An "About" Update
1 July 2015
I began this blog largely as an experiment approximately three-and-a-half years ago. You can read below my original thoughts about its beginning. Through the intervening time, as should perhaps be expected, the nature of and my approach to this blog have evolved. I thought it may be worthwhile briefly to note the contours of that evolution.
1 July 2015
I began this blog largely as an experiment approximately three-and-a-half years ago. You can read below my original thoughts about its beginning. Through the intervening time, as should perhaps be expected, the nature of and my approach to this blog have evolved. I thought it may be worthwhile briefly to note the contours of that evolution.
First, what are the continuities?
- This blog remains concerned with cultivating wisdom, prudence, and virtue.
- It remains the case that my approach to reflecting on matters of phronēsis may not always seem (immediately) as though blog posts are concerned with that subject.
- It also remains the case that I am still unsure about the medium, although for somewhat different reasons. I am, for instance, less critical of blogs in general for being self-indulgent forms of expression. Some still are that, but I am less skeptical than I previously was of the value that can inhere in or be associated with blogs.
What, then, are some differences?
- My blog posts have recently been less politically and culturally focused than they were at times in the past. This may not always be the case, but I suspect that the reasons for this recent trend are primarily two. One is that in my spare time I have been reading more literature and philosophy, and less current event reports and analyses, than a few years ago. The other reason is not that I find cultural and political subjects unimportant; it is that I find them too (emotionally) taxing to untangle and address. Moreover, my blog entries, given how long I mull them over before posting them, already often take substantial time. There is the likelihood that current events would not be so current by the time I got around to posting.
- Another difference is correlative to the above: posts have become more directly and substantially literary and philosophical than originally. Reasons for this side of the recent trend go beyond the fact that these are key interests of mine. In fact, the main reason relates to a third aspect of this blog's evolution.
- This third aspect of the blog's evolution is my using it to foster my own understanding primarily and to share these thoughts with other secondarily. I tend to learn about virtue and practical wisdom through narratives, poetic images, and discussion of direct arguments. This invites more substantial explanation.
One initial appeal of a blog is to gain a following, a devoted or at least regular readership. Discussion of topics may be desirable, but I suspect that most people who write seek in some measure to influence. I share that desire. I think that at least certain of my ideas are worth the consideration of others. (They will be adopted by the most enlightened of those others, of course!) I do not, however, believe that my blog will do much in the way of influencing others. That is for various reasons.
Part of the reason may be the way in which human minds are actually influenced (it is not typically by the direct sort of writing, argument, or explanation I do here). Part of the reason may be the blog's readership (only a few open-minded and adventurous people actually seem irregularly to read my blog, which is just fine). The point is that I now see the blog as a vehicle for my own intellectual, moral, and personal understanding and development. Some people may find aspects of this quest of interest to them, or dovetailing with their own explorations. Such persons may stumble across my blog on their own at various times for various specific searches. And my blog posts may even prevail upon, influence, and persuade others. I welcome all of that, to be sure. It is, however, not my driving force with this blog.
Why not, then, maintain a journal rather than a blog? This is a question that I have pondered at length. The main reason is that it helps me in my writing to have a particular audience in mind. If I were writing in a journal, which I did not expect anyone to read, I would likely be sloppier than I am with a blog that is open to the public. No doubt, ambiguities, errors, and other infelicities will enter into my writing either way, but I trust that writing with real potential readers in mind will reduce those things.
Last, I welcome discussion from my blog posts. I do not get it directly in terms of comments or direct communications. Still, writing out ideas and positions through my blog may help to fashion me into a better conversation partner with others outside of my blog. That would be a great benefit to me and to my community.
(Note: On Monday, May 7, 2012, I changed the title of the blog from "ho polytropos kai phronēsis" to "Feeding Phronēsis." I also shortened the description in this way: "A blog about cultivating wisdom, prudence, and virtue by a man of many ways." The reason: The vast majority of my readers seem to be spammers in Russia. Putting some English in the title might decrease readers who are automata and increase readers who are human. Besides, this blog is decidedly more about phronēsis than ho polytropos.)
Q: What is this blog about?
Part of the reason may be the way in which human minds are actually influenced (it is not typically by the direct sort of writing, argument, or explanation I do here). Part of the reason may be the blog's readership (only a few open-minded and adventurous people actually seem irregularly to read my blog, which is just fine). The point is that I now see the blog as a vehicle for my own intellectual, moral, and personal understanding and development. Some people may find aspects of this quest of interest to them, or dovetailing with their own explorations. Such persons may stumble across my blog on their own at various times for various specific searches. And my blog posts may even prevail upon, influence, and persuade others. I welcome all of that, to be sure. It is, however, not my driving force with this blog.
Why not, then, maintain a journal rather than a blog? This is a question that I have pondered at length. The main reason is that it helps me in my writing to have a particular audience in mind. If I were writing in a journal, which I did not expect anyone to read, I would likely be sloppier than I am with a blog that is open to the public. No doubt, ambiguities, errors, and other infelicities will enter into my writing either way, but I trust that writing with real potential readers in mind will reduce those things.
Last, I welcome discussion from my blog posts. I do not get it directly in terms of comments or direct communications. Still, writing out ideas and positions through my blog may help to fashion me into a better conversation partner with others outside of my blog. That would be a great benefit to me and to my community.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Q: What is this blog about?
As I explain in the inaugural posting ("Introducing a new blog experiment"), this blog is about cultivating practical wisdom, or phronēsis, in contemporary life. It may not, however, always seem so. A starting point in this pursuit is my many interests and several experiences. The goal is to seek and draw attention to theoretical and practical wisdom wherever it may be found.
Q: Why did you decide to start this blog?
I very nearly did not start this blog. I remain conflicted about the medium. On the one hand, some very well-done blogs exist. I have visited them and benefited from them. I still do. On the other hand, quite a few blogs (I could not justifiably assert that it is the majority of them) are poorly-written, hastily thought-out, self-indulgent vehicles for overinflated senses of self-importance. To rephrase the same pointed remark, many blogs are vapid billboards of arrogance; a number are myopic delivery systems of cookie-cutter ideology. Aware of these poles, I hope that my blog, should it persist, will be grouped with the salutary and well-reasoned former; however, the risk is non-trivial that I will fail (at least in some readers' eyes) and land in the latter camp. If I do, I will have only myself to blame.
Q: Uh, I kind of got lost in that. Can you tell me again why you decided to start this blog?
Sure. To answer the question plainly, I started this blog because, like most writers, I believe that I have something worthwhile to offer readers. This may not (always) be answers. It may more frequently be questions or pointers into certain directions or examples of how one person thinks, not just what that person thinks. Here, the subject is practical wisdom and virtue. The process of thinking can be as important as the product. Indeed, the former often determines the latter. My earnest desire is that time will bear out the substantive significance of the reflections recorded herein.
Q: How do you characterize the nature and purpose of a blog?
Part of my reluctance to blog in the first place owes to my viewing blogs (web logs) as public journals. They are often incomplete musings about a variety of topics, usually timely and related to one's experience, reading, and key interests. Not all blogs have this trait. Indeed, some are intentionally polemical. These blogs have an axe to grind, which is fine in its place, and my blog may do the very same thing at times. But a public blog at bottom, like a private journal, is a forum for exploring, or trying out, some incipient and some mature, but rarely final, ideas about various subjects. This may not be the final word on blogs (how could it if it appears in a blog?), but it does touch on a central feature of them -- and of this one. Central is the thoughtful but incomplete exploration of topics that may be worthy of further reflection and conversation.
Q: Can you say more about why are you wary of blogs?
One, but not the only, reason is that I believe that our contemporary culture confuses many proper spheres. An instance of this phenomenon is the confusion of the public and the private. Blogs, which broadcast to an untold number of potential readers frequently unfinished, private thoughts, magnify this misstep. We may also not be immediately aware that something is better left unsaid until it is too late. What is properly public and properly private? This is a worthy question, which bloggers often, in their haste to publish to the web, ignore -- if they are even mindful of the distinction and the prudential concerns entailed. Not everything that can be said should be said, or said to everyone indiscriminately. Not everything that can be said merits being said. Much wisdom, moral, and even rhetorical literature reflects on knowing when and where to say what to whom and in what manner.
Q: Have you considered what emotions may be at work in what you think about blogging?
Yes. I likely fear, for instance, that by blogging more is being lost in communication and prudent reflection than is being gained. "More" may be a misleading term, since I mean by it not the quantity but the quality of communication and prudent reflection. I also have in mind the nature and quality of interpersonal interaction and this difficult subject: how we communicate affects who we are as people, humans, one of whose distinctives is in fact our communication. Feelings like fear may be legitimate, illegitimate, or a mixture of both.
Q: Will you allow or encourage interaction with your posts?
Sometimes. I wholeheartedly believe in genuine conversation. I long for civil discourse with partners with whom I may disagree pointedly but whose comportment and thoughtfulness command respect and compel a sincere "turning together" of an idea or argument. Blogs may facilitate this sometimes, but mostly they are imperfect to that fuller conversational task in my view. So I will permit comments on occasion, but I will also on occasion just post what I have to say at the time on a subject.
Q: Will you permit other individuals to post blogs here?
Selectively, yes. I toyed with the idea of asking a good friend to join me in the task of blogging, because we have a rich history of correspondence and conversation that may be of interest and may be edifying to others. A good template in this regard, whatever one may think of the opinions expressed, is the Becker-Posner blog. Perhaps in time something like that will materialize. Meanwhile, as an approximation, I may invite a few others to post an entry or permit them to do so if they approach me with a particular idea. When that happens, I will likely post a response and allow a reply.
Q: Is Polytropos your real name? If not, why are you writing under a pseudonym?
No; Polytropos is a pseudonym, not my real name. For various personal and work-related reasons, I have chosen to write under this name for the blog. I realize that using a nom de plume may subtract a personal quality from the blog. On the other hand, it may permit the ideas expressed to take center stage.
