Read on Twitter
I'm tempted to make a dialectical flowchart to help young scholars navigate the tedious (and wrong, embarrassingly wrong) arguments senior (and capitalized) scholars try to employ against them. The basic gist of it would be:
W (wrong person): "So-and-so is a top scholar."
R (right person, beautiful soul): "Why?"
W: "They are the most well-read."
R: "How? Do they read more quickly? Or do they never stop reading?"
W: "They read faster than anyone!"
R: "Do they experience the texts, or just read them?"
R (right person, beautiful soul): "Why?"
W: "They are the most well-read."
R: "How? Do they read more quickly? Or do they never stop reading?"
W: "They read faster than anyone!"
R: "Do they experience the texts, or just read them?"
W: "What do you mean?"
R: "Experience is a form of time's expression. One can't experience a text properly if one skims through it."
W: "Well, anyway, they never stop! They've *labored* for their scholarship."
R: "So, they've had fewer unmediated experiences, necessarily?"
R: "Experience is a form of time's expression. One can't experience a text properly if one skims through it."
W: "Well, anyway, they never stop! They've *labored* for their scholarship."
R: "So, they've had fewer unmediated experiences, necessarily?"
W: "Huh?"
R: "That is to say, does your evaluative scheme account for first-hand experience? How are you measuring the quality of the extra-book experiences 'top scholar' has had? Why would I care what a scholar who's only read about love has to say about poetry?"
R: "That is to say, does your evaluative scheme account for first-hand experience? How are you measuring the quality of the extra-book experiences 'top scholar' has had? Why would I care what a scholar who's only read about love has to say about poetry?"
W: "Well, the 'top scholar' knows more languages!"
R: "At best, this seems to be a strange metric for the quality of one's scholarship. How are we to know this language emphasis hasn't come at the expense of other modes of study (e.g., philosophical, economic, etc.)? "
R: "At best, this seems to be a strange metric for the quality of one's scholarship. How are we to know this language emphasis hasn't come at the expense of other modes of study (e.g., philosophical, economic, etc.)? "
W: "Well, the 'top scholar' either is studying vigorously, or having exclusively beautiful and meaningful personal experiences."
R: "So, basically, the 'top scholar' is just a euphemism for the most privileged?"
R: "So, basically, the 'top scholar' is just a euphemism for the most privileged?"
W: "Like it or not, good scholarship presupposes the privilege of time and money."
R: "Yes, but don't you realize that the forms of delusion and self-deception usually attendant upon elite social positions more than neutralize any ostensible gains?"
R: "Yes, but don't you realize that the forms of delusion and self-deception usually attendant upon elite social positions more than neutralize any ostensible gains?"
then you listen to Bob Dylan or something, and try to forget the conversation even happened
