An encounter I would like to have overheard
For various reasons not worth going into I was researching the life of colorful British logician A. J. Ayer (1910-1989) and came across this rather odd anecdote, which I pass on to you without further comment:
[Ayer] taught or lectured several times in the United States, including serving as a visiting professor at Bard College in the fall of 1987. At a party that same year held by fashion designer Fernando Sanchez, Ayer, then 77, confronted [boxer] Mike Tyson who was forcing himself upon the (then) little-known model Naomi Campbell. When Ayer demanded that Tyson stop, the boxer said: “Do you know who the fuck I am? I’m the heavyweight champion of the world,” to which Ayer replied: “And I am the former Wykeham Professor of Logic. We are both pre-eminent in our field. I suggest that we talk about this like rational men”. Ayer and Tyson then began to talk, while Naomi Campbell slipped out.
I suspect that Tyson was intrigued by Ayer’s lack of fear, indicated by his response. While simultaneously acknowledging Tyson’s pre-eminence and indicating a shared superiority of accomplishment. Finally, he flattered Tyson with the implication that Tyson was a rational man. A masterful response that conveniently ignores a basic truth, “Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal.” Robert A. Heinlein
Tyson has always been lucky to have never gotten in a fight with a warrior versed in the ancient battlefield techniques. The nagain, the same can be said for John “chasing down civilians and capping them in the head” Kerry.
Ymarsakar,
When Tyson bit off a chuck of his opponents ear, he revealed his essential cowardice. He was always a thug and a bully, which always conceals the heart of a coward.
Oh, well done. The trick in these situations is to provide a distraction while doing the unexpected. The lead up to a fight follows a pattern of call and response and one must do something to break that pattern. I used to ask for a cigarette or some such, but “And I am the former Wykeham Professor of Logic. We are both pre-eminent in our field. I suggest that we talk about this like rational men.” serves as well. It is both unexpected and bold while not escalating to a fight.
But what I really want to know is how the discussion between the two men went.
That is a wonderful story.
I would have loved to have an opportunity to meet Ayer. In my youth, I found formal logic both intimidating and unpalatable, but as I’ve had time to indulge my (completely amateurish) interest in mathematical fields like real and complex analysis, set theory, and number theory, I have become a maven.
Jamie Irons
Another hunk of logic please.
Ummmm. Good.
On the contrary, your motivation is worth going into … anyway …
You might try, “Part of My life” if you have not already.
Odd, I remembered it as “A Part of My Life”
It has some interesting feet of clay revelations in it related to his own moral sensibilities and ambitions. Like Russell, he seems to have been a relatively physically tender and unimposing man who was occasionally victimized by his own all consuming, and therefore very comical to an outsider, partly-unrequited or unreciprocated passions.
These guys probably should have camped out, or gone on hikes more often.
“Language truth and Logic” though old, remains a classic and ranks up there with Rorty’s, “Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity” as an easily read and unvarnished and unapologetic manifesto issued on behalf of the prevailing progressive philosophy of an era.”
On the other hand you are right in suggesting that Ayer did have an obvious sense of humor and charm. Referring to Tyson, it’s obvious that most people would be appalled – whether they agreed with Ayer or not – at the idea of Ayer having his face smashed in with a blow from a boxer. Rorty’s — who would care?
Even Ayer’s essay commenting on the notion of a “private language” starts of with what I tend to think of as a kind of subtle equivocation-based joke which it takes some guts to even mention given the merciless company that was its intended audience. The joke lying not in any too obvious misunderstanding or misinterpretation that needed to be cleared up before getting under way, but that he saw fit to do it regardless.
Then there is this, all-time classic moment to which I have linked innumerable times before. Maybe even here.
Magee to Ayer, on Logical Positivism:
“What do you now in retrospect think the main shortcomings of the movement were?
Ayer, http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLP-Q087HgryWKSo-cUmQkUSn3ymmH_zEd&v=4cnRJGs08hE&feature=player_detailpage#t=387s
of an era.”
Strike that last quotation mark.
“Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal.” Robert A. Heinlein
2nd time I’ve seen that quote in the last 12 hours. It reminds me of Thomas Sowell’s quote from Race and Culture (not sure if it is cited, or he said it) “a man cannot be reasoned out of a position he did not reason himself into.” A big factor in why conservatives and libertarians make no headway with the 54% that voted the present administration into office.
But the Ayer’s anecdote exemplifies what a useful tool reason can be with those who lack it.
“For various reasons not worth going into….”
No. NO! Please share! Please?
Ayer to Tyson: You know what really divides us?
Tyson? What?
Ayer: Your teeth.
Jamie Irons Says:
June 7th, 2013 at 11:57 am
I can’t recall anything offhand that Ayer did in the way of formal logic in the manner of Russell, or Frege or Quine.
I don’t even recall much if anything in the way of the use of symbolic notation or reference as you might see with Putnam.
But I could be wrong. My knowledge of these matters is admittedly more enthusiastic than comprehensive.
I agree that meeting Ayer would have been rewarding. And in my view, in a way that meeting Quine or Russell himself would not have been. Russell certainly didn’t seem impress many with his graciousness or a spirit of magnanimity.
Many philosophers seem to have a more than a touch of malevolence in their personalities. Especially the smug left-leaning and highly political ones, like Rorty again.
Ayer, to my readings, by and large seemed to lack that trait, except in a couple of pretty venial [not venal] and probably forgivable ways.
DNW and vanderleun:
Well, since you asked…it was the result of one of those meandering research quests that really are just fun for me. I had been reading some poetry, and came across something by poet E. E. Cummings, and started to research him because I realized although I knew a fair amount of his poetry I knew next to nothing about his life.
What I found there was pretty interesting. For one thing he had a political awakening in the 30s about Russia (after a trip there) and became quite right-wing (I will probably write a little post about that some time). For another, he had a Byzantine love life. His third wife, to whom he may or may not have been married, was an absolutely gorgeous fashion model and sometimes actress named Marion Morehouse. You can see how extraordinary she is here. There’s also this stunning photo by Steichen; the copy mentions she was the first supermodel.
They remained together for about 30 years, until his death, in an interesting arrangement where they lived on different floors of one apartment but saw each other every day.
Cummings was not the easiest man on earth, to say the least. Although Morehouse loved him deeply and he her, they each had some flings. One of hers was a fairly serious relationship with a British documentary film-maker (I’m blocking on his name and can’t locate it right now), and one was a fling with: A. J. Ayer! Learning he was an academic and logician, I thought this quite the pairing and decided to look him up on Wiki, where I found the Tyson story.
And there you have it.
“what I really want to know is how the discussion between the two men went.” chuck
Probably something along the lines of first agreement; in that it was certainly understandable that Tyson would desire Campbell. Then sage advice as to how to attain that goal; contra-intuitively, logic dictated that Tyson stood a much better chance of ‘nailing’ Campbell by not pursuing her, while also cunningly indicating doubtful uncertainty on Tyson’s part, as to whether Campbell was worthy of association with the “heavyweight champion of the world”.
By this approach, Ayer’s indicates that he is as a male, on Tyson’s side, while relying on Tyson’s ego to prevent him form realizing that Campbell found him ‘creepy’ and would never be interested in Tyson (a realization he’d take as an affront and challenge).
Therefore securing her rescue from a thug.
At least Iron Mike didn’t threaten to eat his children…
SharonW,
Heinlein, one of the ‘grand old men’ of science fiction had, in my and many others opinion, much to say of value on the human condition.
Sowell’s quote is I believe, a paraphrase of a Ben Franklin quote.
Reason can indeed be a useful tool, when employed with shrewdness and discernment.
Ayer: Hey, you know what’s really sexy. Even more sexy than Naomi? Guns. Like this one here. Would, would you like to see it? Careful, whoops, it’s got a hair trigger. I better hold onto it.
neo,
I too love “meandering research quests” as most probably Artfldgr does as well, though he may be a bit too focused in his interests to be so categorized. When I was a ‘pre-teen’ I loved to visit the library and randomly and leisurely peruse through Encyclopedias. Just browsing for information that happened to capture my interest.
I believe that a love of learning is one of the attributes of a polymath. Characteristics of which you demonstrate.
“The truly educated never graduate”. unknown (entirely appropriate)
sharpie,
Passive-aggressive intimidation can be effective 😉 especially when bringing a gun to a fistfight!
There’s a line by Prophet Jack in “Life or Something Like it” (where we all learn that too much planning and rationality is just plain bad so take your finger right off that repress button you silly goof!) which sums up the con perpretrated by modern philosophers:
I see, I say, you pay.
I one time meandered all the way from romance novels into ancient torture methodology and ways to discern truth from lies upon the lips of men.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/14/model-muse-pictures-generation-opinions-art-review-metropolitan-museum_slide_6.html
Countess Vera von Lehndorff aka Veruschka!
You know, you couldn’t make better stuff up.
My favorite tidbits in that Wikipedia entry on him: He went by “Freddie” and he had a daughter with Sheila Graham, the Hollywood gossip columnist and F. Scott Fitzgerald’s last love.
Freddie got around. A wonder he had time for philosophizing.
DNW –
Story about Rorty.
When I was an undergrad I drove up with some fellow philosophy majors to see him speak at the University of Florida. It was a surprisingly small audience, maybe 30-40 people, with Rorty standing up at the front.
He stood there, stiff as a board, and just straight up read something he’d written, in an extremely snooze-inducing monotone. It was one of the dullest speeches I’d ever heard – basically, “Hear Rorty read Rorty.”
Anyway, after the speech a friend of mine asked him a question about how he would square his dismissal of metaphysics starting with Plato with is pragmatism, which was just a metaphysical conventionalism going back to Protagoras, if not further.
Rorty’s response? “I don’t see any value in talking about Plato.” (or words to that effect – I’m paraphrasing from memory).
Silence.
End of response.
For the record, I can’t stand the Rortyan Style. Everything he writes just makes my skin crawl. Rarely have I had such a visceral negative reaction to a thinker – not Marx, not Merleau-Ponty or Sartre in their execrable apologias for Red Terror, not Schmitt in Full Nazi mode…
I can’t really explain it – it’s like disgust. I just find him to be insufferably smug and, frankly, annoying.
Putnam, by contrast, is a lefty (not sure if he’s a commie or not, though his dad was, I think), but I just love his work. I’ll just say it: I adore Putnam.
What, in fact, is the decisive difference between them, though? I’d just say that it seems to me Putnam, despite his avowals to the contrary, always works within and around the metaphysical tradition, and so at least has some respect for it, or perhaps one could say, is ambivalent about it. Rorty just sort of stuck his tongue out and made a fart noise.
Speaking as a nobody who took a few classes from him, Putnam is one of the kindest men I’ve ever met in academia.
P.S. Which is why I found it shocking when I learned that Putnam had been a Maoist in the 60’s.
gpc31 –
Luck you, indeed.
See, that’s what I heard – that Putnam was a Maoist – but my recollection of the context, of whether it was a 60’s thing or whether (ludicrously) he still considers himself some kind of Maoist, I just couldn’t recall any of that.
Ah, what can we do? Red diaper babies (Rorty, IIRC, was one as well) have it rough, having the communism thing bound up with the parental love thing (and in Putnam’s case probably the Reform Judaism thing as well – a nice trifecta).
Still, Putnam’s leftism only barely ever creeps into his writing – I think of his (brilliant) critique of decision theory in “Beyond the Fact/Value Distinction” and his section on how to think the
“[Soulless]” premise in “The Threefold Cord” – and even then it’s usually in some context where you wind up agreeing with him, or at least agreeing that he has a point.
Anyway – a true intellectual titan of our times, that Putnam. I don’t think Rorty comes close to approaching his level. Rorty, at best, was good. Putnam is great. Even not having been a student of his, he has taught me as much as any teacher has.
kolnai Says:
June 7th, 2013 at 9:12 pm …
This remark will be lost and buried in the wake of more recent topics, but I’ll make it anyway.
Thanks for the reference, Kolnai.
I’d never read the article, although it was apparently published in August of ’82, and is now available on JSTOR.
I have to say that Putnam formulates his criticisms of an incoherent if ego stoking values nihilism, whether of the Scientistic or Ironist variety, with an admirable simplicity and lucidity.
His remarks concerning Rorty’s seeming obliviousness to the problematic nature of his own conception of what it means to say a society or a people have a “culture”, had me laughing out loud; as it was just what had crossed my mind an instant before I threw the book “Contingency, Irony …” across the room in annoyance. (That is to obviously say: what are the Ironist’s rules of identification or recognition; what is the required distribution of the predicated “culture” if it – a cultural attribution understood as conditioning or deciding of some values question – is to be taken seriously?)
Wonderful web site. Plenty of useful details the following. I am giving it to several close friends ans also discussing with delightful. Not to mention, thanks a lot on the attempt!