Talk:C. E. M. Joad

message: Joad's opinions on clear writing and on aesthetics were the same as Schopenhauer's. Joad, however, didn't mention Schopenhauer. Fashionably, he wrote, instead, explanations of Hegel's philosophy. If he did that in order to endear himself to the philosophic community, he failed. By the professors, Joad was considered to be a bad philosopher, possibly because of his stubborn insistence on writing very clearly and succinctly.Lestrade (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ignored Schopenhauer

message: This is an interesting article, but there are no sources for the information it contains.  Is there a biography of Joad? Peter Ells (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources?

message: Joad was credited by the writer Stephen Potter as having provided the initial inspiration for the theory of gamesmanship, which Potter made famous.  The original story may be apocryphal, but according to Potter the two men were playing doubles tennis against two younger students (and losing) when Joad, having hit the ball square into the back netting, asked the students after a carefully timed pause to tell him clearly whether it was in or out.  Embarrassed by the implied suggestion that their sportsmanship was in question, the students' game collapsed and they lost the match.  Joad would also seem to be the inspiration for the character of Sticking in Potter's later book Supermanship.  Joad and Sticking share a fondness for scruffy clothes, country walks, socialism, opera and common sense, and Frank Wilson's illustration of Sticking (short stiff black hair, rotund figure) resembles the description of Joad (although without Joad's beard).  The Sticking/Joad thing may be original research on my part, but the Joad-gamesmanship connection is well-documented and ought to be in here.  Lexo (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inadvertent influence 

message: Evelyn Waugh and his biographer Christopher Sykes both considered Joad a palpable fraud, though without giving concrete evidence. Waugh describes his experience as a guest on the Brains Trust in his diary entry for 1 - 11  April 1942: 'Joad goat-like, libidinous, garrulous... I was delighted to observe the derision in which he was held by all the BBC staff'. Sykes, Evelyn Waugh p. 219: 'Joad... whose right to an academic title was frequently and damagingly disputed.' Waugh reports that Joad later reneged on a pledge made by all the Brains Trust participants to donate their fee for that broadcast to a war fund. Waugh also describes the incident in a letter to his agent, A. D. Peters, asking Peters to ascertain whether or not the others, Joad included, did back out of their commitment. They did. Bluedawe 21:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Waugh and Joad

message: Was Joad an atheist or an agnostic?  Rise and fall said he was an agnostic while Death said he was an atheist. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Atheist or agnostic

message: After his train ticket incident, did he not used to be referred to as "a third class Socrates" (presumably he had been caught travelling first class with a third class ticket, and at a rough guess might have encountered a guard who was not impressed by his status as a gentleman or a celebrity)? Might make a nice addition if somebody has a source. Joad and Randolph Churchill, who I think said it, formed a double act who used to turn up to the Oxford Union to debate one another for many years (they had taken opposite sides on the "King and Country" motion in 1933, but not in the same debate. IIRC Robin Day mentioned it in his memoirs.Paulturtle (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Class Socrates