orgtheory.net

when philosophers attack

with 3 comments

Fabio

From the Guardian, via AL Daily, a story about the nasty fight between philosophers Ted Honderich and Colin McGinn. A nice example of “doing status,” where people can get away with insane reviews that junior folks would never do. McGinn on Honderich’s On Consciousness:

It is probably the most negative book review ever written. Or if there is a worse one, do let me know. “This book runs the full gamut from the mediocre to the ludicrous to the merely bad,” begins Colin McGinn’s review of On Consciousness by Ted Honderich. “It is painful to read, poorly thought out, and uninformed. It is also radically inconsistent.”

The ending isn’t much better: “Is there anything of merit in On Consciousness? Honderich does occasionally show glimmers of understanding that the problem of consciousness is difficult and that most of our ideas about it fall short of the mark. His instincts, at least, are not always wrong. It is a pity that his own efforts here are so shoddy, inept, and disastrous (to use a term he is fond of applying to the views of others).”

…McGinn is unrepentant. When I ring him in Miami to find out if there is any chance of a rapprochement, he tells me: “It’s not like you’re hitting someone over the head with a hammer. Ted is not very good at philosophy. That’s the problem.” So probably not.

A pure professional disagreement? Probably not:

Honderich believes there is more than intellectual difference behind his and McGinn’s row. “At UCL we had a jokey locker-room relationship,” recalls Honderich. “But then I made a misstep. I suggested to him that his new girlfriend was not as plain as the old one, and I could see the blood drain out of his face. That was possibly the start of our frostiness.” Forget, perhaps, abstruse philosophical disputes in understanding the men’s mutual bile. Rather, cherchez la femme

The relationship has not since thawed. On page 222 of the 2001 autobiography, Philosopher: A Kind of Life, Honderich has a discussion of the department and refers to McGinn. He writes: “The envy of my small colleague, Colin McGinn, also vegetarian, extended to even wanting to be Martin Amis.” What was that about? Well, McGinn is not just a philosopher but a published, if rather unsuccessful, novelist; what’s more, Honderich is 6ft 4in of gangly Canadian socialist philosopher, so most people must seem small. Honderich thinks this explains McGinn’s hostile review.

It makes one wonder about notorious sociological book reviews, such as the infamous Wacquant-Duneier exchange. And for the record, my fellow orgheads are wonderful scholars who are married to equally talented and wonderful people!

Written by fabiorojas

December 30, 2007 at 9:33 am

Posted in academia, books, fabio

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Stinchcombe on Wallerstein is a classic.

    Kieran

    December 30, 2007 at 3:37 pm

  2. [...] Posted in humor, philosophy, psychology tagged humor, philosophy, psychology at 5:16 am by liturgical This is a funny, and true, story about two contemporary philosophers who apparently have it in for each other. Read it here: http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2007/12/30/when-philosophers-attack/ [...]

  3. Slightly off topic: McGinn’s memoir – ‘The Making of a Philosopher’ – is fantastic, read it a few years ago.

    tf

    December 31, 2007 at 5:42 am


Leave a Reply