Eric Schliesser at @nescio13 has a really interesting criticism of my book: 1. that I do not judge scholarship as learning for its own sake and 2. that I think its reliance on competitive emulation is damning. (1x) https://twitter.com/nescio13/status/1288081349677547521

(Other fans of competitive emulation, like @AgnesCallard, may be interested). First of all, I love scholarship, and I think at its best it IS a form of learning for its own sake. I *do* say that it is pointless if totally disconnected from ordinary human questions. (2/x)

That point is not entirely clear in the book, and I welcome the chance to clarify it. My "vision" so to speak of scholarship is the pursuit of the human questions (through central texts, for instance, but there is math and science too) to the highest levels of excellence. (3/x)

I mean excellence in insight, in handling of evidence, in clarity of thinking, etc. I acknowledge and admire the existence of these forms of excellence. And so long as *insight* and *understanding* are the *ultimate* goals, I don't object to competitive emulation either!(4/x)

I also had in the back of my mind George Steiner's thought in Real Presences that the ordinary human experience of art etc. relies on scholarship to preserve and maintain the sources. In *that* sense, scholarship is instrumental, BUT it is also valuable for its own sake. (5/x)

A difficulty here surfaces in other reviews too. In my introduction, I sketch a view about *dominant* motivation. That is not the same as *pure* motivation. I do not expect purity, but I do think our motivations can be ordered in good ways and bad ways. (5b/x)

Scholarship goes wrong when it is *mere* competition or box-checking, or when these are the primary motives. Contemporary universities, by over-emphasizing "research", have sucked the life out of it. (6/x)

A good test of motive is: "would I be interested enough to write this if I didn't need to for [job, tenure, full]?" One of the beauties of organizations that are more teaching-centered is that they force scholarship to be more motivated and so higher quality (I think) (7/x)

Lastly, Eric knows that I revere the memory of Ian Mueller and that he is one of my most important teachers. If I could have found a way to eulogize him in the book and put him in my gallery of models, I would have! and perhaps should have! But CLEARLY ... (8/x)

Ian was driven by his own, live philosophical questions! I'm sure there was competitive emulation (there always is? til the Parousia?) but he was no box-checker or status seeker. Evidence: his love of aporia and his interest in unpopular books ... (9/x)

which surely kept him from having the sparkling high-profile career that someone of his talent might have had.

Thank you, Eric! It's been very helpful for me to think this out. (fin)

ADDENDUM: the Ferrante passage that Eric cites is the perfect example. In that section I am arguing that in fact Lenu is NOT merely competitive, but that she succeeds in using her competition for something more profound. The profundity is emphasized as the *new* element.