Talk:Allan Bloom/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ravelstein

This section was deleted after some research on my part. I cannot find in Ravelstein any suggestion that Bloom, or Ravelstein, discusses this. If the comment was made in another instance, then the section should probably be re-added. It just seems to me a FACTUALLY incorrect comment. Thus, I think it was appropriate to withdraw it. The person who wrote it is welcome to correct me, if there is support. "He expressed to Bellow his disdain of the current movement for homosexual "rights", which he viewed as improperly attempting to piggy-back on the equality movements of blacks and ethnic minorities." --Mikerussell 05:19, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Closing of the American Mind

Trimmed some points about the Closing of the American Mind, since they seemed to be in violation of the POV goal. Whoever wrote the new material, added to the article quite a bit, but it seemed to cross the line into personal assessment too much. I would suggest the author try to start a new page/entry on Closing of the American Mind to add more material that cannot be used in a Bloom article. --Mikerussell 21:18, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to mikerussell for his contributions. I disagree that my edits went too far into "POV"-- the only part that I would agree could be seen that way was the part about "Closing of the American Mind" being filled with "doom and foreboding." Part of what I edited removed POV as well, I should add. While the sections properly noted Allan Bloom's esotericism (see, for example, the article on his mentor Leo Strauss), it would be wrong to suggest that his "right-wing" readers simply misunderstood him. His "political" message was important (Why did he choose that political message in a liberal society?). I also disagree with mikerussell's comments in "history" about "culture" being a word not used by Bloom. I quote from pages 185-186:

"The interesting response to the nature-society tension, much more fertile than the return to, or nostalgia for, nature, can be summed up by the word "culture". It seems to mean something high, profound, respectable--a thing before which we bow. It joins nature as a standard for the judgment of men and their deeds but has even greater dignity. It is almost never used perjoratively, as are "society," "state," "nation," or even "civilization," terms for which culture is gradually substituted, or whose legitimacy is underwritten by culture. Culture is the unity of man's brutish nature and all the arts and sciences he acquired in his movement from the state of nature to civil society. Culture restores the lost wholeness of first man on a higher level, where his faculties can be fully developed without contradiction between the desires of nature and the moral imperatives of social life.

On the next page, he writes: "The progress of culture provides the link between inclination and duty. Kant uses the education of sexual desire as an example. Naturally man has the desire to have sexual intercourse and hence to procreate. But he has no desire to care for his children or educate them, even though the growth of their faculties requires prolonged maintenance and training. So the family is necessary." After suggesting that the family sublimates nature, he then writes: "The free choice of marriage and the capacity to stick to it, not merely outwardly but inwardly, is a proof of culture, of desire informed by civility."

So, understanding the role of "culture" in Bloom's work is absolutely critical to understanding his philosophy. When Bloom talks of culture, he means in part "high culture" like Beethoven. Rock music, for Bloom, is not "culture" at all. user: 209.89.229.30 (this is me, rexrexilius, before my account was set up).

You are right, I think I was not doing the word 'culture'; justice in Bloom's thought. My own personal distaste for using the word as a 'catch-all' for everything from Jewish culture (thousands of years old, sacred to many) toDrug culture (people who use narcotics share certain characteristics, i.e. slang, attire, poverty, etc) made me loose sight of the point you correctly make. Namely- what is culture? or what is real culture? personally, i just think when you use it too much, it can mutilate very significant differences, as in the example above.--Mikerussell 06:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm currently reading closing of the american mind, and am about 100 pages in.. so is this entry about the book; it is an over-detailed summary by someone who didn't read the whole thing. Note that the end of their little blurb it basically says " blah blah.. and so goes the first part of the book" There are THREE parts! and the article spends too much time on the first one and doesn't cover the rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnnudibranch (talk • contribs) 05:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The comment above is nonsense. I've read Bloom and listened to most of his lectures online as opposed to only being 100 pages into it and thinking I'm on to something. I've read the book in question 5 times over at a minimum. In no way is the current entry personally biased or opinionated in any way. It is a fairly good summation of Bloom's themes and reflects his stated intentions for writing the book. Unfortunately, Bloom, like his mentor, did not conduct TV interviews or write for and of the rags that pass for discourse nowadays, so it will be next to impossible to verify through secondary sources. The review in question is balanced and does not emphasize any arguments made by Bloom in COTAM inaccurately or immoderately. Leave it be. It's a good summation of a highly complex piece of work. If anything, COTAM does need it's own page and I thought that it had one previously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tullyccro (talk • contribs) 05:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV?

This article isn't NPOV, particularly the summaries of his work. I mean, "demagogic radicals as exemplified by 60's student leaders could leap"? Yeah, the 60s student leaders agitating against segregation were "demagogic radicals." The article's not hagiographic, but it's way too pro-Bloom to be neutral. I'd change it myself, but reading too much about Straussians makes me ill. KrJnX —Preceding undated comment added 04:39, 16 January 2005 (UTC)

So "reading too much about Straussians make me ill" suggests we should take your criticisms about the article's neutrality seriously? Have you ever read Strauss? I have my doubts. MoodyGroove 14:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

This is NPOV in that it is a neutral account of his thought. His book makes that analogy over and over and over again. To critique it on the main page would not be NPOV, but we always have the discussion pages, so feel free. --Rexrexilius 06:34, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bloom's own sexuality

There appear to be several references to Bloom's own sexuality, and 'interesting' absence of its mention in his works. Recommend that the primacy of this point is removed as it is irrelevant to his philosophical outlook and commentaries on society.--62.254.0.38 14:21, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your point exactly. I hope you return and give a fuller statement on the concern. Pardon my daftness, but what do you mean by 'primacy of this point' and 'irrelevant to his philosophical outlook and commentaries on society'. How so is it relevant or irrelevant, and do you, or anybody, really know what type of impact it had on his thought? i would almost think that question is worthy of masters, or Ph.D. thesis. I wonder how or if it affected his thought positively or negatively? Maybe being an 'outsider' sort of speak made him a unique thinker, but maybe not? It might have had no effect. Is that what you believe/suggest?--Mikerussell 06:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are a number of factors that make it of topical interest. 1. Few people who follow Bloom (or "Straussianism") have not made the connection between Saul Bellow's Ravelstein and Bloom (Bellow was a close friend of Bloom's, who apparently was "recruited" by Bloom to write a book about Bloom's personal life); 2. It isn't just "conservatives" (like me) who have shown an interest in Bloom, but people interested in Gay Studies as well: Obituary in Independent Gay Forum--no one can "own" a writer--does anyone "own" Plato? 3. It is of academic interest (as a political science student, Bloom's homosexuality was drawn to my attention by my professors/his former students a decade before Ravelstein came out). 4. On some level, it could be argued that his style of writing, his views on morality etc. compel a closer look at his personal life. So, while it would be mistaken to assume that you can interpret everything Bloom wrote in light of his sexuality, it would also be a mistake to dismiss it entirely. The issue is a complex one precisely because of the complexity of his writing. --Rexrexilius 07:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[Original posting] I think my problem with the point was partly one of taste. One may access this page for a summary of the philosophical thoughts of such a brilliant mind, and instead be fed private details (I myself had no knowledge nor desire to know of Bloom's sexuality prior to reading it), with the excuse that they are 'interesting' specifically because he did not mention them. It seemed to reflect society's obsession with celebrity more than it was a serious intellectual point. Bloom appears not to consider his own sexuality important to his philosophy. Furthermore, a psychoanalytical analysis of the effect of his sexuality on his works that you advocate seems to me to have a profound irony about it, in that it adheres to the pseudo-scientific Freudian approach that he himself argues so strongly against. Having said that, I accept your interesting responses and withdraw the criticism. The issue is indeed complex the more I think about it - better included than excluded seems to be the Wikipedia mentality.--Ojas 01:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

see Bloom's own sexuality (Revisited 2007) below for more recent posts on the same topic.--Mikerussell 02:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Bloom's own sexuality and his being "outed" by Saul Bellow after his death have been removed from this entry. They are relevant, to say the least, especially when Bloom spent so much time in TCofAM on others' "empty" lifestyles and quests for alternate sexual expression. Who is trying to whitewash Bloom? 2601:9:2780:1E3:221:E9FF:FEE0:8C3C (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Multiple Recent Reverts

I noticed that two reverts were done recently on this page, and I'd like to find out why. The article has had two paragraphs making a comparison to romeo and juliet for quite a while, but they were edited out, then reverted back in, and then reverted back out again. While I am in no position to judge whether the paragraphs are worthy of being in the article, I do know that they have been in the article for a while now, and this is enough to warrant either a modification of the paragraphs to make them acceptable, or else a justification must be given for why they were summarily removed. Remember, on Wikipedia, the burden of proof is on the person removing information from an article, and not on the person adding information to an article. Eric Herboso 20:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was not the first person to get rid of that passage (I did read your message on my talk page) . I reverted to the first person who did. I just thought that the passage went abit beyond an encyclopaedic summary and into analysis. But, I have reverted it back, as you are right, it was present for a long time. --Rexrexilius 03:49, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

'Pagan Platonism'

(I use 'pagan' only to connate a difference with Christian Platonists. In fact, I am adopting a Christian perspective in so doing, since Christians call the Ancient Greeks 'pagans'.

(The italized above passage was comment coded into the HTML EDIT page with by Eric Herboso, I believe, for he writes on the edit of Jan 30 2005: m (made author's comment visible only on edit page)

1. This does not make sense to me- why not just subtract it from the HTML code and place it on the TALK page as I have done right now, instead of leaving the comments embedded in the text. These comments in the body of the text seem rather sub terrain and esoteric- meaning newcomers may not understand what it is doing in the HTML edit box. perhaps it is more common in Wikipedia than I know, but I don't think it is good standard practice.--Mikerussell 04:42, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

2. I wrote the above quote, and if 'Pagan Platonism' needs no further explanation then so be it, but I suspect many readers will not understand the context in which 'pagan' is used as a simple adjective which defines Platonism in contra distinction to Platonism or the much more widely accepted 'Christian Platonism'; furthermore, it may be very erroneously interpreted as being synonymous with Jewish thought, which it was never meant to suggest. (At least by me, who wrote the section originally). Thus, the article is made worse by its total exclusion. I may try to rewrite the section, but right now I will leave it open for comment. The phrasing should be better, I agree with that, the "I" first person statement is not proper for an (semi-)anonyomous encyclopedia article. --Mikerussell 04:42, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)--Mikerussell 04:42, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

Objection: I believe the whole discussion of "pagan Platonism" vs. "Christian Platonism" is highly misleading and out of place and should be entirely omitted from the article on Bloom. First, Bloom nowhere says that he is writing against "christian Platonism"- that's simply one editors- Mr' Russell's- private interpretation- clearly influenced unduly by the writings of George Grant and not based on any real knowledge of 20th century Plato scholarship. The issue of pagan Platonism vs. Christian Platonism is not the same as the issue of the dramatic and dialogical interpretation of Plato or those who take seriously the problem of Socratic irony. The more accurate portrayal of the division in Plato scholarship would be between those who see the Platonic Socrates as a kind of spokesman for Plato's position or a "mouthpiece" for Plato's own arguments vs. those who see Socrates's speeches and arguments as frequently ironic, ad hominem and sometimes deliberately misleading, enthymematic, one-sided or fallacious; Socrates's speeches and arguments must always be understood in terms of the dramatic situation of the dialogues and not as free-standing arguments that can be torn from the context. . I think Bloom would even question if there is such a doctrine as "Platonism". As Bloom writes in his introduction to the Republic translation, "The Platonic dialogues do not present a doctrine; they prepare the way for philosophizing. .. One must philosophize to understand them. There is a Platonic teaching but it is no more to be found in any of the speeches than is thought of Shakespeare to be found in the utterances of one particular character." I suppose Mr. Russell has in mind a passage in Strauss's City and Man mentioning "Christian Platonism" with reference to More's Utopia.(p. 61). But More himself is credited with understanding the difference between "speeches and deeds" - in other words the nature of the Platonic dialogue. More himself was a kind of ironist and the same debates exist about his Utopia as exist about the Republic.

Moreover Mr. Russell's claim that "Until the late 20th century most English language Platonists were following a tradition that blended Christian theology with Plato" makes one wonder whether he has actually read any 20th century English Plato scholarship which is influenced more by Wittgenstein, Frege and the style of analytic philosophy than Christianity. The type of "Christian Platonism" he describes probably died out by the First World War and dates to 19th century scholars like Benjamin Jowett- it has had almost no influence on 20th century or 21st century scholarship. And there is no evidence that Bloom was much concerned with it - even in opposition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marcelllus_wallace https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allan_Bloom&action=edit&section=6# — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcelllus wallace (talk • contribs) 15:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

JPX7 restructured cuts supposed 'heavy' bias

It is worthwhile to look at Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet for an example of this philosophic capability. The tragedy of the play, which could be interpreted varyingly, is normally thought to be something that would produce sadness. Yet, from Bloom's point of view, a philosopher would laugh at this play, because the philosopher would see the mechanisms of the play's tragedy as artificial divisions between characters. (more or less JPX7 restructured edit)

The above passage I have removed from the article. The sentences are the last vestiges of a commentary I wrote about Socratic irony. I tried to include an example out of my opinion/understanding, while also choosing a piece of literature Bloom wrote about, namely Romeo & Juliet (see Love & Friendship p.273-296). The passage stood in the article from Dec 20th 2004 to about Jan 31st 2005.

Personally, I was kind of amazed it lasted that long- and I wrote the section. (The entire section is below this comment in italics). Right now, I think it has really lost any value because it has been so badly emasculated by multiple Wikipedia editors that it falls rather flaccid and silent upon a reader. When I read it now, I just shrug- what is the point?

For instance what does ‘interpreted varyingly’ really mean- isn’t everything open to varying interpretation? Or "mechanisms of the play's tragedy as artificial divisions between characters"- this passage is so entropic, it is unnecessary, if not almost comical, a kind of self-ironical ironic statement about irony so common to preternatural academics and their wannabes. (At least that is my point of view).

Finally, it is not true that "Yet, from Bloom's point of view, a philosopher would laugh at this play. Who said that? It is factually incorrect to suggest Bloom would only, or primarily, laugh at such a timeless, beatifully written tradegy (Again seeLove & Friendship p.273-296). The entire point I was trying make in the section below is distorted by so many edits that it has become fundementally fraudulent. My original section was trying, and maybe I failed, to raise the possibility a philosopher may see the comic as tragic in the story, or that only a philosopher could have this additional vantage point to measure the story by. It's a grotesque fabrication to suggest a philosopher or Allan Bloom would laugh at the tragic ending and circumstance like a bunch of dim-witted grade 10 school boys so thick a brick hitting them across the skull is more entertaining/comprehensible to them than Shakespeare.

There is such a thing on Wikipedia of a “too many cooks” syndrome. BUT!, I agree that it is a POV editorial, my POV to be honest, and this runs counter the NPOV ideal that makes Wikipedia such collaborative effort. I suspect the real challenge would be to craft a section which offers similar meaning/illumination, but without it appearing so unilateral. I can’t do that, at least right now, so the whole Romeo & Juliet Socratic irony example should be mothballed, in my opinion, and I did write the section originally as well as most of the remaining stuff under Philosophy and Plato’s Republic. --Mikerussell 04:50, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

Strauss took this insight and applied it eventually to Plato’s writings themselves. Bloom's translation and essay of the Republic takes this stance; therefore, it is radically different in many important aspects than the previous translations and interpretations of the Republic. Most notable is Bloom's discussion of Socratic irony. In fact, irony is the key to Bloom’s take on the Republic. (see his discussion of Books II-VI of the Republic.) But what is this irony? Allan Bloom says a philosopher is immune to irony because they can see the tragic as comic and comic as tragic. It is worthwhile to look at Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet for an example of this philosophic capability; otherwise, it is just empty words. The tragedy of the play is not about dumb kids killing themselves because they are so wrapped up in first love that they lack commonsense, or the long-range view that they will go off to college and find other lovers. Sadly, the tragedy of Romeo & Juliet is seen in a much diminished light today because contemporary society does not understand the role of the warring families. The families represent the political- they represent the Serb and Croat, the Palestinian and Israeli, they represent political entities at war. The play is akin to President Bush's daughter walking across a college campus and falling in love with a handsome, gallant, kind and considerate foreign exchange student. This young student sees Bush's daughter as perfection and fulfillment. They meet and fall in love, only to discover that Romeo is Usama Bin Laden's son. They commit suicide together because they think the world has no place for their love.

Yet a philosopher would laugh at this play, when everyone else cries, the philosopher would see that these divisions, between Americans and terrorists, are just artificial, they are not natural, and the fact that Jenna and Usama Jr. can fall in love is proof of this. A philosopher is fearless where others are terrified. Bloom refers to Socrates, the philosopher par excellence, in his Interpretative Essay stating, "Socrates can go naked where others go clothed; he is not afraid of ridicule. He can also contemplate sexual intercourse where others are stricken with terror; he is not afraid of moral indignation. In other words he treats the comic seriously and the tragic lightly." (Plato’s Republic, Interpretative Essay, p.387). Thus irony in the Republic refers to the 'Just City in Speech'. Bloom looks at it not as a model for future society, nor as a template for the human soul; rather, it is an ironic city, an example of the distance between philosophy and every potential philosopher. Bloom follows Strauss in suggesting that the 'Just City in Speech' is not natural; it is man-made, thus ironic''--Mikerussell 04:50, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)-->

Children of divorced parents

It's been a while since I read it, but as I recall, Bloom said something about the children of divorced parents being too psychologically damaged to benefit from University education, and further, that the children of divorced parents were so screwed-up that they poisoned the intellectual atmosphere of University to such a degree that it would be better (though admittedly impossible in liberal society) to bar them from attending. It stuck in my mind as the most nutbar things I ever read, have I recalled this point correctly? Pete.Hurd 21:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

No. Your comment is an example of why Bloom is often deprived of a fair reading by those who are easily impressed with cheap and dull witted thinkers. Just to be plain, here is the direct quote from which you may have gotten your second hand news.

I do not have the slightest doubt that they [children of divorced parents] do as well as others in all kinds of specialized subjects, but I find they are not as open to the serious study of philosophy and literature as some other students are. Closing of the American Mind (p. 120)

Bloom remarks that in his considered opinion- as liberal arts teacher- the ‘psychological’ harm done to students of divorced parents may impair their longing for completeness. He offers this comment in light of the need for present society to strictly enforce a ‘no-fault’ divorce mantra. The banishment of blame for a divorce, and thus any guilt in the parents for getting one, inadvertently and perhaps unknowingly places the children of divorce in an intolerable double bind. Children are told that their parents love them, but no longer love each other, while the child loves each parent equally and cannot simply ‘divorce’ themselves from the parental unit. They see in practice that love is conditional- “I once loved your mom/dad, but things have changed and it is nobody’s fault” type tune, while being unable to express their anger at either parent for betraying the parent they also love, but who has lost favor with the other parent. Anger is the correct word because children in divorce are really quite powerless in Bloom’s analysis- the parents have all the power, they can decided when to ‘start’ or ‘stop’ a family, and the kids must be trained to go along with the new arrangements. This is profoundly different than just twenty years ago and for centuries hence, where there were heavy and real institutionalized social, legal, and ‘moral’ consequences to divorce, and society felt justified in characterizing divorced persons as ‘failures’, ‘selfish’ or ‘irresponsible’; while at the same time extending pity or sympathy for kids of ‘broken homes’.

Bloom makes reference to all the money currently spent on ‘therapists’ who are paid, in effect, to rationalize away blame from the parents, thus leaving the kid in a rather helpless confusion. (It is not unreasonable or unethical for therapists to do this, percisely becuase the children are so powerless, and thus need to contend with the 'reality' that their parents are no longer one unit.) This burden leaves them emotionally stunted, compared to a child of married parents in his experience. Instead of righteous outrage at the parents who have deprived the child of the thing they most love- their parents and family unit- the kid is rationalized into a dead calm or ‘crippled Eros’. Docile and accepting of their fate, Bloom senses in them an inability to connect deeply with the great tradition of philosophy and literature he teaches because the books no longer speak to them, or their experience in the world, since the greatest writers were creating out of an erotic wholeness. So as pretensious as that may sound to you, he is saying that the children of divorce are lied to by their parents, whose behavior says one thing – “I am doing this for me- I need to be free”, but they tell the kid to do the opposite- the child has to become less selfish and become the responsible one- become the parent. The child has to go “yes, yes, I understand, mommy/dad need to be happy, they need to be what they want to be, and I must play along although I would really want them to remain as one.” So the child must convince themselves to be less selfish at the very moment their parent(s) is exercising acute selfishness.

This effects every student at university because children of divorced parents are assumed to be no different than children of married parents. There is almost a moral indigation reaction for bringing up or even suggesting there are these very real problems for children of divorce- a dictatorship of ignorance supresses freedom of thought in the name of 'openness' or acceptance of differences among 'lifestyle' choices.

Bloom's analysis is very complex and thoughtful, and may shock and upset people- even threaten them and their core self-identity, so instead of actually suspending judgment for a few moments and trying to squarely evaluate his deep contention, they spit up some assine remark about banning children of divorce to another school system like they used to do in Little Rock. --Mikerussell 07:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:AllanBloom.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AllanBloom.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I could not locate the copyright holder, so I suspect unless someone else does, it must be deleted.--Mikerussell 02:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

New Replacement photo

I will contact the copyright holder of the new photo Image:AllanDavidBloombyPaul Merideth.jpg to confirm its use in wikipedia. I emailed him and will withdraw the photo if he wishes it to be withdrawn. I provided a link to the article in my email to him.--Mikerussell 01:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Great Books in education

Deleted from intro:

Bloom championed the idea of 'Great Books' education.

This might be true, but I'm reading Closing this summer, and I haven't found anything in it which champions the idea of using the Great Books in education. So far as I understand him Bloom is calling attention to a Great Paradox: openmindedness (i.e., relativism) leads to a suicidal closedmindedness.

Can anyone else add a parapraph (or, better, an entire section) on Bloom's views on using the Great Books to educate undergraduates (or anyone else for that matter)? --Wing Nut 13:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You raise a great point, there is much that can be added to this article, and how Bloom used Great Books in education is a valid addition. Nevertheless, I disagree with your deletion completely, and since all you seem to be saying is you cannot see how he champions, or uses, Great Books, therefore it must not be true, smacks of folly. In fact, he was very much criticized for using "great books" like Plato, Aristotle, Nietszche etc. by critics. Read feminist Susan Faludi's Backlash (1992? maybe), which has a whole section on Bloom and Closing. She seems to be very upset he doesn't use any statistics to back up his opinions. She wants to "drain the swamp" (her words) of all the great thinkers and books. It is a telling comment, and shows what type of mind Faludi has, and what type of mind Bloom has. My point, he does use Great Books in Closing even if you don't see it. Great Books is a curriculum and Bloom does champion the spirit of this movement. Although the "required reading list", he may not completely condone. It is one of the least controversial or unique aspects of his thought, and is really just a reasserting of the traditional University of Chicago's liberal arts tradition under Robert Maynard Hutchins. --Mikerussell 05:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope that with the arrival of autumn whoever made the Great Books edit has finished Closing and discovered that near the end Bloom explicitly advocates for the Great Books program. --jayinbmore 02:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Added Infobox and better bibliography

I added a cleaner and more complete bibliography on Bloom, and works by him, as well as info box. The article really needs to be better referenced using the <ref> system and additions could also be reasonably made relating to neglected aspects of his scholarship and political debate surrounding himself too, but that's another day.--Mikerussell 07:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Rock Music quote from Closing

Some anonymous editor added a quote to the Quotes section about Bloom's picture of the effect of rock music on young people- the 13 year old boy quote 'throbbing' which got a lot of people upset- and is thus pretty famous. I removed it only because the quote used a paraphase of the preceding sentences that made it appear Bloom was talking about technology, as opposed to primarily the music and its omnipresence; he does mention technology as a means that increases the availability of rock music and videos, but it is misleading to say it is primarily about that. If the person wants to re-add it without the paraphase, that would be fine as far as I am concerned. --Mikerussell 00:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a couple of quotes that suffice just as well, I think--Mikerussell 18:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Bloom's own sexuality (Revisited 2007)

Reference is made to Bloom's homosexuality and AIDS on page 226 of the book "Unacknowledged Legislation" by Christopher Hitchens. His homosexuality is mentioned on page 195 of "Bound and Gagged" by Laura Kipnis. His homosexuality and death from AIDS is mentioned on page 128 of "Carpe Manana" by Leonard Sweet. I'll stop with these three, but many more books, magazine articles etc. mention his homosexuality and death from AIDS. I have made mention of this in the article. Ruy Lopez 17:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's also here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20000416/ai_n13857904 Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"First literal translation of the Republic"

The present article makes the following claim:

According to online bookseller Alibris, "it is the first translation of Plato's Republic that attempts to be strictly literal, the volume has been long regarded as the closest and best English translation available."

Alibris appears to be simply paraphrasing the advertisement that appears on the back cover of the 2nd (1991) edition of Bloom's translation: "Long regarded as the most accurate rendering of Plato's Republic that has yet been published, this widely acclaimed work is the first strictly literal translation of a timeless classic." It's doubtful that this counts as a good independent source for the claim in question.Isokrates 14:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

True, good point, should have been taken out and rephrased long ago- embarrassing really, but I hope others will improve the article, add to it, and make it foolproof, something I cannot do myself, being such one. Plus no time!--Mikerussell 22:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Critical reception section additions

I deleted one comment relating to Jaffa's article which I read not too long ago, written in 1987. The comment:

the implication being that Bloom's own homoeroticism kept him quiet about the antinomian protests of the movement.

Firstly, Jaffa knew Bloom privately, but he was writing at a time when Bloom was not publically, and widely, known as a homosexual; many of his best students, friends and colleauges did not know for Bloom was a private person and kept things such. Thus Jaffa is really not able to leave an implication about "Bloom's homoeroticism". If you read that article, Jaffa is writing about undergraduates being "convinced" or "persauded" to "try" homosexuality "on" as an "identity" while at college. It is very hard to link this comment to Bloom's lack of discussion of gay rights, especially as it seems Bloom was gay, and did not "try it on" and go back to being straight, which is really the aim of Jaffa's mention. Bloom did not encourage people to be gay either- he is often still regarded as a "self-hating" gay person by some, and I have a hard time agreeing that Bloom had any overt "homoeroticism" in his writing or philosophy. Whatever his private inclinations were, he was a teacher concerned about eros- and to qualify it as homoerotic is placing your own valence on the matter. Probably a retrospective valence- since it is now known Bloom was a homosexual. I personally did not think the guy was gay until it came out in Bellow's book. Perhaps Jaffa was sending Bloom a private message, but the reader could not be open to this; I think Jaffa just thought Bloom did not go far enough and he wanted to add to the issue. Thus the comment added by an anonymous editor from Milwaukee violates wikipedia's NPOV. The other stuff the user added, adds to the article, but that line doesn't in my opinion and I deleted it.--Mikerussell 00:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

On a 2nd reading, I edited out a too strong POV, and tried to include added material less tainted with a personal opinion and too much of a direct quote from a 3rd party.--Mikerussell 02:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It was revealed?

Dudes, what was revealed, this sentence does not make sense this way. Please remove or complete the sentence. In it, among other personal details previously not disclosed publicly, it was revealed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.68.136 (talk) 03:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It is better then misleading the reader, Ravelstein is NOT a memoir- it is fiction, only inferences can be reasonably taken. Bellow did not claim anything in the novel, it is not some sort of memoir abouut Bloom, half of the novel is about "Chick's" near death experience in the Carribbean after eating some bad gucamolly or sea serpent or something, as I recall. The sentence needs to be reestablished imho.--Mike Russell 19:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What is gucamolly? Google yields only 33 results for it, which seems remarkably few for some kind of food, and none of the results actually define it. Can you start an article about gucamolly and say where it grows and what cultures eat it? Is it a Caribbean marine animal like the sea serpent you mentioned? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.18.107 (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculously POV

With respect to the section on The Closing of the American Mind, the article contains these:

POV: "The power behind Bloom's critique of contemporary social movements at play in universities or society at large is derived from his philosophical orientation." What power? I read the book. I noted no "power" whatsoever. I noted impotent claptrap and drivel. My POV is that the tCotAM was stroke-book material for right-wing nuts like Podhoretz, and fake-wise-man media drag queens like George Will. Don’t like my POV? Fine. It doesn’t excuse inclusion in the article of the peon phrase I cite.

POV: "Treating ["rock music"] with great seriousness, he gave fresh attention to the industry, its target-marketing to children and teenagers, its top performers, and its hypocritical pretensions to liberation and freedom." "Great seriousness"? What seriousness? Bloom appeared, from his writing in tCotAM, to know next to nothing at all about contemporary pop music (and why should he have?). "Fresh attention?" Fresh attention from whom? "Fresh attention" from the staff of National Review? "Fresh attention" from the editors of Lawn Jockey Enthusiasts Quarterly? "Fresh attention" is POV. "Top performers?" Bloom’s opinions were addle-pated. "Hypocritical pretentions?" who’s speaking here, the sycophantic article editor or Bloom? The sentence is unquestionably POV. That’s my POV. Don’t like my POV? Fine. It’s no excuse for this sentence, which is POV from beginning to end.

There are other examples.

Bloom’s ideas are appropriate to describe in the article, to one or another degree of detail. Language extolling his works’ "power", "seriousness", "freshness" etc. is POV and is clearly inappropriate.

There is exactly one sentence in the entire article suggesting that anyone disagreed with Bloom’s views as expressed in The Closing of the American Mind. It’s a one sentence quote of Frank Zappa’s. The slightly confusing paragraph under the "Critical reception" header seems at most very weak tea.

"The success of the work attracted a wide spectrum of critics..." My POV is that the astonishing comical crappiness of the book attracted a wide spectrum of critics. Look, if this sentence just read "The work attracted a wide spectrum of critics..." it would be fine- do you see? Rt3368 (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Closing of the American Mind cover.jpg

Image:Closing of the American Mind cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:AllanBloom collage.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:AllanBloom collage.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content—the photograph of Bloom itself of which the photograph includes multiple copies—so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 74.72.53.184 (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The image is tagged as created by the uploader, but I think it's self-evident that the uploader at most did no more than take a photograph of the photograph(s) of Bloom, but this amounts to no more than copying. Without source information for that underlying photograph, and/or a fair use rationale or license to use that photograph, it cannot be used here. I've notified the uploader of this problem as well. 74.72.53.184 (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Its really not a very attractive picture and regardless of inapplicable copyright issues, Bloom deserves a better image than a cheap hobgoblin double take. Surprised it has lasted so long anyway. I copied the original complanant's rational above for anyone who cares to read the quasi, semi, half-cocked, legal cover story. Legally it has a bunch of holes in it I hesitate to even say its a legal argument, its just somebody's opinion on copyright law without any jurisdisdiction, statute or case precedents cited, so don't take it very seriously, but the picture isn't worth keeping here.--Mike Russell 14:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bloom's Republic Translation and essay.gif

Image:Bloom's Republic Translation and essay.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bloom's Republic Translation and essay.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL!

It is hardly a neutral account of his thought, simply because the narrator agrees with Bloom constantly. Exploring his ideas is one thing, but read the paragraphs regarding "The Closing of the American Mind":

Treating (rock music) with great seriousness, he gave fresh attention to the industry, its target-marketing to children and teenagers, its top performers, and its hypocritical pretensions to liberation and freedom. Some critics, including Frank Zappa, denounced Bloom's view of rock music as a form of racist bigotry.[13] Bloom, informed by Socrates, Aristotle, Rousseau and Nietzsche, explores music’s power over the human soul. He cites the soldier who throws himself into battle at the urging of the drum corps, the pious believer who prays under the spell of a religious hymn, the lover seduced by the romantic guitar, and points towards the tradition of philosophy that treated musical education as paramount. He names Mick Jagger as a cardinal representative of the hypocrisy and intellectual sterility of rock. Pop music employs sexual images and language to enthrall the young, and persuade them that their petty rebelliousness is authentic politics, when in fact they are being controlled by the money-managers whom successful performers like Jagger quietly serve...Along with the absence of literature in the lives of the young, and their fractured erotic relationships, the first part of Closing tries to explain the current state of education in a fashion beyond the purview of an economist or psychiatrist – contemporary culture's leading umpires.

Dear God, where does one begin!? There are more unsourced, flagrantly POV pontifications by this blowhard narrator than Carter has pills. Not only does the author wax-poetic to the point of linguistic fellatio, but such florid writing is used as a substitute for sourced quotes, or other reliable sources. Also, the mention of Zappa's criticism, which should be quoted, not just footnoted, is merely a pretext for the author to transfigure Bloom to the ranks of the other demigods and prophets on his personal list: Bloom, informed by Socrates, Aristotle, Rousseau and Nietzsche, explores music’s power over the human soul. He cites the soldier who throws himself into battle at the urging of the drum corps, the pious believer who prays under the spell of a religious hymn, the lover seduced by the romantic guitar, and points towards the tradition of philosophy that treated musical education as paramount. Who wrote this drivel, Longfellow? And since when did economics and psychiatry become leading umpires? Is it even possible to source such a statement?

How about this:

Pop music employs sexual images and language to enthrall the young, and persuade them that their petty rebelliousness is authentic politics, when in fact they are being controlled by the money-managers whom successful performers like Jagger quietly serve.

Who says pop music employs sexual images for this reason? Who says the listeners are rebellious? There's plenty of middle-aged fans of rock music. Who says they are being controlled, or that anyone is even trying to control them? Who says Jagger "quietly serves" these ghostly beings? In addition to being potentially libelous, as Jagger is still alive, it is a clear-cut case of Original Research, forbidden on wiki guidelines. In addition, though it isn't relevant, one could say the exact same things about Bloom, if one wanted. The conservative movement often portrays itself as rebels against a supposed left-wing conspiracy, and since Bloom makes money for his publisher with a bestselling book, he is "clearly" just a huxter. Considering the ease of throwing around such ad hominems, how could such a POV, OR rant even be relevant? This is but a small example of why this page needs serious rewriting, and a neutrality tag in the mean time. NPOV? Please...72.78.173.246 (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoever you are, you need to learn how to edit discussion pages- place new items at the bottom, not top. Secondly you have just personally insulted me, "the blowhard" as you say and my style of prose without a lick of reference to the section(s) of Closing, which I would wager you have never read. Try to improve the article and not take out your anger at editors writing in good faith and threaten law suits on behalf of British royality (the sure sign of an idiot in life- "the I will sue you response"). The paragraph that enrages you is really just a summary of the "Music" section in Closing p. 68-81, and you need to refer to the text and not the editor if you want to improve articles. Everything I cite, the authors and examples of music's historical roles, Mick Jagger's role in the historical eveolution of "rock" and Bloom's reference to the sexual content aimed at young people are directly from the text. Anybody can edit any article in wikipedia, it is hardly an elite endevour so please go ahead and improve any page you deem yourself qualified to edit. I think your hysterical reaction to Bloom's analysis is just the same old close-mindness that Bloom's original work exposed (published in 1987). Comments like "Who says" is deep insight, especially when the obvious answer is Bloom says- the article is about him. The article is allowed and intended to reflect his analysis and such wee-mind drivel as "adults like rock music" completely miss the point of the work and his thoughtful assessment. Try to edit and not vent like a loser, thanks.--Mike Russell 14:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The "Closing of the American Mind" reads like a telephonebook of philosophers What Bertrand Russell would call:"Intellectual Rubbish". George Corvin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.207.70.81 (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent NPOV edits

I removed some clearly jaded comments planted to scew the read towards an interpretation of Allan Bloom, and Closing, as a conservative ideologue and his success as a product of some master Conservo-Americano conspiracy in the oh-so Straussian friendly US publishing climate of the late 1980s. These types of edits are frustration in understanding Bloom's challenging and insightful arguments that made the book such an incredible success. You read parts of this article and the person gets the feeling it was all some sort of spelling error that he became a millionaire and a public figure because Closing sold so many and won such esteem world-wide. Nussbaum's view was in the article to begin with and I left the excessive commentary she offers because it shows her level of thought on the matter. But "planting" negative views from people like Chomsky and Paggilla is just so clearly beyond decent editorial standards, I removed them. Who gives a crap what Chomsky thinks- stick his ideas in his article, he is hardly a champion of objectivity and beats people over the head with his idiotic intolernace of things like sporting events even. I mean if people went around sticking Bloom or Strauss comments of other scholars in their wikipedia articles would that be fair? Mybe the editor just doesn't bother even reading Bloom because they do not actually incorporate or change any section dealing with his texts. Finding and using criticisms of his arguments cannot be that difficult- check out Sidney Hook for one.--Mike Russell 15:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear me. Well, Chomsky's relevance appears to have been spelled out in the paragraph in which he is quoted: he is part of what Bloom is attacking. (It is a source of some amusement to me that this book, like those of the heretics in the early church, is known to new readers only through the attacks on it that still surface from old warriors.)

About Paglia, she is a notable commentator on what was called the culture wars, and we don't have a statement that places the book in that context, one which certainly deserves mention.

I really don't know about world-wide esteem, you know. It seems to have been mainly a North American phenomenon, unsurprisingly. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to include a new paragraph about all the political conservatives that liked the work, go ahead and use George Will, but to insert it in the middle of a paragraph that cites Goldstein, William. “The Story behind the Best Seller: Allan Bloom’s Closing of the American Mind.” Publishers Weekly. 3 July 1987. is just poor writing, and if it was an academic paper you might even get accused of plagerism depending upon your level of study since laziness in upper years is no excuse to intellectual fraud. As far as "About Paglia, she is a notable commentator on what was called the culture wars" this needs a source to be anything more than your personal opinion, but of course such a source should only be cited in her article, or one on culture wars (which by the way wikipedia's article doesn't even mention her), not Bloom's. Chomsky is irrelevent; Bloom does not mention him in his work, nor do they share any academic subject matter- you need a source to back up your contention that he is relevent to what Bloom is "attacking"; otherwise, you are just interjecting your own opinion, groundless and misguided to be frank. Why not use Hook or John Rawls at least- Bloom definitely wrote about Rawls directly, even if it was directed to one of his adherents (Hall). You are just selecting quotes that satisfies some personal algebra in your mind to depreciate the work and its author because you are convinced you know the real value of the work. Substituting your judgment for "objectivity" is just foolishness, not "unencyclopaedic". Moreoever, you seem to admit to not reading the text itself, which I gather from your above comment and the fact you claim the work to be merely "polemical", which is far from accurate, but the result of secondary opinion. The work deals with history, education, philosophy and current education (1987), it was criticized for being too academic and dry, and Bloom's stated "practical" or "political" purpose was impractical to almost everyone- a reform of universities- and thus is more of a lament. Who exactly are you anyway? and why I ask is because you seem to have a high opinion of your own opinion, and you need to back up yours- why should anybody believe that Bloom's book was "mainly a North American phenomenon, unsurprisingly". What does that mean? How would you know or what do you base this comment on? Bloom was a philopsher and regarded as such around the world- his academic career and lasting impact in philosophy are easy to document. To back up my own obvious opinion, I would use as a source, Jim Sleeper's 2005 New York Times article available online and cited in the bibliography- "Allan Bloom and the Conservative Mind ". Interesting that the NY Times thinks publishing an article almost 20 years after Closing was written is newsworthy. I think this says something about how lasting a work it is and others should read the book especially if they only hear of from "warriors".--Mike Russell 04:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My dear chap, Bloom was an average philosopher. A time-server, one of the many such in a movement of esotericists paradoxically always more robust outside the academy than in.

I admit that the book, which I have read, did not strike me as particularly impressive either as reportage, philosophy or policy except in the degree of revulsion expressed, but that doesn't mean that I have any particular agenda on it. I did not originally add Chomsky, but I do not think you have made a case for removing him. Paglia definitely is relevant; I don't see your argument against that inclusion at all.

Your strange remark about plagiarism (!) about Will and Goldstein puzzles me. The Will statement was independently referenced. We do not, on WP, restrict ourself to a single footnote a paragraph.

About Bloom's book and North America, I base it on personal experience - though it should not be surprising, as the context of its success was an anti-intellectualism that has been peculiarly American since Tocqueville. If it is to be reinstated, the onus is on the reinstater to provide a source that indicates it was indeed a worldwide success, in which case I will raise my eyebrows.

My own background is immaterial. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Bloom was an average philosopher according to Relata refero

It is plagerism to attribute to one author something that is not stated by that author. The first paragraph is about the Goldstein article, you are a very poor reader to miss that. Have you read that article. What makes wikipedia such a second rate, flawed source is these things in particuliar, making wikipedia an outright sham for any student to use at any level of their education. You misrepresent what Goldstein says by inserting Will's quote. About your cowardice to identify yourself, I am not surprised, this is another thing that makes wikipedia just so much Google spam. Your anonymous opinion is a wonderful opinion, it adds so much to the article. Your comments above, or "reasons" for re-including comments seems trivial and based solely upon your perceptions. But this is the great flaw in wikipedia. You have simply interjecetd your opinion, but that is what wikipedia is all about, and why it is a waste of time to read and edit the articles that describe anything beyond the common place or physical. If you can't take a picture of it- forget it- wikipedia is just a swamp of dummies with their own 2 cents. There are so many more electronic resources available to a person through their public and academic libraries and the books themselves can never be replaced by the simpleton struts that falls across way too many pages. Anyway, off to more important things, I won't engage in pointless reversions and revisions, you have made your point well.--Mike Russell 14:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you say (except in that it applies to me, of course!). Whatever my personal opinions, however, I do not believe that they affect my edits to this or any other article. It would be helpful if you engaged with my reasons, rather than dismissing them as trivial and based on preconceived perception. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)