What does it mean to be well read?
Bookworm on Aug 19 2009 at 11:01 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
In a conversation, I mentioned that many in the intelligence community consider London to be Ground Zero for world jihadism. It’s not the numbers, it’s the mosques. Mr. Bookworm was outraged: “Who are these ‘many’?” How dare I repeat someone else’s opinion as if I know the facts. I know nothing about terrorism, nor does anyone else, because we have no idea what the real facts are. His attitude struck me as the reductio ad absurdum of the deconstructionism taught in American universities. No text has any actual meaning. All meaning is supplied by the reader’s own biases. Because I’m pro-Israel, I take meaningless facts and give them a pro-Israel — and anti-everyone else — spin. End of story.
Further, because we have no knowledge of what facts are actually real facts, and because facts in any event have no meaning, we can only rely on interpreters. And because I refuse to read, or, if I do read, to give credence to, Mr. Bookworm’s favorite interpreters — Paul Krugman and Tom Friedman — nothing I say can have any validity. I have neither facts nor interpretation on my side.
This is a reminder of why it is very difficult to have a conversation with a liberal.
Related posts:
- Must read Mark Steyn about the real war on children
- Who cares about the book? Read the review.
- It’s not the story; it’s the story about the story
Email This Post To A Friend
35 Responses to “What does it mean to be well read?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It must be very, v e r y, difficult when the liberal is your own husband! My heart and head goes out to you, Bookworm. I’ve wanted to ask – on another topic – how does the ‘live activity feed’ choose readers that scroll through? I’ve never seen my blue – dark blue – city of Portland OR come up when I am actively reading.
I hope you spend most of your time not talking politics with your husband.
This is what passes for deep thinking on todays campuses.
If someone called hubby and told him his house was on fire, and your car was in the garage would he do all this psuedo-intellectual posturing, or would he jump in his car, and come home?
Because they eventually realize that they can’t know everything — as their infantile grandiosity imagines and demands — they then declare that nothing is knowable, and call that knowing everything.
From Google search on the NYT. 1 ) londonistan melanie phillips , 2)londonistan
Melanie Phillips is the author of Londonistan.
“It isn’t in the NYT” is not a valid excuse here .
“I don’t want to bother researching it in the NYT” sounds more like it, for those who use the “I didn’t read about it in the NYT.”
While the NYT editorial board may be completely clueless, the NYT overall is not. Simon Romero has written a number of good articles on Thugoslavia, a.k.a the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. There are some good articles in it, believe it or not.
It sounds like you struck a nerve.
When the response is so aggressive, I always wonder if some core, personal belief got threatened.
Leah, I can’t imagine not talking politics with your husband. If you’re highly political, like Book, it would be like cutting off a significant part of your personality. If you can’t be honest in your most significant, intimate relationship, when can you be?
Book, just remember that this response is designed to shut you up and prevent you from challenging him in the future. For your sake–and his–don’t let it be a successful tactic. Listen to him–and let him speak fully–but call him out the moment it goes personal. He doesn’t have that right, no matter what his political arguments are.
I know, I know, advice from the sidelines, but I have been the lone, beleaguered conservative for a number of years and only once did I lose a friend over political differences.
“It sounds like you struck a nerve.” I agree with Kali. This may be a good sign, a crack in the edifice of Mr. Book’s world view. This is an opportunity – you will want to be there for him when his world view finally breaks down. He will go through the five stages of grieving and need help trying to rebuild a working paradigm for the world in which he exists.
You may want to consult with Robin of Berkeley http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/obama_the_repo_man.html (a psychotherapist Liberal-turned-Conservative) on how best to help rebuild a person’s sense of self-worth once their Liberal world is pummeled to dust by its intrinsic contradictions.
My children are both deeply opposed to Obama, as am I. Their other parent, though, thinks Obama is a “brilliant politician.” His view makes no impact on them. If you ask them why, the 10 year old will say, “Well, Mommy explains everything so clearly. Daddy just likes Obama.”
If we can all continue to explain things clearly to those who haven’t committed too deeply to a world view to back off, we can make a difference.
That’s his answer? He’s a brilliant politician?
Not even THAT is correct. He was brilliant at getting elected — against a John McCain. But a man who in one phrase, nay two words, gratuitously alienates all law enforcement people, their families, and supporters is NOT a brilliant politician — he has “acted stupidly.” And, that is just one example. We all have many others.
I suspect Hubby went for the flash, for the almighty FEELINGS.
Take heart, Book. I am seeing the edifice crack in many of my Liberal friends (yes, I do have some). For once, they are having to confront the objective consequences of their Utopian visions and its scares even them.
I expect that the more they are personally vested in Obamavision, the harder the fall and the wilder the gnashing of teeth. It’s happening. I also expect the Church of Obama to make it easier for them to transition as it overreacts and exposes its true face to world.
Heh. That’s how I won both my kids–I was the one who explained things clearly. The former Mr kali, who subsequently married a very progressive woman, keeps trying to overcome my lead, but it doesn’t take.
Kali,
I can’t imagine not talking politics with my husband. He isn’t quite the political wonk I am, but we agree on the major issues.
I guess if one starts married life on the same page, and then one partner changes, it can make life very interesting. At that point, for the sake of the marriage, I wouldn’t be talking much politics.
As to cracks in the liberals, not seeing it yet. Just yesterday a bunch of them were railing about Tom Delay being on dancing with the stars! The horror, they can’t watch! Sad thing is these people do go out and vote.
The entire edifice of Western science and technology is based on the idea that you don’t have to accept anyone else’s opinion–you can always see for yourself. Don’t just assume that what they’re telling you about the motion of the planets or the fall of a rock is true: look and see.
In political affairs, of course, you can’t conduct observations and experiments in exactly the same way you can in science. But you *can* use multiple sources of information and cross-compare them to try to get at the truth. To rely on a single source, or a few sources, is like the medieval scholars who viewed Aristotle as the repository of all truth about the natural world.
If we can all continue to explain things clearly to those who haven’t committed too deeply to a world view to back off, we can make a difference.
Unfortunately, kids have few if any preconceptions of the world, given their lack of experience. They are also open to inquiries and the asking of questions.
The Left and its dupes stopped asking questions a long time ago. They are too uncomfortable with the potential answers. They are shackled by societal conventions and expectations, their societal standards of behavior not ours.
This is a reminder of why it is very difficult to have a conversation with a liberal.
This is why I learned how to pull the puppet strings of these fake liberals. If they want a Paul Krugman, fine. I’ll take his place as their interpreter and steer them the way I want them to go.
What, are they going to think differently? They will think however I tell them to think.
“This is a reminder of why it is very difficult to have a conversation with a liberal.”
I am reminded of a man named Walter Martin recounting his attempted debate with Roy Masters. Dr. Martin tried to set some ground rules for the debate and so you will see the condundrum of debating a relativist liberal (sorry for the redundancy). Dr. Martin wanted Roy Masters to agree that “words get their meaning by definition in their proper context” to which Roy Masters said that he could not agree to that.
Now just how Mr. Masters (not holding to such a silly ground rule) could even know what he was not agreeing to is beyond me…unless he was re-enacting Monty Python’s Argument Department sketch
MacG
BW,
I wish I could share some of my sources with you regarding terrorism; unfortunately there are rules for a lot of it. I’d advise dropping by the Foreign Military Studies Office website – http://www.fmso.leavenworth.army.mil – and check out the analysis products. Dr. Kipp, Dr. Grau, Mr. Thomas, and others have a great deal of information available on the state of the world available to everyone. FMSO deals in academic outreach and research; everything on the site is “open” for public use.
On the subject of terrorism, one should look at Dr. Grau’s work – he’s a great speaker and understands the causes of the religious takeover in Afghanistan (it’s not as simple as it seems).
I’m glad your kids inherited the BS shield gene; hopefully they won’t have it trained out of them by the schools.
Best of luck at getting Mr. BW to listen- it is likely that most of what he’s digging in his heels about is simple pride. He doesn’t like to be wrong and if he changes motion, it will prove he’s been wrong – for a long, long time. It’s going to be painful for him when he finally admits it, if he ever is honest enough to do so.
I hope that self-deception about the “liberal” (read socialist/neo-fascist, ’cause that is the spots on the leopard) is the only thing he’s lying about. Part of the problem with smart people that realise their “faith” is a lie is that they often stop their faith in all things. I’d hate to have his self deception cost him more than just a bit of pain in the ego, much less its effect on you and your family.
SSG Dave
“Terrorism is simply extortion; the only solution is social rejection of the terrorist and his point of view. By saying “we have to understand” you are saying “we surrender”. The terrorist must either be constrained or re-educated. The words are free and open; the first action to coerce is treason and should be punished in the manner it deserves; death.”
SSG Dave
“Terrorism is simply extortion; the only solution is social rejection of the terrorist and his point of view. By saying “we have to understand” you are saying “we surrender”. The terrorist must either be constrained or re-educated. The words are free and open; the first action to coerce is treason and should be punished in the manner it deserves; death.”
You think, perhaps, the Left will be as understanding of the person who shot and killed the Kansas abortionist as they are of Islamic jihadists?
Y,
Nope, not at all. Though what happened to him (arrest, upcoming trial, probable trip to “old sparky”) is quite the example for terrorists. It is a shame that the anti-abortionists (the militants are NOT pro-life) are using terror tactics. Though, it is true that the pro-choicers are doing similar, though less overtly violent, activities. The threat of lawsuit as a means to coerce compliance is just as vile as the open threat of violence. I find it quite disgusting that the courts are not holding people liable for representation costs when a suit is ended; I’d prefer that the money for the defense be taken out of the plaintiff’s wallet if the suit is found “without basis”. Note, this would be a finding by the court, not just a loss by the plaintiff. I think it would cut down on some of the actions – especially if a lawyer doing “pro-bono” work for the ACLU or some of the other iffy troops got hit with the bill for the defense he provoked. I believe it would slow some of the stupid class-action stuff down, maybe even hit the big money settlement folks (who have no liabilities of their own – thus all upside and no down) right where they live.
Please note, I don’t hate lawyers. They’re part and parcel of civilization. I dislike when lawyers are the ones writing laws and setting the rules for legal action. It’s a conflict of interest, wherein those who benefit can make the rules labyrinthine to prevent loss of profit or influence. Writing the laws so only lawyers can understand and interpret them is nothing more than extortion from society. Everyone HAS to have a lawyer because NO ONE else can understand (and even if they could, the Bar prevents them from being heard). It’s a matter of power corrupting.
Anyhow, sorry if this rubs you wrong, BW – I hold to the theory you’re one of the good ones, like most of the JAG folks I’ve had the priveledge to work with.
SSG Dave
“Laws are written because people can’t behave in a civilized manner – thus the more laws you write, the LESS civilized people will behave.” (paraphrase from Robert Heinlein)
”SSG Dave
“Laws are written because people can’t behave in a civilized manner – thus the more laws you write, the LESS civilized people will behave.” (paraphrase from Robert Heinlein)”
Isn’t it the other way around?
Hmm, is he trying to say that a moral society is a free society?
Marguerite,
No, quite the contrary, in fact. When you write a law, you proscribe a particular behavior. This brings up corallaries that previously were unknown or unintended. Until marijuana was made illegal, very few individuals used it. It was a low-to-no profit item with home-growing being the rule, rather than the exception it is today. When it became illegal, more people became aware of it, cultivating and sales became profitable, and it attracted more users.
Or, if you will, lets talk about murder, manslaughter, vehicular manslaughter, etc. Would you drive drunk if you knew the penalty for killing another human was execution? Call all of them “murder” and make it a day; the “nuance” means that individuals responsible (directly!) for the death of another person could walk away with probation and a fine (involuntary manslaughter for a drunk-driving hit and run). Is it more civilized to let someone walk, or less? Jaywalking – making people take responsibility for where they cross the street, because they are too litigious to take precautions and will sue THE CITY if they get hit in the street – because crossing there “wasn’t illegal”. (That’s the reason for the statute in a city I used to live – the idiot got a HALF MILLION from the city because it didn’t make it illegal for him to try and cross a four-lane boulevard) Much less civilized. Fraud, defamation, slander – you remember the code duello? People were polite, because instead of a lawsuit, you’d be facing them on a nice, grassy common for being unspeakably rude. More civilized? Debatable, but consider that there were far fewer deaths by duelling than there are “revenge” killings regarding cheating spouses, slander, and character assassination today, even accounting for population difference.
Nope, if you make a rule, people will start to squirm around the edges of what is written, violating the spirit but avoiding the letter. Even the ten basic rules for a society (codified quite well by the Ten Commandments) are fudged by people – and the society is not improved because they had to write Leviticus to cover all the contingencies people tried to pull.
Less, in the case of law, is indeed more. If we’re civilized, no one has to tell you not to pee in the street.
But you have to say it in New Orleans. Go figure.
SSG Dave
“Civilization at its finest is unspoken, unwritten, and unclouded. A man’s word is his bond and to write a contract is an insult to his integrity and honor.”
Laws written aren’t the same as laws enforced.
In ancient times, there were laws. They weren’t written of course, but enforced by power and punishment. Thus laws were written down because people would corrupt the law, if only a bard or a high king could dispense and interpret justice. Emperor Justinian wrote down his Codex and so did the Babylonian King, in order to codify law so that there was less disagreement or misunderstanding.
It’s a hard balance to achieve. Without a centralized system of justice, bad things can happen. But if things are too centralized, you have a system of law too over-burdened, too top down, that no longer cares about justice, just self-perpetuation.
Very good, SSG Dave. Especially #18.
I _do_ disagree on the written contract thing, though. While I agree with it from the standpoint of “A man’s word is his bond”, I find that people’s understanding of statements are frequently so different that it is a good thing to clarify and specify particulars.
We sell lightbulbs. You ‘d think that was simple but there are so many strange ones out there…. When I talk to a customer on the phone, I ask them to describe a bulb they’re trying to find (assuming customer has told me it’s a really strange one they’ve never seen before) if they have it in front of them. I can’t tell you how often it’s happened that the person described the bulb, I wrote down what I thought the person had, person brought it in and it turned out to be something entirely different. The words the person used to describe what s/he was looking at resulted in an entirely different image in my mind – and yet it wasn’t really a bad description – just my mind’s eye saw something different. It’s both enlightening and humbling.
Clarifying and specification is good.
More civilized?
Andrew Jackson killed a man in a duel.
It doesn’t stop foolishness, but it does open the field for honest and valorous individuals willing to defend themselves and their reputation. It does make the field uneven, however, for non-killers. Those that can’t use swords or firearms at the 99% percentile of the human species. Then again, for every professional duelist that could be hired for murder, there are defenders of society just as good. And when those two meet, you get what is called justice. Because good men and women are almost always better killers than those who prey on the weak.
It’s a matter of self-selection. Those that target women or children or the defenseless, are used to such prey. Those that target serial killers and mass terrorists, however, have to train to a higher standard. Thus doing good is harder than doing evil, just as blowing something up is easier than making it in the first place.
SueK,
I agree that modern times have changed the manner of contracts, especially in regards to specifications. However, the point I would prefer to make would be in the lines of – “I need 100 light bulbs, let me send you the specs, then send me a bill.” Implied contract – you’ll give me a fair price on the hundred bulbs and I’ll send you the money. Unfortunately we live in a place where “specs” have become part of the contract, rather than an addendum to make sure my apples are not your oranges.
And, yes Y, duels are a selective process – and bullies are cowards by nature. This confluence is a wondrous thing; one can almost see the hand of the almighty in the form. Good men are brave by definition; evil are seldom so. When faced with personal responsibility, those who are not brave will quail at the cost. Better that than behind the shields of legal robes. Sometimes, unfortunately, two good men will confront over a slight; this is uncommon and unfortunate. But overall, I’d prefer the old ways. And not just because I know the blade and the pistol, either.
SSG Dave
“Brave men die but once, a coward dies a thousand times.” – Wm. Shakespeare
>>rather than an addendum to make sure my apples are not your oranges.>>
That’s _so_ concise…!
Yes…we’re not in basic disagreement. It’s the “my word is my bond” thing you’re really emphasizing, and in that we agree.
No offense taken about the lawyer remark, SSG Dave. I’m a defense attorney to the point. That is, in the civil (as opposed to criminal) context, 90% of my work is spent defending people against others who are trying to take them to the cleaners using the legal system.
As for law’s role in society, law is indeed important. I would say that law and sports are the two most civilizing institutions society has, with both working to channel aggression into nonviolent conduits.
Having said that, however, I do not believe in the intensely regulatory law America is developing. It’s like the difference between the 10 Commandments and all the minutiae in Deuteronomy (is that the book I mean?). The first states a big shall, and 9 shall notes. The second has hundreds of details controlling ones every move. I think that the first works as a form of government, with the individual responsible for following the rules and the state (or God) responsible for policing them. The latter, however, is a code of personal conduct. If you allow the state to police it, you end up with a police state.
I believe in a few big laws, some regulations, and a lot of personal freedom.
Sue,
Thanks for calling me concise – I’m usually horribly long-winded.
BW,
Amen to the few big laws, some necessary regulations, and “freedom to swing my arms” ending at another’s nose. I always thought the laws were in Leviticus; you may be correct in placing them in Dueteronomy. It’s been over 20 years since I left Catholic schools behind.
Back to “well read” (and sorry for pulling us way, way out of the zone).
Well read means beyond basics, beyond a single genre or point of view. I’ve met too many that have read “The Classics” but have failed to keep up with the modern word and key cultural fiction. Case in point; name an author who has inspired a larger following than Tolkien. Assimov helped father science-fiction as logic instead of fantasy. Heinlein showed us humor and the endurance of humanity. Rand makes social commentary; Twain provides social conscience. Add in historians and biographers, current theory (I read some of Hawkings’ simpler stuff and was fascinated when I wasn’t drowning).
Single source is the least valuable intelligence; the same goes for reading points of view.
Anyhow, that is my two cents on the well-read piece. I just finished a batch of books from David Weber (sci-fi) and re-read Grau’s pair of vignette pieces on Afghanistan. I’ll visit the library tonight, get something more.
SSG Dave
“Words are food for the soul; the written word is a cellar stocked against the winter of ignorance.”
When I’m talking to a liberal about Obama, the meme about his Harvard education inevitably comes up. The assumptions wrapped up in that mention include:
—The Harvard degree is, by itself, an indication of a man’s intelligence. But since Obama is demonstrably not a highly intelligent man, how the hell did he get into Harvard? (The answer becomes a bizarro argument: Only the very smart get into Harvard, ergo, Obama is smart. If he comes off looking not so smart, then it’s because you don’t know smart when you see it because Harvard wouldn’t have let him in otherwise. A variant of this is that holding Obama to such benchmarks as logic, truth and proper syntax is to subject him to oppressive, white, patriarchal norms. [Helen Losse comes immediately to mind.])
—The degree is a confirmation of his level of education.
However, “education” in a liberal’s mind really means “well-schooled,” which is what all of those sociology and psych majors coming out of the universities are. Very few are literate in the sense of being able to read something with a knowledge of history or context beyond the pathetic neo-Marxist or postmodernist twaddle so many of their professors dispense. I meet very few liberals who are capable of reasoning logically, or who believe that a sound base of knowledge is really necessary. (Helen Losse comes immediately to mind.)
Such base being an acquantance with certain basic facts so that we don’t have to waste time going back ab origine to set up a common basis for discussion. You don’t know what the Second Punic War was, college graduate? You don’t how many states are in the Union or that the U.S. Army did not liberate Auschwitz? Well, don’t waste my effin’ time.
The law was designed to protect the powerless from the powerful by mediating issues and allowing a means, other than private militia, to resolving problems between parties.
In today’s America, however, the powerful are the ones using the law both as a weapon and as a shield to exploit the weak and the powerless. Regardless of what the law is or is not, whether it works or does not work, this should not be allowed.
There are huge lobbies full of tort lawyers that persist in funding and expanding the status quo, with the help of their Democrat buddies.
This is called making corruption pay for itself.
>>…I’m usually horribly long-winded.>>
Heh. Well, this pot has no intention of calling the kettle black…!
And by the way…being on topic for a change…I think the definition of well read means that one has a breadth of exposure to both literary classics, history and a variety of general topics. The exposure need not be especially deep, since I’d expect that the person in question specializes in at least one field or another. Of course, someone _might_ be a Jack of all trades, master of none, but I’d expect that someone who has a breadth of knowledge would have the impetus to follow at least one topic in depth.
On the other hand, life is sometimes disappointing…!
Their other parent, though, thinks Obama is a “brilliant politician.”- BW
Maybe this speech by Obama at Buchenwald the day after the Cairo speech will lower his opinion. Does anyone else think President Obama sounded more like a high school student on a field trip than the POTUS?
Have you asked him what being a “brilliant politician” means? Who else in history are examples?
I know – but I’m just curious…