In case there aren’t enough self-help books on the market, the unctuous Krista Tippett has decided to contribute her own. Out April 5, it bears the portentous title Becoming Wise: An Inquiry into the Mystery and Art of Living. This was brought to my attention by reader Jane, who heard Tippett interviewed by Michael Krasny on KQED radio in the San Francisco Bay area, and added that Tippett’s “sanctimonious bloviations triggered my gag reflex.”
I’m not sure why I immediately had to listen to this 51-minute interview, but I suppose it’s for the same reason that you sniff the milk carton when you already know it’s gone bad. You seek confirmation of your fears.
I could ignore Tippett, I suppose, but to me she’s a case study in the popularity of “sprituality.” Her “On Being” show is wildly popular, her new book is already heading for Best Seller Land (soon to be on sale in fine airport bookstores everywhere), and yet I find her repugnant and fluffy. She hasn’t met a religion she doesn’t love, is infatuated with “spirituality,” uses a lot of words to say nothing in particular, and always seems on the verge of bursting into tears at the depth of her own insights. You can hear all of the above on the interview, which you can listen to by clicking on the screenshot:
Now I know that most of you will shy away from this fluff, but listen to at least a bit of it. Perhaps then you can explain to me why NPR listeners, who are supposed to be liberal and pretty intelligent, are so drawn to this spiritual bloviation. Do their Audis and big flat-screen t.v.s leave them spiritually empty, so they stuff the half-full crate of their lives with the styrofoam peanuts proffered by Tippett? What does her popularity (she got the National Medal of Freedom from Obama) say about America?
At any rate, some of the Big Questions she considers are these: What it is to be human? How do we love (“not meant in a fluffy way”, but as a “muscular practice”)? What makes for a good life? What makes for a good death? You know, the questions that people consider when they’re not busy living their lives, taking care of their families, and doing their jobs.
One part well worth hearing starts at about 14:30, when the question of Islamic terrorism arises. Tippett is clearly discomfited, and for once is at a temporary loss for words. She concludes that “Terrorism is just a huge existential crisis within Islam”, and that “Islam’s internal crisis is all of our crisis. ” She offers her cure for that terrorism, which seems to be some nebulous concoction of love, empathy, and the “right vocabulary” (which she doesn’t specify):
“What I attend to when I’m looking at about global terrorism. . . the common denominator I see is a huge amount of raw human pain and fear.” . . We don’t have good vocabularies; we don’t have the patience to take that pain and fear directly and address it head on, and so we see a lot of dynamics that just replicate themselves over and over again. . . . We have to start grappling with that directly if we’re going to advance.”
Two other LOLzy moments. At 27:45 a caller asks her, “Is there really any difference between faith and superstition?” She gets a bit huffy, saying that that is a demeaning question for billions of faithful around the world. But in reality the question is a very good one, and the answer is “not really.”
And, at 25:44, Tippett tipptoes into accommodationist territory, trying to claim that scientists are like religious people. Her gambit: scientists like Einstein love “mystery”, and, claims Tippett, “mystery is at the orthodox core of our religious traditions.” Move over, Elaine Ecklund.
I won’t go on, but I defy you to listen to the entire 51 minutes and then answer this question: did Tippett say anything new, meaningful, or substantive during her interview? If her life on the air has given her wisdom, it’s not evident from her gaseous lucubrations.
I’ll just take your word for it that the milk has gone bad.
Sub
PCC asks: “did Tippett say anything new, meaningful, or substantive during her interview?”
No. And I’m not going to listen to 51 minutes of Tippett bloviation just in case I’m wrong. Life is too short and I have dishes to wash.
That’s how I feel too. It’s 51 minutes I’ll never get back. I already spend a lot of time listening to those I don’t agree with, including a couple of hours of Fox News a day. The stupidity of this sort of thing just irritates me intensely and makes me want to slap them, and I’m about as non-violent as they come.
Why do you think the laws of physics compels you to listen to this stuff? Following on from the earlier post, perhaps your purpose in life is to do this so that the rest of us don’t have to 🙂
Hey! I spend hours writing on this site for free. Can’t people invest at least ten minutes in listening to the interview?
One of the benefits of WEIT is having you do your fair review of material not worth me listening to but is important I know it exists.
Question for PCC(E):
At what point would you, after all your work in producing FvF, and after all your listening to “spiritual” and “sophisticated” religious people, decide it would be time to move on? I hear the word “spiritual” and I automatically think “incoherent, waste of time, moving on”. (I did listen to the interview, for about 20 minutes.)
I enjoy your posts about these subjects, and am grateful for them, but I’m also horrified to think of myself–or anyone, really–reading and listening to these things over and over, especially for free. Do you have hope that they’ll eventually “get it”, and would like to witness when it happens? Is it morbid curiosity? Or maybe it’s a sort of journalistic spirit, as in “Today, from the world of nonsense, I report…”? Of course, there’s always the possibility that witnessing the idiocy of other people is just fun… 🙂
Yes. So I listened to this while I washed the dishes and did a couple of other chores. I still answer “no”. A lot of what she says is merely coded language for a few trite concepts that pass for wisdom in her circles. Where she said anything with meaning it was simply trivial; something so obvious as scarcely to need utterance – where for instance she talks about making laws that then become perverted or ignored and isn’t that awful? and we really need love. One can’t say it’s nonsense but one can say it is obvious and nobody who’s given it any thought needs a Krista Tippett to tell them.
and it annoys me when she brings buddhism into the conversation when she clearly has at best a very superficial acquaintance with it. She needs to do the hard work of figuring it all out for herself instead of taking the easy way out and just parroting all the supposed to be “wise”. But then she, like the rest of us wouldn’t want to belabour it with all this pseudo-deep analysis any more.
She just wants to fan-girl the Dalai Lama and how wonderful he is. Gag …
Yep — the Buddha was actually quite confronting. The Dhammapada is basically getting in people’s faces about how we ruin our own lives with our greed and stupidity. Not a peep of that kind of thing from her though.
I just listened to her interview w/Kerri Miller on my local KNOW, St. Paul, MN. And annoying it was! I will now listen to the one you posted. I need an emetic … 🙂
Hank help me, I down-loaded the interview and I’m listening to it.
How to live? Well, according to how one of my colleague’s two young daughters put it on a piece of paper for him to pin to his cubicle wall for frequent reference: “Be Real Nice!”
She cannot improve on that.
OK, I listened to the whole thing. It was somewhat less gag-inducing than the MPR show that aired from 12-1, here in St. Paul, MN, today. Believe it or not!
That’s because Krasny was more hard-nosed in some of his questions, more direct than our local Kerri Miller (who really likes to suck up to the religious folks and get all warm and fuzzy by attending to the mystery.)
Your free writing is much appreciated. Honestly, I can’t keep up will all that you write, nevermind some of the lengthy material you reference. I’ll take your word on this one that it’s 51 minutes of drivel. 🙂
Jerry, a generic comment type I often get when I do posts on GOP debates goes something like, “Thanks for watching this so I didn’t have to.”
We appreciate that you’ve suffered for us. 🙂
With respect, PCC, no.
I rather hope our comment was meant facetiously.
Thing is, you’ve just told us the interview is a waste of time. I’m content to take your word for it. If I have ten minutes to spare I feel it would be better spent reading the comments here or viewing other posts of yours – not all of which I have time to read.
When you post about an interview of interest – say with Sam Harris or Dawkins or some such person – then I usually will find the time to listen. But, with respect, I will resist the temptation to sniff the bad milk carton just to confirm it’s undrinkable. 😉
cr
People like to get high on empty words and promises of betterment in the hope of eluding reality for ever. People look for simple answers to difficult questions, and the more nebulous the answer is given, the more meaning they will ascribe to it, despite its emptiness and meaninglessness. The truth is that there is no simple answer to any difficult question concerning life, and anyone claiming otherwise, be it religion or a single person, are liars or, in case they believe what they say, wrong.
Yes; many people seem to think that using a thesaurus while trying to answer a question means they’ve answered it well.
I tried so once, but it sounded weird – probably because I knew what the words meant.
not to be TOO snarky, but, from her picture (I’d never seen her before and she looks kind of like Meryl Streep . . .I expected, from her voice, a bit more funk) “spirituality” includes disguising your true age . . . I DID get some great new descriptives from PCCE’s take on this, so all is not lost.
It’s ironic that you listened to it. When I heard she was on, I skipped it while thinking of the number of times WEIT has reviewed her fluff. I do enjoy your critical reviews of such things but this can’t be fun for you.
I think many liberals think faith is a good thing.
meant to say: Reviewed her stuff and found it banal nonsense
I’m sorry, I can’t. I need to arrive early for my root canal.
Nice “dog bites man” headline.
At 27:45 a caller asks her, “Is there really any difference between faith and superstition?”Yes there is a difference – faith is what Ibelieve; superstition is what you believe. This is just a rewording of an entry from The Devil’s Dictionary:
I’ve never listened to Tippett, so I gave it a go. At first I found her a bit pleasant and decided to give her the benefit of the doubt. Then I tried figuring out what she was saying, and realized that she wasn’t actually saying anything. Had to skip around a bit. I found that the callers actually had more insights than the so-called “expert” who won a medal and is making bucks on a book, and had to terminate my listening session. I’m pretty sure that if you got her in a room with Deepak Chopra that they would have a wonderful conversation where they talk past each other and find the conversation enlightening, while the audience mops up the blood leaking out of their ears.
What a grotesquely funny image.
Don’t forget to add Oprah Winfrey. Make it a threesome!
As an instantiation of those horrendous logic and analogy – queries upon all of our standardized tests:
As Krista Tippett is — On Being — to saying squat so … … Fred Armisen’s SNL character, Mr Nicholas Fehn, is — on his interpretive choices of headlines — to saying squat.
Not?
Blue
ps Love Mr Fehn! Just love him — cuz there are so, so very many such real – life characters whom he thereupon his Weekend Update spiels epitomizes with his shallow and substanceless “speeches”!
“…expert who won a medal and is making bucks on a book…”
It just ain’t fair. It just ain’t fucking fair. Is it?
the universe is oppressing you…
cr
I lisened to pieces of it. Our local NPR station carries her show and I hear bits of that too. Much seems to be random word combinations, like Chopra, that sound meaningful, but are not. She makes a big thing about Einstein and other scientists who use the term mystery. At about minute 43 a caller makes a comment about the difference between the scientific idea of mystery and the religious use of the term. The host and Tippet completely ignore the issue and go on to another comment. I guess they don’t want to discuss anything with actual content.
This is a positively inspired snippet of writing: “[Tippett] always seems on the verge of bursting into tears at the depth of her own insights.” Love it!
I was thinking that it sums up beautifully the reason I loathe listening to Tippett. She seems overcome – dare I say verklempt – with her own spiritual sensitivity and profundity. I turn off the radio or change the station whenever she starts bloviating; I’m certain it’s now established as a reflex arc in my nervous system.
Me too.
That? .That. is just THE perfect descriptor for not only this woman — q such hour she (spouts) airs — but, as well, for far, far too freakin’ many such bloody snowflaky, intellectually bankrupt – but – I – think – I – sound – just – soooo – grandiose – doncha’ – you – also – think – so ? – blithering blatherers.
She .is. unctuous! (so … … just let her weep if, indeed, she reads all of these statements re herself.)
She is one (>) BIIIIG, bloviatin’ I C K Factor!
Blue
Oh well, I really can’t of anything else to say. She’s just another “flif” who thinks the sky-fairies love her.
I did try but it’s asking too much. Could only stand to listen to 2 minutes.
This is like a freshman philosophy class.
O ! this O n i o n piece is gooood: “the one who sits at the back of the class and acts like he’s Aristotle, seriously needs to shut the fuck up.” with “and incredibly annoying” summed up, of course, in “deciding if it’s morally wrong to pound his face in.”
Tippett’s emeses are exactly thus.
Blue
That’s the funniest analogy I’ve seen for a good while! XD
To complete the analogy, was she ever worth it? Milk is at least useful for a while.
Tippett is not very educated or well rounded. I am listening to it as I write [NPR – bastion of pedestrianism].
The meaningful big questions that need answering in the future are ones that are well defined, with intelligent boundary conditions.
‘What is love?’ is almost certainly not likely to provide a researchable answer that has a well defined meaning.
Here are some of the types of big questions we need to start asking (edge.org) that can have answers that provide insight into our existence now and in the near future:
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT MACHINES THAT THINK?
WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT?
WHAT *SHOULD* WE BE WORRIED ABOUT?
WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE DEEP, ELEGANT, OR BEAUTIFUL EXPLANATION?
etc. When people attempt to answer these questions it is easy to distinguish the powerful reasons from the vapid, agenda driven drivel that Tippett espouses.
Or, my current favorite: Can computers become self-aware; and should we strive to prevent this from happening?
(I personally think the answer to both is “yes”.)
Somehow Tippet never made it onto my radar until I read the above. I note that she has a Master of Divinity from Yale. I’m shocked that she would get the Medal of Freedom.
Sorry! It was a National Humanities Medal, not the Medal of Freedom. Mea culpa.
“Krista Tippett talks for an hour, says nothing.” Thanks for the tautology! 🙂
She’s doing the same schtick right now on my local NPR station (KNOW, St. Paul MN, MPR).
Sorry, just can’t stand to listen to her. And I have tried. It’s like listening to Deepak Chopra.
I found her very soothing to listen to and actually nodded off after several minutes. Alas, I can’t recall anything she said.
It is a good idea that people should take the time to listen to some of this. It might assist some in trying to not ever sound like this ourselves. Sometimes seems like a contest to see how many words one can string together and puzzle whoever might be listening.
When discussing Islamic terrorism the first thing I think to say is – Raw Human dynamics and address head on. What the heck is she saying? Or common denominator is fear. Yeah, if someone is cutting off heads, that would do it.
“at 25:44, Tippett tipptoes into accommodationist territory”
I saw what you did there! 🙂
Oh, here she is trying to pin religion on Einstein, AGAIN!
I find Tippet and her fuzzy ilk to be rage-inducing. I sometimes feel compelled, like the Professor, to listen to or read her word salad. I have the same sick compulsion to read the words of wingnuts; they share similarities in confirmation bias, deliberate ignorance and mean-spiritedness.
Part of the reason I attend to objectionable speech, and indeed why the Professor’s deconstruction of these tracts is so helpful, is so that I have enough information to intelligently criticize sophisticated woo to my friends and colleagues.
I often wonder if Tippett actually believes this inchoate drivel or if she’s really just a carnival psychic who knows how to separate the marks from their money.
I think that I did my penance around the time when I decided that I was definitely an atheist rather than someone who had lost interest in religion and was indifferent to it. Because I wanted to say that I had honestly looked at both sides of the argument, I read rather a lot of books by religious apologists. All of them presented the same weak and easily refuted arguments and the time that I spent reading them I will never get back.
I think that the classic prog rock album The Dark Side of the Moon by Pink Floyd gives as good a take on the meaning of life as any.
I agree with you. Your first paragraph mirrors my experience. (And I feel some agreement on Dark Side of the Moon as well!)
When I was reading all this stuff, my wife’s comment usually was, “Why are you wasting time on all that? It’s so obviously bunk!”
And my answer was yours: I wanted to say that I had honestly looked at both sides of the argument. And I needed it for intellectual satisfaction. But it didn’t last long …
Hmmm… if I have 51 minutes to spare, which should I do – listen to K. Tippett or put Dark Side of the Moon on the stereo.
Decisions, decisions …
(that decision took approximately 0.3 seconds)
cr
Good idea, listening to it now. Sonos is handy for that.
I suspect what people like about her style is that the vague way she talks allows them to listen and feel deep without being distracted by any content she might bring. It’s kind of an gentle slow release valve for soppy emotions.
They can already tell from her tone that she’s “safe”, so they can relax. There will be no cynicism, but inevitably also no irony.
“Perhaps then you can explain to me why NPR listeners, who are supposed to be liberal and pretty intelligent, are so drawn to this spiritual bloviation”
My guess: Either self-doubt or self-delusion. Regarding self doubt, during my own journey from imposed faith though agnostic spirituality to ultimate atheism, I humbly admit I found transient safe harbor in concepts that still allowed a modicum of woo in the world. I even read a Deepity book once! I recognize now that these were residual symptoms of self-doubt (and sliver of nostalgia?) on my part. Thanks goodness for WEIT and PCC(e) and the 30,000+ for helping in my self-awareness. On the second possible answer, I am confident there are others listeners who, despite not really believing the spirituality junk, nevertheless still listen to the drivel to make themselves believe they are keeping open minded and keeping the door open for plausible deniability that they are, in fact, really atheists.
“I’m very much operating from a reality base.” That’s what she says in the interview (in the discussion of hope.)
I guess we all fool ourselves one way or another.
Yeah, well, everyone says that
I won’t listen. I can’t. I am not strong enough.
Last week I listened to her show on NPR. It was not about anything particular. I vaguely recall her and her guest getting very excited about how our use of email and bl*gging and so on is creating, a… oh, I don’t remember. It was soon forgotten like a dream is forgotten when you wake up and start your real day.
Let’s look to baseball since most answers relevant to life can be found there. Thus far, no advantage has been found for players who superstitiously step over the chalk line, wear rally caps, or bless themselves prior to taking their at-bat. Thus, the null hypothesis that religious rituals are equal in effect to superstitious rituals stands. There is no difference.
“Let’s look to baseball since most answers relevant to life can be found there.”
An adherent to the S J Gould school of philosophy, I see 😉
cr
Yes! Because if you dumped these know-nothings in a central African jungle they’d come out the other side with an entirely different narrative. That is to say, if they could last a day in the jungle without a hot shower and a square meal.
Why do we give more than an afterthought to the opinions of people whose life experiences are less than the sum of a pack of Oreos and a bag of Cheetos?
Because they’re there.
And, because, unfortunately, they won’t shut up!
As a famous philosopher* once said, “that’s too bad.”
*Me! 😛
Ms. Tippett,
When fear has morphed into aggression, empathy has to be put on the back burner and priority has to be given to empathy for the victims of aggression.
As a favorite Scriptural book of secular humanists, Ecclesiastes, says “A time to love, a time to hate”.
Yes, I can have empathy for crocodiles, but if I’m surrounded by them, my first priority is to survive.
As the detective in the movie “Manhunter” said of the criminal, “I feel sorry for the troubled teenager he used to be, but not for the man he is now.” There’s such a thing as a point of no return, when one has sacrificed one’s humanity beyond the pale.
It’s good sometimes to put a human face on evil, and I often like to think in terms of the Unitarian mode of the “interdependent web of all beings”, but to say that “Islam’s internal crisis is all of our crisis.” strikes me as highly dubious.
=-=-=
I’ve mainly listened to Tippett’s interviews with musicians and scientists (including Lawrence Krauss) and they’re not terrible, but she could take a few cues from Clint Eastwood on dealing with threats to human safety.
I accepted Jerry’s challenge and I listened to it! The whole thing!
Frankly, it was better than I expected. I’m not familiar with Krista Tippett and was expecting someone with a lot more woo. Goodness knows I’ve seen worse. She even seemed uncomfortable with the word “spiritual” and admitted that it’s more misunderstood than not.
Yes and no. The positive aspect I took away was how closely aligned her views are with humanism. They might even be humanism. It seemed to me that her versions of ‘spirituality’ and ‘wisdom’ are pretty firmly grounded in and focused on how we live in this world, and how we treat each other.
She reminded me of atheists endorsing natural spirituality and faith-as-hope. Forget God; live well — and think hard about what that means in real life. If this is the direction the woo-friendly are going, then I think that’s rather encouraging. The substantive thing then about this interview would be a shift away from the supernatural and towards the wonder and excitement of science. She made a lot of positive reference to what we are learning and it didn’t seem from what I heard that she was invoking pseudoscience. She’s no Chopra.
The negative was trying to translate her vague generalities into practical advice. Am I understanding her correctly? Or am I just doing what most people probably do — insert what *I* would mean into her pleasant prose and series of deepities? Not sure.
I kept waiting for her to say “for example.” And waiting. And then she DID say “for example” (I perked up expectantly) and it was only to direct her views on wisdom towards problems with race relations. Okay. But I missed the clarity of someone like Dawkins: he illustrates his points with stories. He doesn’t just wave vaguely in the direction of heroes. With Tippett you kind of have to make up your own practical examples. Maybe that’s the secret of her “wisdom.” Or maybe I’d have to buy the book.
The questions and callers were a mixed bag. There were both atheists and supernaturalists and it was sometimes hard to tell what she endorsed and what she didn’t.
“The positive aspect I took away was how closely aligned her views are with humananism. They might even be humanism.”
I agree, but ut is hard to get to it given all the confirmation bias going on this thread. Here is a excerpt from 1:40 to 4:00 of what she actually says:
“What [wisdom] isn’t is a property of saints” … doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with that statement, right?
“There’s a language of Einstein that I was following around for a lot of years … he looked at Ghandi or Moses or Jesus or Buddha or Saint Francis of Assisi, he said these are spiritual geniuses, and that they are as necessary to the dignity, security and joy of humanity as the discoverers of objective knowledge. There is something to that …” … I suppose some objections could be raised here to Einstein’s view … wait, she does object.
“… but what I think I’ve learned in my life … what I find so fascinating is that I think wisdom is accessible to all of us. It emerges through the raw materials of our lives … wisdom doesn’t emerge in spite of difficulties. It emerges through that” … not all that shabby an idea, right, that actually living life causes us to reflect on life?
“… what does it mean to be human; wisdom in our spiritual traditions emerged *also* from exploring who we are to each other, literally connected. Our well-being as well as our survival and flourishing are literally dependent on other people. On far flung strangers. Questions of what it means to be human … become a matter of very practical import” …
I can’t see anything wrong with that set of statements. Does science provide any insight to wisdom? Or is wisdom just a non-starter? Take the issue of global terrorism. Does science help with some answers? Or our we stuck in the river of metaphysics with no paddles?
Tippett should invite Jerry on her show.
Wouldn’t that be inviting him to a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent?
No. They have a lot to talk about, or Jerry wouldn’t be so compelled to write about it.
Hah, I’ve just written Krista suggesting she invite Jerry. I would listen to that show!!
I suffered through the first 8 minutes or so. My impression/characterization: Sarah Palin with a Ph.D. in philosophy. You owe me a beer for this one, Jerry– that was truly cruel and unusual punishment.
No, the readers owe me MANY beers for providing constant and free entertainment. NO KVETCHING!
+1
+2!
The written extract above was enough for me.Heres another brave Arab Lady speaking truth to Islam.
https://www.facebook.com/retainyourfreedom/videos/969694906398877/
Try this
https://www.facebook.com/cambiarnews/videos/1635159473412149/
Brilliant, thanks!
Professor:
You stated “Perhaps then you can explain to me why NPR listeners, who are supposed to be liberal and pretty intelligent, are so drawn to this spiritual bloviation. Do their Audis and big flat-screen t.v.s leave them spiritually empty, so they stuff the half-full crate of their lives with the styrofoam peanuts proffered by Tippett?”
I know you mean well, but Jesus! Can you create a bigger stereotype? I’m an NPR listener because I’ve got a better chance of hearing something informative or useful. I drive a Subaru and have a CRT TV because it won’t die so I can get a flat-screen.
Could it be that NPR listeners, in trying to throw off their typical American evangelical experience, are sincerely searching for something else? I know I did — that’s why I’m glad you’re here! I am thankful your blog points out the styrofoam peanuts. But please give us NPR listeners a break! 🙂
I enjoy Krista Tippet’s show On Being because of the people she invites for the interviews. I get to hear the ways people think about the world. I think she interrupts them too much to give the impression of understanding what they are saying. Most offense l take is when you can hear the guest trying to finish their thought and she doesn’t allow that until she has given her say. Seems a bit full of her self. Regardless, I can enjoy the critiques of the show as long as the guests being interviewed are thoughtful. Tippet allows for that platform which is better than nothing.