Whither blogging?
Nigel Warburton’s comment on an article about philosophical blogging that I wrote for the current TPM is amusing, at least to me.
In a recent article in The Philosophers’ Magazine (1st quarter 2007, no.37, p.12-14) Ophelia Benson (recently interviewed for Virtual Philosopher), opens up with the question of whether weblogs are somehow incompatible with ‘the rigour, discipline, and seriousness of real, grown-up philosophy?’ To me this is a bit like asking whether ink on paper is compatible with philosophy – apart from Socrates, most philosophers have agreed that it is.
I know. It was meant to be. In fact I think that’s almost obvious, especially given the ‘real, grown-up philosophy’ – that’s not a perfectly straightforward bit of reportorial phrasing. I was doing a combination of teasing Julian and acknowledging his view of the matter in the opening of the article, which seemed to make sense since he would be the first person to read it, it was his suggestion that I should write it, and he would either approve it or not. I suppose part of what I was doing in the article was giving my view (mostly via the view of the four blogging philosophers I interviewed) of why Julian’s view of blogs was not quite right. He gave his view via a parody blog on his site, but I can’t link to it as he seems to have taken it down. Well actually he didn’t give his view of blogs in general, he gave his view of what his blog would be like if he did one, he explained to me; I misread it as his view of blogs in general. But I’m not the only one who read it that way, and I think the reading was the most obvious one. A great fan of his read it the same way:
Julian Baggini has got to be one of my favorite living philosophers; he’s a least on a top twenty list of some kind…I recently visited his website, looked through some of his materials and came across a link his blog. The strange thing was that Dr. Baggini’s blog contained only one entry explaining why he thought blogging was a waste of time…His first claim was that it was unhealthy for someone to spend too much time reading the ‘ramblings’ of any one person. His second claim was that he thought it was a waste of his and the reader’s time.
See? That’s what it sounded like to two people, anyway.
Nigel makes many of the same points I would make (some of which I did make in the article).
I suspect Ophelia’s opening angle was a reaction to her editor’s parody blog that she mentions where he remarks ‘Blogging would waste my time and yours. Go read something I or someone else has put some prolonged thought into.’ Apart from the informal fallacy of assuming that more prolonged thought = better results (the Protestant Work Ethic Fallacy?), this seems confused. As I’ve mentioned in a previous post, one of the best ways of conceptualising blogs is as published commonplace books. Once you see them that way, anything goes – including philosophy of any kind. For an example of a philosopher doing philosophy on a blog, see Stephen Law’s new blog with his ongoing discussions about relativism: the medium allows musings, links to articles, comments, responses to comments, and revisions…philosophy in action.
I know one person who really hates blogs; I probably also had him in mind when writing the article. I must say I find that a very odd view, because as a medium they seem to me to be full of potential. Of course, like so many things, they’re only as good as they are; bad ones are bad; but good ones enable people to do things they can’t do in other media.
To be continued, perhaps.
Absatively. I can’t see what there is intrinsic to the blog-as-medium that means it should be in any way inferior to other media (such as books and journals). If anything, the potential is there for blogs to be greatly superior to on-paper writing: sources and evidence can be linked to, for example, making it far easier for readers to check that a case holds together and thus increasing accountability.
The argument that most-blogs-are-frivolous-so-the-medium-is-compromised is simply daft – been to an actual bookshop lately and seen the codswallop that dominates there?
I suspect the real case comes down to wonga. Until someone finds a way to make blogs generate income (beyond traffic-driven advertising, which hardly works to the benefit of niche academics), the pros are likely to save their best efforts for the printed page. That, I guess, is fair enough – but those who make this choice should not pretend that it’s the frivolousness of the medium that drives that choice.
Addendum: uses of the medium of the blog have already moved well beyond that initial purpose suggested by the name ‘weblog’. It occurs to me now that this shift away from a diary-like function to a periodical outlet for commentary and analysis is a striking echo of a similar shift in a certain print medium – that of the journal.
… not to mention the scope for voice. I could just (well, almost) as eaily record an entry if I had a blog, which I don’t, and upload it as an MP3 file (which is compressed) or a WMA (which is also compressed) and it could be accessed from the blog.
As for flossoffers’ blogs in general, yes, why not? After all, one of the great traditions of philosophy is the spoken word, and getting people interacting with one another can only be a good thing (helping nonacademics like me who have a fleeting interest in philosophy to understand the concepts better).
Well said Andy, it’s window on discussions of subjects only accessible via limited access journals or weighty tomes. Prior to the kind of blog B+W represents, I was a subscriber to TLS and LRB for exactly these reasons. (It’s not just a rantosphere…)
For me one of the most important advantages about blogs like B&W is that I can say, ‘Sorry, didn’t quite get that, could you expand?’ and somebody will. Or somebody will say, ‘There is new research on that, find it here.’ and I can.
You can’t do that with a book. Sure, I’ll read JB’s books (Cognito has ’em all)but I would never have heard of him had I not stumbled across Majikthise while on an idle Douglas Adams search and thence B&W. And then discovered blogs.
To the detriment of my social life.
“it’s window on discussions of subjects only accessible via limited access journals or weighty tomes.”
And it’s also, as a matter of fact, a chance for philosophers themselves to talk about subjects that are of interest but are not the kind of thing they have to write for those limited access journals for purely vocational reasons. This is a point H E Baber makes (with great wit and verve) in the article. I might quote that bit later if I do the ‘To be continued’ post.
“For me one of the most important advantages about blogs like B&W is that I can say, ‘Sorry, didn’t quite get that, could you expand?’ and somebody will.”
And for extra fun, the somebody might be in India or Iran or New Zealand.
“Social life” – wozzat?
Blogs are:-
Like fanzines/hobbyists’ magazines only with the letters from the fans and the editor’s answers speeded up;
Like the correspondences people used to continue for years without ever meeting each other, when travel was more difficult;
Like coffee house conversations in the 18th century as recorded by Boswell when educated people spoke with more measured utterance than they do today (you have a chance to polish up your stunning reply to a point);
Like, as said above, the old commonplace books;
Blogs encourage clarity of expression, succinctness and pithiness. A long comment isn’t read.
For those of us who are interested in ideas and discussion but who do not meet other people similarly interested blogs fill a gap, as open mics fill a gap for intending musicians.
KL Player, nicely put too. Although there are many blogs (e.g. Comment is Free) where people act in such an emotionally incontinent or underdeveloped manner that they would probably get a total kicking if they were face to face with other posters. While my knowledge may be limited on much of what gets commented on here, I have at least the confidence that Web 2.0’s true inadequates seem to stay away…
OB, you make a good bouncer !
Nick S – yes, to continue the theme of blog manners whereas at B&W the tone is of the eighteenth century coffee house with rational conversation presided over by the formidable OB in other less salubrious parts like CIF and also at Harry’s Place sometimes it is more like Hogarth’s Gin Lane. Or like Saturday night pubs-and-clubs streets at chucking-out time. The noise! and the people!
Yeah, but if only some of those mouthy prunes could get a genuine fat lip now and then, it might make them tone it down a bit. Or not…
;-)
Breaking their keyboards over their heads would be better, wouldn’t it? They don’t use their heads, but they do use their keyboards.
Thank you, Nick! Being a good bouncer is my ambition.
But really – KB mentions Harry’s Place – well exactly: the comments there are enough to make one break out in hives.
Yes, they’re a rowdy crowd over at that Harry’s place – tt tt – you get a better class of person here.
Fewer but better Russians.
The crowd at HP are rowdy and they also just go on and on and ON – way past the point of tedium. Which makes it way too much trouble to sift through the comments. That’s why a good bouncer is useful. Though in fact I do very little deleting. {But the threat is always there, she said darkly.)
Zionist!
Anti-Semite!
Zionist!
Anti-Semite!
Is that my comment deleted then?
You haven’t mentioned “Racist Islamophobe”, “Neocon Project”, “9/11 Conspiracy” or “War Criminal”.
You forgot ‘Islamophobic racist’ – oh and ‘That’s Benjy again’ and ‘Right, Benjy?’ and ‘Benjy would disagree with you’ and
rrgghggl