'The Age of American Unreason'
|
|
|
|
|
|
'The Age of American Unreason'
Is logic dead? And if so, what does that mean for a democracy? In her new book, "The Age of American Unreason," Susan Jacoby investigates the anti-intellectual, anti-rational strains that she says have overtaken our culture. But who's to blame? We talk with Jacoby about the new age she thinks we're in, and how the Ameircan education system, religious fundamentalism and addiction to mass media brought us here.
|
|
5 COMMENTS SO FAR
|
May 7, 2009
8:29 AM
|
Dea Anna said:
Though I agree with Susan's premise I believe that she is missing a crucial aspect to this reality that we find ourselves living within. That crucial piece is that our times are not the cause of our unreason, our times are instead the opportunity for reason to finally gain a true foothold in our journey as humans. Unless we can see this opening, reason for the sake of unreason will be lost, in other words the reaction to unreason, will hold us prisoner to it. I am grateful for how much reason I can bring into my life even as unreason abounds.
|
 (0)  (0)
|
|
May 7, 2009
9:13 AM
|
SallyS said:
Susan Jacoby has just a little bit more charm and grace than Michael Savage. Whatever her premise, her manners and presentation are off-putting. I'm sure if she read this she would cackle. But many fiercely opinionated and idiosyncratic people can be engaging without personal derision and sarcasm.
There would have been so many more effective ways to counter the caller who called her appearance a scam than by ridiculing him for missing the connection between the title of her book and the title of Thomas Paine's. The 'play on words' is not as obvious as Ms. Jacoby insists. And had to keep on insisting.
Lady, when you have to dig your elbow into your audience and say, "Get it? Get it?" the joke just wasn't that clear.
|
(0) (0)
|
|
May 7, 2009
10:30 AM
|
robertson said:
susan jacoby is a perfect example of the mainstream,status quo performer fighting for her professional life. she, like the institutional rags she defends:, the washington post and newsweek, is so afraid of real debate that she has to attack any point of view that bucks the "'traditional" intellectual definition. she hates the idea that people can view facts and circumstances for free online and actually be discerning enough to come up with original observations and ideas. the average american maybe isnt refined in the fine arts of debate,or composition or even philosophic reasoning. that is more an indictment on our educational system that the innate combinative intelligence we all have inside . the wisdom of the common man and woman is both undervalued and underestimated. she is a great example of why there is an "anti-intellectual" backlash. we have all had a smug,condescending teacher who stomped on our fragile learning processes and without knowing shied us away from something they could have helped us navigate through.this process might encouraqe stronger individuals to rise above but i believe the majority are bowed to accept this intellectual retardation as just another lesson to learn. many of us, especially in southern oregon do not think we should leave important issues for the elite to decide what is best for the masses. it is not ignorant to be discerning in how we take in our information.it is not wrong to challenge the status quo messages so prevalent in out multimedia filled world. i agree with sallys that the author did nothing to help her case by bulling the older lady or assuming that the man did not know that the title was coopted from a great champion of reason who in my opinion would have been insulted being used in this way and if alive would demolish her in a debate about reason. i welcome more debate on the "conspiracy theory" problem that jacoby presents and i challenge the exchange to investigate some of these topics. a good start would be to invite some of the folks she calls out as conspiracy theorists onto your program. many of us uneducated listeners already feel this is a biased slant when it comes to presenting many of the ideas proposed on this show. you can prove me wrong by not ignoring this request and strive for a more free and fearless discussion.
'
|
(0) (0)
|
|
May 7, 2009
10:49 AM
|
Tony Burt said:
Mr. or Ms. Robertson might consider using puctuation in order to make his point. His lengthy diatribe however valid, is renderred almost unreadable by the lack of application of the simplest rules of grammar.
Regarding the penultimate post by SallyS above:
To her credit Susan Jacoby did attempt to respond to the criticisms of the caller by asking him if he understood the derivation of the "Age of Unreason" title of her book. However in the eagerness to make sure that unfavored callers are not allowed to enter into any meaningful dialogue with guests the poor fellow had his phone connection preemptively cut off, presumably by the producer. Ms. Jacoby probably unaware of the censoring mistook the caller's silence for ignorance and was able to make her cheap and sarcastic comment.
After all, to let callers engage in an actual conversation with the guest would constitute an "Exchange" and clearly the "Jefferson Exchange" does not approve of such things.
Perhaps in future when the mute button button is applied Mr. Henty could explain that the caller had been silenced because the producer disagrees with his views.
Cheers!
|
(0) (0)
|
|
May 7, 2009
3:34 PM
|
southernoregonjim said:
As in most three part discussions it is not information verus knowledge, but with maturity, judgement should allow us to understand both.
Jim from Grants Pass
|
(0) (0)
|
|
|
|
|
Post your comment
|
You must be a subscriber and logged in to post a comment. Login | Register
|
|
|
|
