[csaa-forum] no (conciliatory) capitulation

[Ben Hourigan]

Just a quick response to the last bit:

> 3. you are right on the last point: asking others is a
> productive way to obtain information, granted.
> however, is the reason why you chose winschuttle
> because, as you say, he is 'the most infamous
> characters on Australia's intellectual scene'?

In a way, yes. And also because I was reading _The Killing of History_ 
at the time (and still am: I never got around to finishing it) and was 
curious to see what else he might recommend in a similar vein. 
Blasphemy as it is to say such things here, I find many of his 
criticisms of modern continental philosophy (I'm not talking about 
Marxism here) and the work it inspires apt. Having said that, I also 
find absurd such moments as when, in the introduction, he lashes out at 
those who offer courses on rap music (the citation of random, allegedly 
ridiculous research as evidence of the lunacy of the 'New Humanities' 
is a tactic we're probably all familiar with), not for any 
philosophical reasons, but simply because it's rap and 'obviously' rap 
isn't a fit subject of academic attention. But writing, like 
disciplines and people, can be internally diverse, and we can use our 
critical faculties to sort the wheat from the chaff. Just because 
Melleuish, Windschuttle, Devine, Bolt and, no doubt, others, say some 
or many things we disagree with doesn't mean they couldn't also bring 
forth nuggets of truth or wisdom on the odd occasion (just that we 
might find it improbable). Those of us who have the time to read their 
work carefully ought to be ready for those moments when and if we see 
our views and interests intersecting with theirs, just as our critics 
ought to be open to discovering that there's something in Cultural 
Studies that they find valuable.

Ben Hourigan, B.A. (Hons) (Melb.)
mail at benhourigan.com	
http://benhourigan.com