Fodor is a lively writer and easy to read, but I don't find him much fun. The bias and rhetoric get tiresome. The difference with good fiction is that you shouldn't feel like it's trying to persuade or cajole you into adopting the author's preferred opinions. Using the qualification "when I'm feeling dyspeptic" doesn't do much to tone down the ridiculous lack of charity towards psychology. He may not think much of Freud's attempt to expand the concept of mind beyond conscious thought, but to ignore the various reasons Freud gives for his position and instead just call it a 'bundle of muddle' is lazy. Having said all that, perhaps I don't like reading him because he is dismissive of the things I take seriously. I love reading Raymond Geuss, who is probably guilty of the same flaws as Fodor (as well as displaying some of the same virtues, perhaps), but I'm on board with the things he says---so maybe this is the reason I can enjoy his polemical or dyspeptic remarks.
You're not alone I'm certain. I have friends who've said the same to me. But even though I also disagree with a lot of what Fodor wrote (especially about evolution, where he was deeply confused), I find the writing very entertaining.
Perhaps it helps that I think there is a grain of truth in what he is saying about psychology. It's true that terms like "dyspeptic" and "bundle of muddle" are more dismissive than they need to be, but I do think psychology is astray and lost in some pretty critical ways. So I read this writing less as lazy and more: let's call it unforgiving satire. Some comics have views I don't agree with and satirise things I like, but I still find them funny.
It's also honest. Fodor may be completely wrong but he is a serious thinker and he holds his views sincerely: he really does think there is a bundle of muddle out there. So I know it can come across as rude but I also think serious and sincere are good things. We all self-censor and perhaps we do it too much.
I like the example of comics. A good comic can satirise something I like and I still find it funny. But when a bad comic does it, it’s embarrassing: like the out-of-touch uncle who tries to dress up his old-fashioned views with bad jokes. This is a similar point to what I said about good fiction: it shouldn’t feel like the author is trying to push her opinions down your throat.
I don’t doubt that Fodor sincerely believes his own views, and in that sense he’s honest. But he seems dishonest in another sense: he uses rhetoric to manipulate his readers into accepting his preferred opinions about things. It would be nice if he tried to welcome real dialogue about things (like psychology) rather than trying to shut it down with his high-handed judgements.
Fodor is a lively writer and easy to read, but I don't find him much fun. The bias and rhetoric get tiresome. The difference with good fiction is that you shouldn't feel like it's trying to persuade or cajole you into adopting the author's preferred opinions. Using the qualification "when I'm feeling dyspeptic" doesn't do much to tone down the ridiculous lack of charity towards psychology. He may not think much of Freud's attempt to expand the concept of mind beyond conscious thought, but to ignore the various reasons Freud gives for his position and instead just call it a 'bundle of muddle' is lazy. Having said all that, perhaps I don't like reading him because he is dismissive of the things I take seriously. I love reading Raymond Geuss, who is probably guilty of the same flaws as Fodor (as well as displaying some of the same virtues, perhaps), but I'm on board with the things he says---so maybe this is the reason I can enjoy his polemical or dyspeptic remarks.
You're not alone I'm certain. I have friends who've said the same to me. But even though I also disagree with a lot of what Fodor wrote (especially about evolution, where he was deeply confused), I find the writing very entertaining.
Perhaps it helps that I think there is a grain of truth in what he is saying about psychology. It's true that terms like "dyspeptic" and "bundle of muddle" are more dismissive than they need to be, but I do think psychology is astray and lost in some pretty critical ways. So I read this writing less as lazy and more: let's call it unforgiving satire. Some comics have views I don't agree with and satirise things I like, but I still find them funny.
It's also honest. Fodor may be completely wrong but he is a serious thinker and he holds his views sincerely: he really does think there is a bundle of muddle out there. So I know it can come across as rude but I also think serious and sincere are good things. We all self-censor and perhaps we do it too much.
I like the example of comics. A good comic can satirise something I like and I still find it funny. But when a bad comic does it, it’s embarrassing: like the out-of-touch uncle who tries to dress up his old-fashioned views with bad jokes. This is a similar point to what I said about good fiction: it shouldn’t feel like the author is trying to push her opinions down your throat.
I don’t doubt that Fodor sincerely believes his own views, and in that sense he’s honest. But he seems dishonest in another sense: he uses rhetoric to manipulate his readers into accepting his preferred opinions about things. It would be nice if he tried to welcome real dialogue about things (like psychology) rather than trying to shut it down with his high-handed judgements.