(2) On postmodernism
As a skeptic of much “postmodernism”, I point to the http://xkcd.com/451/ entitled “Imposter”

Here’s the text version (courtesy http://www.ohnorobot.com/archive.pl?comic=56&show=2&page=15)

My Hobby: Sitting down with grad students and timing how long it takes them to figure out that I’m not actually an expert in their field.
Engineering: / Students: Our big problem is heat dissipation / Me: Have you tried logarithms? / 48 seconds
Linguistics: / Me: Ah, so does this Finno-ugric family include, say, Klingon? / 63 Seconds
Sociology: / Me: Yeah, my latest work is on ranking people from best to worst. / 4 Minutes
Literary Criticism: / Me: You see, the deconstruction is inextricable from not only the text, but also the self. / Eight papers and two books and they haven’t caught on.
{{Alt/title text: If you think this is too hard on literary criticism, read the Wikipedia article on deconstruction.}}

Turn about is fair play…

Also , though I would agree PoMo is now thankfully dead or dying, it was still alive and kicking around five years ago. I have the attacks on anarchism and anarchists on disk to prove it. Available by request.

there was a letter in “Nature” a few years ago which argued that Wittgenstein was seriously unhinged, and that his “profundities” arose from a mental illness: his inability to speak clearly (or write?) was a symptom of major illness rather than brilliance. With some of these blokes, how would you know??

Which happens often enough. It’s amazing how many scholarly points of disagreement can be found when you don’t like somebody personally.

In a philosophical century full of bungalows, yes indeed, one would be rather hard-pressed to find any such ‘towering’ figure.

Was it US President Wilson who said, “Disputes in Universities are all the more bitter, because the stakes are so low.” ??

Often attributed to Henry Kissinger, but actually first stated by Columbia University political-science professor, Wallace S. Sayre, who coined a somewhat more elaborate version: “Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low.”

University politics are infinitely more bitter and vengeful than ‘intellectual’ disputes, except for the inevitable instances when political vendettas start becoming pursued upon the academic battleground.

The problem is, for students and those who are just starting teaching or doing research, the stakes of departmental disputes are sometimes very high – it can be about their livelihood. A couple of badly-timed attacks by irresponsible – and basically unaccountable – senior staff and it can be a huge setback in terms of future prospects or employment.

I suppose it could be institution-specific, but I hear about far worse things than I’ve seen personally, going on elsewhere.

I recall a heated discussion about a current academic/management issue, decades ago. The Law lecturer suggested the staff union should sue the Director; the sociologist said, “you have to understand the social background of the Council members”; the accountant said we should examine the costs; on it went. Now you could say this was a useful cross-disciplinary discussion, each bringing her own skills and knowledge.

I have to say (as an ousider) that disputes within Arts Depts seem to reach a level of vindictiveness, shrillness, fury, etc not seen in most other Depts. An Arts participant in some furore told me, “That’s because language and rhetoric are our stock in trade!”.

I’m not so sure that the explanation is adequate. But I could be wrong. Was it US President Wilson who said, “Disputes in Universities are all the more bitter, because the stakes are so low.” ??