Fortunately, this response helps.
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick M. Krueger [mailto:Patrick.Krueger@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 2:26 PM
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: the cult of personality
On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Patrick Crosby wrote:
> The short answer to your question is that in the case of the majority
of
> books, technical papers, and essays I read, I know absolutely nothing the
> author personally, yet I read them with profit.
i never said one couldn't read a book and get something out of it if they
knew nothing of the thinker's life, i merely said that some biographical
information can sometimes shed insight into a thinker's ideas.
> The long answer is that I am not saying that, as a general principle,
it
> is not helpful to use details of an author's personal life as a basis for
> assessing the quality or merit of his work: I am saying that it is
dangerous
> to do so--- dangerous to the advancement of science, to academic freedom,
and
> an impediment to ones own intellectual advancement.
nobody ever said that knowledge was safe.
> The simple reason for this
> is that in doing such, one ventures outside the realm of science, theory,
and
> intellectual discourse and into the realm of superstition, bias, and
> prejudice.
but science, theory, and intellectual discourse are not distinct from
supersition, bias, or prejudice.
> If what you suggest were ever to become accepted as a general
principle,
> book publishers would have the right to know everything about the personal
> life of a book's author, just as students would have a right to know
> everything about the personal lives of their professors.
i never said there was a "right" to know everything about a thinker's
life. i only said that knowing about it can inform one's interpretation of
it.
pmk
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick M. Krueger [mailto:Patrick.Krueger@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 2:26 PM
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: the cult of personality
On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Patrick Crosby wrote:
> The short answer to your question is that in the case of the majority
of
> books, technical papers, and essays I read, I know absolutely nothing the
> author personally, yet I read them with profit.
i never said one couldn't read a book and get something out of it if they
knew nothing of the thinker's life, i merely said that some biographical
information can sometimes shed insight into a thinker's ideas.
> The long answer is that I am not saying that, as a general principle,
it
> is not helpful to use details of an author's personal life as a basis for
> assessing the quality or merit of his work: I am saying that it is
dangerous
> to do so--- dangerous to the advancement of science, to academic freedom,
and
> an impediment to ones own intellectual advancement.
nobody ever said that knowledge was safe.
> The simple reason for this
> is that in doing such, one ventures outside the realm of science, theory,
and
> intellectual discourse and into the realm of superstition, bias, and
> prejudice.
but science, theory, and intellectual discourse are not distinct from
supersition, bias, or prejudice.
> If what you suggest were ever to become accepted as a general
principle,
> book publishers would have the right to know everything about the personal
> life of a book's author, just as students would have a right to know
> everything about the personal lives of their professors.
i never said there was a "right" to know everything about a thinker's
life. i only said that knowing about it can inform one's interpretation of
it.
pmk