Talk:Eric Hoffer/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

In Truth Imagined (posthumously published autobiography) Hoffer says that his mother and himself suffered from a fall (presumably on stairs or something of that nature) when he was young -- it was that fall that was the cause of his mother dying (I don't recall if it was one or two years later) and relates to his blindness.

Downchuck 09:16, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When will we see the Collected Writings of Eric Hoffer in one volume, with notes and index? Hoffer's TV appearance in the 1960s, when I was a teen, made him talked about for some years, but he since faded from the collective radar screen. I wonder when he will make his comeback.

The future will ask itself: why did the vast majority of Americans prove immune to the seductiveness of Marxism? The answer is that millions of ordinary Americans had gut reactions more or less like Hoffer's; behind Marxism they saw the ambition, even violence, of a certain segment of the educated middle class, whose pawns they rightly refused to be. Hoffer simply had the wide reading, and the personal gift, to articulate carefully what tens of millions of Americans knew in their guts: the world we all share has its ups and downs, but turning it over to eager bureaucrats with utopian agendas will not improve it.202.36.179.65 12:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I too would very much want to buy, say, a Library of America edition of Hoffer. I completely endorse your quick take on Hoffer, and on the rough and ready political philosophy of Joe Everyman in the USA. The Third World is full of people with useless intellectual educations, living in near-poverty and having no influence. They see most of the rich as philistines, and hate them for it. They are drawn to Marxism because they think it would dramatically raise their pay and authority: under Marxism, the right sort of people would be in charge. At the end of the day, Marxism is a dictatorship of engineers. They rationalise away the violence of Marxist revolution with Lenin's quip: "To make an omelet, you must first break eggs." The fall of the Soviet block was a total victory for Hoffer's rough-hewn common sense. Now it is the Islamic world that needs his wisdom.132.181.160.42 (talk) 06:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody have more info on his working in California? If he indeed did (and for how long) work at the Naval shipyard? Some of the info in the 3rd paragraph seems to overlap some - but I donb't knwo enough to know how to rewrite it... And also, has there been any other references to his reason for enlisting?

I would like to determine the source of Hoffer's Jewish ancestry. Sowell said he was but Hoffer said that he first learned of the Jewish tradition from an employer in Los Angeles. Of his unnamed father he merely refers to him as the "village atheist." wsharp407@adelphia.net

Does anybody out there know if Hoffer is a German Jewish name? During the 19th century, a fair fraction of western European Jews abandoned all Jewish practices. They had Jewish surnames, they were not Christians, and they valued education and intellectual accomplishmen highlyt. But in no other way were they Jewish. Was Hoffer one of these? I honestly don't know. If Hoffer did not have a bris and his parents told him nothing about their ancestry, he could have had Jewish ancestry without knowing it. Extended family were of no help here; relatives did not play much of a role in his long adult life.

Another topic: I am surprised at how little of a scholarly nature has been written about him, given how respected he was in the 1950s and 60s. He's been dead for 25 years, but Hoffer studies have yet to begin.132.181.160.42 (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

In his biography by Tomkins, it says his parents were Alsatian. There is no mention of him being Jewish. Is this "fact" just being guessed at by wiki editors? DonPMitchell (talk)

Where could I find some criticism of Hoffer?

Do the quotes really need to be here? I believe that they should just be moved to wikiquote, then taken out of the page.-Hairchrm 20:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is a problem with quotations in a biography of a philosopher or writer. However, this article contains a very long list of rather lack-luster quotations. Three or four really good quotes would give a better flavor of Hoffer's thinking. DonPMitchell 21:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I dispute the neutrality of this article. For example, consider the following passage:

He discovered that fanaticism and self-righteousness are rooted in self-hatred, self-doubt, and insecurity. As he describes in The True Believer, a passionate obsession with the outside world or with the private lives of other people is merely a craven attempt to compensate for a lack of meaning in one's own life.

Hoffer did not "discover" such things; he formulated theories upon them. The article seems slanted towards an overly sympathetic view of Hoffer's theories. At the very least, it should contain some criticism of his ideas.

74.194.105.161 04:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)specific sandwich

The above is a nit-picking criticism which could be corrected by editing the quoted sentence. However, a criticism section would be a good addition, if someone can find some scholarly work there. Hoffer's ideas are not as well known today as a few decades ago, but would probably be much more controversial if they were more widely examined by a modern audience. His work implicitly criticises many current mass movements in the religious right, radical animal rights, free software movement, etc. So one could imagine this article becoming a future focus of contention. DonPMitchell 21:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The ease with which you dispute the neutrality of this article and you're eagerness to point out alleged shortcomings indicates your self-righteous nature. Are you so insecure as to super-analyze the fine grammar and tone of this great article? You sound like a very insecure boy. I'm removing the disputation- TLAGT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.22.70 (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont't intend to crticize any kind of neutrality in formulating sentences here. My main interest is the fact that nothing much is actually known or verified about Hoffers life. Even his birthdate is disputable since there is no existing birth certificate. Without careful examination of his papers which are currently at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, nothing or not much reliable things can be said here, except in the recounting of his writings and their specific subjects or his later life. There are no accounts or known living persons apparently which can recount any details of Hoffers early life. Especially about the way he educated himself and which books he read. It is essential that his papers are reviewed and a biography is put together from his archieves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.145.55 (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I am tempted to remove the neutrality notation. If the person making the original complaint had something specific to propose, then I wouldn't mind. But all he does is complain about one line in particular without offering a proposed edit. NBahn (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree...and btw, one person above mentions info available at the Hoover Institute at Stanford Univ. If true, then surely there is already at least some scholarly basis for the info on Hoffer. Engr105th (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

While I count myself as an admirer of Eric Hoffer, I have a problem with the high degree of subjectivity that undergirds the following attribution of superlativeness to this great writer: "Despite his often strenuous daily work, he managed to read more books than many academics, and may well have been the best read person in modern times." How does one even begin to evaluate such a statement, let alone provide documentation for it (which, I observe, is notably lacking)?

How do we know that any academics read fewer books than Hoffer, let alone "many?" How do we know that he even approached the status of "the best read person in modern times?" How do we define the phrase "best read person?" Is the "best read person" the one who's read the most books, or the broadest range of books? How do we define "modern times?" Do they begin at the end of the medieval period (ca. 1500), or more recently?

And how do we even know what Hoffer read? Did he leave a reading list behind? Did anyone record his reading habits? Did he have a large personal library, or did he spend a lot of time at his local public library?

This sentence as it stands in the article's current version (August 6, 2007) also needs to be in its own paragraph. It is followed by the sentence, "Hoffer considered his best work to be "The True Believer," and nothing else in the paragraph has anything to do with Hoffer's reading habits.

I think it's good to say something about how widely read Hoffer was, if in fact we can document it. But if we can't, then, sadly, I think this sentence should be deleted.

Ron Henzel 12:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Eric Hoffer did not originate the ideas that he wrote about; rather he appears to have been a synthesizer and popularizer of ideas which have been around for as long as organized society has been. That's not a bad thing. I'm in the process of rereading his book, "The Passionate State of Mind", a collection of aphorisms dating from 1955, of which I have the 1968 paperback edition. Hoffer's observations are pithy, acute, and stand the test of time some fifty years after they first appeared in print. By his own admission, he was self-educated, but widely read, at least in his area of interest. He had something to say, and said it exceptionally well. His statements are marvels of precision and clarity, and he builds point upon point the way an accomplished advocate would do in a court of law. Hoffer's aphoristic style is reminiscent of that Friedrich Nietsche (whom Hoffer may have read). Unlike academic writing, Hoffer makes no pretense of parsing out all possible exceptions to the statements he makes; and unlike academics, his audience was the world. We miss him. Artsilen 03:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC) I'm new to this on Wiki but I thought I might have a worthwhile comment to contribute to the discussion. I've read virtually everything he wrote and some things several times, over many years. I respect him enormously as an original thinker. But, I've formed the opinion that Hoffer's first two books: The True Believer and The Passionate state of mind were his best and that they actually represent a different Hoffer from what began to emerge after. His next book, or the one just after that I believe, contains some very original ideas, well expressed as usual, but also contains his sharp criticism, much of which is extremely unfair, of the civil rights movement. In Working and Thinking on the Waterfront, while published later, are his journal entries from the 50s. Those are nowhere near as extreme as his tone and content in much of his later work. I offer an explanation for my thesis: Hoffer has a brilliant aphorism to the effect that the willingness to exaggerate is necessary for original thought. And I think he may have unconciously given greater rise to that power in the second half of his life as a published and much listened to writer. Tovarichbill (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a some quotes and statements without references, i.e., "between the books and the brothels", "lumpy with talent", and how he said he didn't really care about people. These quotes come from either Hoffer's America, or Eric Hoffer; an American Odyssey .

He was about 20 when his father died, according to Truth Imagined . Eye.earth (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My American-history teacher thot Hoffer was interesting, and was probably who i remember quoting him as saying something disparaging about those who lack "the ability to write a topic sentence". My G-search was discouraging. Anyone?
--Jerzy•t 06:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The article reads:

When he was age seven, his mother fell down a flight of stairs...

But he is then quoted as saying:

"I lost my sight at the age of seven. Two years before, my mother and I fell down a flight of stairs."

Which would mean he had been five when she fell.

Which is correct? and if they're both correct (i.e. he fell at seven but wrongly said he had been five, or the quote was taken when he was nine!) could this be clarified please.

JohnGH (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hoffer was 5 when he and his mother fell. In the 2nd year after their fall she died and Hoffer lost his sight at age 7. ( This is explained in Page1, paragraph 1 of Truth Imagined ) Walter Monk 1/30/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.95.252.0 (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

First paragraph of article:

"... The True Believer ... was widely recognized as a classic ... although Hoffer believed that his book The Ordeal of Change was his finest work."

Second paragraph of Longshoreman section:

"Hoffer considered his best work to be The True Believer" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.71.150 (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this contradiction as well. If somebody could please back it up with a source and then delete the other one, I'd appreciate it. SuperChencho (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Or keep them both, if they are both reliably sourced, and note that both opinions were enunciated by Hoffer at different times. But of course only if it can be reliably sourced that he did express those different opinions at different times. Bus stop (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

212.137.36.228 (talk) 09:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC) This article is clearly not neutral and absurdly biased in favour of its subject. I have used Wiki many times and never come across such a ridiculous page. It is not clear whether it was intended seriously or has been put here as a joke. Just a few examples: 1) "Hoffer drew confidence and inspiration from his working class roots.." (Meaning that he was confident and inspired?) 2) He had "consisently non-ideological positions". (Says who?!) 3) He was he 'first to recognise the importance of self-esteem'. (How can that be proved? Surely you need to say "XX has claims that he was the first to recognise.." or something of that kind. 4) Why is it relevant that his views were 'patiently considered'? 5) Hoffer 'continued to build on his early insights'? (Why not "theories"? "Insights" means that the things he said were true!)

212.137.36.228 (talk) 09:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I did some cleanup to address these concerns. I hope I did so adequately, though there remains room for improvement.--JayJasper (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)