I can imagine a number of philosophers being sympathetic to this:
Sir Vidia Naipaul, winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize for Literature, called this week for university English literature departments to close....
In an interview with The Sunday Times, Sir Vidia said the closure of literature departments "would be a great fillip, a great boost to the intellectual life of the country... it would release a lot of manpower".
On the other hand, philosophy departments would not fare well in Naipaul's world:
The novelist believes universities should deal in "measurable truth" and teach only science.
But the quoted rebuttal of an English professor, alas, confirms the wisdom of his first idea:
Patricia Waugh, head of Durham University's department of English studies, said: "His notion of science is completely out of date - there is no simple idea of truth even in the science department. Scientific data can be interpreted in different ways."
But it appears his main complaint is that academics take some of the spotlight off him:
The article traced Sir Vidia's disdain for academe to the publication of his book on Islamic fundamentalism, Among the Believers. He was invited to Harvard University to discuss the book. "They wanted no such thing. They wanted the fellows of their institute to all say their piece of rage and criticism," Sir Vidia said.
Imagine that? They didn't let him do all the talking! But this last remark is funny:
In 2000, the novelist was reported to have told the audience at an award ceremony in Bangkok that jargon used in English departments in the UK and the US concealed vacuous thinking. He described academic jargon as "a way for one clown to tell the other that he is in the club".
Recent Comments