? In context of his writing, his above statements seem a bit ridic.

Claystil

]]> <![CDATA[Stanley Fish Finds Right And Wrong Spectacularly Uninteresting]]> Stanley Fish, bringing mundanity and a counter point to every point, ever, even his own, since 1938.

Claystil

]]> <![CDATA[Stanley Fish Finds Right And Wrong Spectacularly Uninteresting]]> I don't see what great sin of obnoxiousness Fish is committing (here, at least): I like the idea of poking at arguments made in the political sphere for their soundness, not their appeal to our moral natures. (On the other hand, since he's a man and not an angel, and it's at least theoretically conceivable that "mere" moral concerns might be tainting his arguments, it might be more honest for him to state where he stands on the issues he's trying to cover so coolly.)

Dickdogfood

]]> <![CDATA[Stanley Fish Finds Right And Wrong Spectacularly Uninteresting]]> I think a more interesting (though less compelling) book would be: Stanley Fish on Jane Tompkins.

Theda_Bara

]]> <![CDATA[Stanley Fish Finds Right And Wrong Spectacularly Uninteresting]]> He's the Deep Blue of bloggers.

Tammany_Fall

]]> <![CDATA[Stanley Fish Finds Right And Wrong Spectacularly Uninteresting]]> Wow. "Author, law professor, columnist" and "blogger"? He's claimed a seat in the First Four Levels of Murk. Now all he needs is to go into the clergy, politics, and auto repair.

KarenUhOh

]]> <![CDATA[Stanley Fish Finds Right And Wrong Spectacularly Uninteresting]]> I think the correct title of the book is "Fish on Phish." How ironic!

famousauthor

]]> <![CDATA[Stanley Fish Finds Right And Wrong Spectacularly Uninteresting]]> It's 9:38, so I have to go take a shower now, but I think he's making a reasonable -- no pun intended -- point. I suppose someone could contend that 21st-century America needs more moralizing and less rigorous thinking, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the supporting arguments would just serve to prove Fish right.

moff

]]> <![CDATA[Stanley Fish Finds Right And Wrong Spectacularly Uninteresting]]> Stop teasing me Stanley! When, WHEN is Fish on Fish hitting the shelves?

lawyergay

]]> <![CDATA[Stanley Fish Finds Right And Wrong Spectacularly Uninteresting]]> Stanley Fish is arguably an argument against argument.

famousauthor

]]>