What do you think?
Rate this book
MINE DANNELSESAGENTER
Rune Slagstad har i de siste femti årene etablert seg som en av Norges mest innflytelsesrike offentlige intellektuelle. Med innsikt, vidd og originalitet har han preget en rekke store debatter i norsk samfunnsliv. Som få andre har han kastet seg ut i polemisk strid, men alltid for å bidra til meningsbrytning og styrke fundamentet i vår politiske og demokratiske kultur. I Mine dannelsesagenter møter vi personer Rune Slagstad har debattert med og/ eller portrettert - de har alle på forskjellig vis formet hans tenkning. Det er marxister og feminister, filosofer og teologer, kunstnere og aktivister, politikere og historikere, journalister og jurister, som har hatt dannende betydning for hans offentlige virke siden det tidlige 1970-tall. Via 99 kapitler tegner han et personlig farget portrett av en intellektuell epoke i norsk historie. Rune Slagstad har tidligere vært professor i ulike disipliner og er nå tilknyttet Institutt for samfunnsforskning i Oslo.
Paperback
Published January 1, 2021
4 people are currently reading
13 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
March 8, 2022
A tale of two cultures
At my desk I have three books that both contains the word ”cultured”, “dannelse” or “building”. All three have more than 500 pages. What “cultured” really should be translated to in English, I do not know. “education” is too narrow, “cultured” or “A gentleman’s or lady’s education” may give better context.
The self-biographic novel by Rune Slagstad belongs to one kind of “cultured” spheres , the reviewer to a second kind and may be also to the bridge between the two cultures.
There are two kinds of “cultured”; the first is that the members immediately understand what it means when there are references to Hegel, Habermas, and Heidegger. The second is that you immediately understand what a p-value is, that game theory is not about internet games and that you don’t need to consult Wikipedia when Von Neumann–Morgenstern utility theorem is mentioned.
Unfortunately, most people would consult Wikipedia in the last case.
The self-biographic novel by Slagstad is fun to read. It is in the upper quartile of self-conscious stories. The author is the hero in the book, with “permission to kill”: “ N.N. final report… is an academic embarrassment.”(My translation). p. 146. “This is an error I did not anticipate from an analytic philosopher.” p. 218. Within the first kind of “cultured”, there is often a desire to understand issues in the context of the private life of the actors. In this respect, the Slagstad’s novel is excellent: “... for several persons, inclusive his best friend, N.N. this (theology as a science) is as highly realistic phenomenon. p.253. I could add that I know two persons where one is a famous physicist and the other is religious, and they happen to be the same person.
Conflicting and contrasting viewpoints. I do not know if it is only characteristic for the first kind of “cultured”, but within that “cultured” community, that is the intelligencia, contrasting viewpoints are more prevalent than in the second kind of “cultured”. For example, in Slagstad you read about Habermas “... is an intellectual superpower” (and with 31 references), whereas Dietrich Schwanitz write about Habermas: “ From their language you recognize the old sixty-eight’ers. However, many of them are sitting in the chairs of the cultural administration, and those that want to enter, should learn the Frankfurter dialect. “ p. 343 and with 1 reference. By the way, in Slagstad’s novel, the reviewer’s father has 34 references, 3 more than Habermas- and this of course give a good reason for assuming that this review is not unbiased.
Discussions among those carrying the label “”cultured -Habermas style” are often without euphemisms: “Surprisingly peculiar” and “arrogantly neglect” p. 252 would be two examples of direct language. “
The second kind of “cultured”. This reviewer, if belonging to anything, belongs to the second kind of “cultured”, that is, those that recognize the term “p-value”. This reviewer also pretends to understand all terms in a verse quoted by Hernes 2022. “A young person’s Guide to Positivism.” (And a little technical, the term Kendall’s Tau corresponds to the p-value for non- normal distributions.)
For both kinds of “cultured” it is true that what they write and discuss the text and the language are not readily assessable to members of the other kind of “culture”. However, for the first kind it is characteristic that they do not know it is inaccessible to members of their own kind. And this may be the reason why their discussions or discourses can go on forever, and the winner is the ones that lives longest.
Where Slagstad focus on defending his kind of “cultured” and his views, Hernes, in his academic self- biography focus on the possibility of bridging the gap between the two kinds of ” cultured”. To me, the latter avenue is a better way than the first. The title of Slagstad’s book promise nothing, except to learn what Slagstad learned. However, I still anticipated that I would learn something from the other “city”. However, in spite of being entertaining, I did not learn much from “He is wrong, I am right”. However, that may be my fault and my ignorance and my kind of "cultured".
References
Hernes 2022. “Power investigator and Power practitioner, observations in Norwegian Public life. (my translation)
Dietrich Schwanitz: “Bildung”
At my desk I have three books that both contains the word ”cultured”, “dannelse” or “building”. All three have more than 500 pages. What “cultured” really should be translated to in English, I do not know. “education” is too narrow, “cultured” or “A gentleman’s or lady’s education” may give better context.
The self-biographic novel by Rune Slagstad belongs to one kind of “cultured” spheres , the reviewer to a second kind and may be also to the bridge between the two cultures.
There are two kinds of “cultured”; the first is that the members immediately understand what it means when there are references to Hegel, Habermas, and Heidegger. The second is that you immediately understand what a p-value is, that game theory is not about internet games and that you don’t need to consult Wikipedia when Von Neumann–Morgenstern utility theorem is mentioned.
Unfortunately, most people would consult Wikipedia in the last case.
The self-biographic novel by Slagstad is fun to read. It is in the upper quartile of self-conscious stories. The author is the hero in the book, with “permission to kill”: “ N.N. final report… is an academic embarrassment.”(My translation). p. 146. “This is an error I did not anticipate from an analytic philosopher.” p. 218. Within the first kind of “cultured”, there is often a desire to understand issues in the context of the private life of the actors. In this respect, the Slagstad’s novel is excellent: “... for several persons, inclusive his best friend, N.N. this (theology as a science) is as highly realistic phenomenon. p.253. I could add that I know two persons where one is a famous physicist and the other is religious, and they happen to be the same person.
Conflicting and contrasting viewpoints. I do not know if it is only characteristic for the first kind of “cultured”, but within that “cultured” community, that is the intelligencia, contrasting viewpoints are more prevalent than in the second kind of “cultured”. For example, in Slagstad you read about Habermas “... is an intellectual superpower” (and with 31 references), whereas Dietrich Schwanitz write about Habermas: “ From their language you recognize the old sixty-eight’ers. However, many of them are sitting in the chairs of the cultural administration, and those that want to enter, should learn the Frankfurter dialect. “ p. 343 and with 1 reference. By the way, in Slagstad’s novel, the reviewer’s father has 34 references, 3 more than Habermas- and this of course give a good reason for assuming that this review is not unbiased.
Discussions among those carrying the label “”cultured -Habermas style” are often without euphemisms: “Surprisingly peculiar” and “arrogantly neglect” p. 252 would be two examples of direct language. “
The second kind of “cultured”. This reviewer, if belonging to anything, belongs to the second kind of “cultured”, that is, those that recognize the term “p-value”. This reviewer also pretends to understand all terms in a verse quoted by Hernes 2022. “A young person’s Guide to Positivism.” (And a little technical, the term Kendall’s Tau corresponds to the p-value for non- normal distributions.)
For both kinds of “cultured” it is true that what they write and discuss the text and the language are not readily assessable to members of the other kind of “culture”. However, for the first kind it is characteristic that they do not know it is inaccessible to members of their own kind. And this may be the reason why their discussions or discourses can go on forever, and the winner is the ones that lives longest.
Where Slagstad focus on defending his kind of “cultured” and his views, Hernes, in his academic self- biography focus on the possibility of bridging the gap between the two kinds of ” cultured”. To me, the latter avenue is a better way than the first. The title of Slagstad’s book promise nothing, except to learn what Slagstad learned. However, I still anticipated that I would learn something from the other “city”. However, in spite of being entertaining, I did not learn much from “He is wrong, I am right”. However, that may be my fault and my ignorance and my kind of "cultured".
References
Hernes 2022. “Power investigator and Power practitioner, observations in Norwegian Public life. (my translation)
Dietrich Schwanitz: “Bildung”
Displaying 1 of 1 review