After week one, I was bemused, but intrigued. After week two, I was bemused and becoming anxious. But, after discovering that comments I have made have been taken as an indictment of our open dialogue, I’ve at least found a point on which to focus.

For the students who have become acquainted with my demeanor over the last couple of years, I’m sure it comes as a surprise that I’ve more or less sat silently through two complete sessions. This is not to say that I’m a particularly loquacious person, but only that I’m likely to be intrigued by genuine, academic dialogue. As such, it is perhaps telling that I have hardly participated in these seemingly innocuous forays into the inner musings of our collective consciousness. Or maybe I’ve said too much...

My disposition is generally calm yet engaged, but I found myself over the last two weeks becoming increasingly angry. There are certain predictable characteristics of what one might call human nature to which I believe I am acutely attuned. Some of these qualities are undesirable, I think, but, more importantly, it would seem that some are also potentially deleterious, at least as it concerns communication of ideas of importance.

I often find myself questioning the sincerity of academics, particularly when considering their frequent detachment from the issues about which they cogitate. This is not to say that I believe they are purposely misleading as it concerns their claims (although certainly some are), but rather that they may be more interested in the intellectual discourse than the practical implications of their own (or others’) claims (and this, I believe, is evident in the actions/lifestyles of certain intellectuals). This has implications that are potentially devastating. The tendency of exceedingly brilliant scholars to obfuscate admittedly complex themes is in some sense a reflection of the collective insecurity of academia (affectation among intellectuals is not unusual), but in another sense it is an astonishing exposé on negligence among intellectuals. There are certainly cases where presenting ideas in an inaccessible manner is of little consequence (e.g. questions of aesthetics). But, when one attempts to communicate an idea of apparent importance (e.g. moral claims), one has two primary responsibilities: command over the relevant material/ideas concerning the matter and lucid communication of the relevant material/ideas. The consequences of ineffective communication in this instance require that the communicator present the material in an accessible manner.

This brings me to our sessions. During our frequent digressions (from what I am not sure), there is an air of pretense that I find vexing, and somewhat disappointing. It is probably not useful to participate in displays of paradoxically uninformed, yet learned opulence. These rituals are better suited for coffee shops and mensa brain-f*cks – afterward we can all get crazy high and orgy.

I prefer passionate, informed, genuine academic discourse. This is not the projection of open-ended questions to which answers are loosely implied, but never committed (and to which rejoinders are dismissed without indication of flaws); this is not offering empty platitudes; this is not prevarication in the face of contention; this is not name-dropping (of any sort); and this is not sophistry.

If what I am reporting is beyond recognition, focus your attention on last week’s fleeting dialogue on “underrated” silence. This statement (silence is underrated) on its face likely merits a series of mordant remarks. I am snarky enough to provide them, but I will refrain. I do not, however, question the merits of the claim (though no defense was provided), but rather the sincerity of the claimants. If silence was indeed as underrated as several of my colleagues contend, it stands to reason that spending several minutes reiterating the contention in as many alternative phrasings as we can muster is, well, perverse, never mind ironic. Again, it is not as if we defended the claim – we simply rephrased it....over, and over, and over, and over...

...and over, and over again.

This stands as a microcosm of the disingenuous nature of our discourse, and I do not plan on contributing to these disgusting displays of pomposity. Thank goodness for flashes of honesty embodied by Jessica's passion for engineering and environmental protection, David’s dissatisfaction with the text, and Sarah’s public displays of vulnerability.

Of course, I could be wholly mistaken, silence may indeed be underrated, and this claim may be important enough to discuss in superficial terms for several minutes. It may also be that I am alone in this perception of the absurdity and futility of our discourse (although I suspect there is ulterior value in these discussions). Please show me where I’ve erred.

Blog Home