Comments on: The Truth Conditions of Cultural Criticism http://www.anotherpanacea.com/2009/05/the-truth-conditions-of-cultural-criticism/ Cure-alls and Remedies Sat, 24 Jul 2010 15:20:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Dr. J http://www.anotherpanacea.com/2009/05/the-truth-conditions-of-cultural-criticism/comment-page-1/#comment-843 Dr. J Fri, 15 May 2009 16:51:01 +0000 http://www.anotherpanacea.com/?p=512#comment-843 Also, I wish I could get a poster-size version of that Dexter image. I would totally hang that in my office. Also, I wish I could get a poster-size version of that Dexter image. I would totally hang that in my office.

]]> By: Dr. J http://www.anotherpanacea.com/2009/05/the-truth-conditions-of-cultural-criticism/comment-page-1/#comment-842 Dr. J Fri, 15 May 2009 16:48:39 +0000 http://www.anotherpanacea.com/?p=512#comment-842 I really love this post. I often have a hard time justifying to myself my fascination (obsession?) with pop-culture, and an even harder time explaining why I think that my philosophical training might actually give me a kind of leg-up on other "critics." You do that brilliantly here. I also appreciate your straightfoward acknowledgement of the fact that some of the products of such critique cannot be "tested"-- much to the dismay of x-phi enthusiasts I'm sure. So, you've really done double-duty here with your argument: on the one hand, you've separated what we do from the "metricians" (who really can only ever make <i>descriptive</i> claims, right?) and, on the other hand, you've also distinguished our work from the garden-variety, cocktail-party conversations (where everyone has an opinion, and everyone's opinion is equally valid). In short, I agree with you that <i>good</i> cultural criticim is not just about crunching numbers, nor is it about broad-speculation-unencumbered-by-evidence. It's more something like <i>informed</i> and <i>structured</i> speculation: informed by the same data sets that the metricians use, yes, but still involving speculation, and speculation that is structured in a way that lends itself to stronger justificatory arguments than you can get from your average Joe Dive-Bar Philosopher. So, you've hit the nail on the head, I think, when you say: <i> the goal of cultural criticism is to provide us with insight, not truth.</i> Well done. That's way better than anything I could come up with before breakfast. ;-) I really love this post. I often have a hard time justifying to myself my fascination (obsession?) with pop-culture, and an even harder time explaining why I think that my philosophical training might actually give me a kind of leg-up on other “critics.” You do that brilliantly here. I also appreciate your straightfoward acknowledgement of the fact that some of the products of such critique cannot be “tested”– much to the dismay of x-phi enthusiasts I’m sure. So, you’ve really done double-duty here with your argument: on the one hand, you’ve separated what we do from the “metricians” (who really can only ever make descriptive claims, right?) and, on the other hand, you’ve also distinguished our work from the garden-variety, cocktail-party conversations (where everyone has an opinion, and everyone’s opinion is equally valid).

In short, I agree with you that good cultural criticim is not just about crunching numbers, nor is it about broad-speculation-unencumbered-by-evidence. It’s more something like informed and structured speculation: informed by the same data sets that the metricians use, yes, but still involving speculation, and speculation that is structured in a way that lends itself to stronger justificatory arguments than you can get from your average Joe Dive-Bar Philosopher.

So, you’ve hit the nail on the head, I think, when you say: the goal of cultural criticism is to provide us with insight, not truth. Well done. That’s way better than anything I could come up with before breakfast. ;-)

]]>