philosophy meta-forum

Boorish Senior Philosopher

Chrysippus

13 day(s) ago

Who was the "philosophy boy" who dared speak up to a woman of color at the Aesthetics convention?

Laurens

12 day(s) ago

Details?

Fujiwara

12 day(s) ago

Is this parody or legit?

"[The speaker] fails to recognize that his “truth” is truth as conceived in a white-western-hegemonic-analytic conceptual framework."

Houston

12 day(s) ago

Where is that quote from?

Fujiwara

12 day(s) ago

It comes from the Borg, who are coming to assimilate us. Resistance is futile.

Chrysippus

12 day(s) ago

I read about the incident at Daily Nous.

The quote is probably from Aesthetics for Birds, or possibly from a racist-sexist anti-philosophy blog.

Fujiwara

12 day(s) ago

I honestly can't tell if the quote I gave is parody. It's from the comments at Daily Nous, on the post that I took the OP to be referring to.

Allama

12 day(s) ago

"Hilda · November 29, 2017 at 2:35 pm

“Unfriendliness” and “disagreement” barely scratch the surface of the dynamics present in this case.

The speaker commits epistemic injustice in at least three ways:

(1) He fails to recognize that his “truth” is truth as conceived in a white-western-hegemonic-analytic conceptual framework. He cannot even conceive of a different way of philosophizing

(2) He fails to recognize his positionality as (i) the member of a systemic and systematically privileged class and (ii) addressing a philosopher from a systemically and systematically underrepresented and marginalized group

(3) Through his insensitive address, he epistemically objectifies the speaker as knowing-less-than and/or not a true or reliable epistemic source

This case is beyond diplomacy and etiquette, it is socio-political in the sense that it is a subtle and almost invisible method of perpetuating marginalization in a field that is already severely undiverse"

Is this a joke? I can't tell.

Laurens

12 day(s) ago

It’s sad that good female philosophers of colour now struggle to be recognised because they get lumped together with these clowns.

Friedrich

12 day(s) ago

I wondered too

"Hilda · November 29, 2017 at 2:35 pm

“Unfriendliness” and “disagreement” barely scratch the surface of the dynamics present in this case.

The speaker commits epistemic injustice in at least three ways:

(1) He fails to recognize that his “truth” is truth as conceived in a white-western-hegemonic-analytic conceptual framework. He cannot even conceive of a different way of philosophizing

(2) He fails to recognize his positionality as (i) the member of a systemic and systematically privileged class and (ii) addressing a philosopher from a systemically and systematically underrepresented and marginalized group

(3) Through his insensitive address, he epistemically objectifies the speaker as knowing- less-than and/or not a true or reliable epistemic source

This case is beyond diplomacy and etiquette, it is socio-political in the sense that it is a subtle and almost invisible method of perpetuating marginalization in a field that is already severely undiverse"

Is this a joke? I can't tell.

Allama

Fernando

12 day(s) ago

Either way, it’s hilarious.

Chia

12 day(s) ago

Speaking of clowns: https://youtu.be/kju_22ypx2s

Except Janice Stein. Her facial expressions are priceless.

Asa

12 day(s) ago

It's not a parody, these people have been around for decades but unfortunately philosophers didn't bother to stop them when it was still possible. Now it's going to be a long and difficult struggle.

'Epistemic injustice': it's a real phenomenon, but the accusers are the perpetrators.

Thomas

12 day(s) ago

Things are getting really bad. We had a candidate for a position that involved teaching political philosophy. Their idea for the course was to teach a section on white privilege, read some stuff from BLM, and teach Mill's Racial Contract (which is utter garbage in style and content; worthless guilt by association style of argument). The candidate didn't seem to know anything about the subject, just some orthogonal critiques and trendy SJW crap.

Vladimir

12 day(s) ago

I doubt it was anyone you've ever heard of.

Gary

12 day(s) ago

The dogmas of the authoritarian left are a new religion. You can't criticize without being branded a heretic and tossed from the group. That's the same thing that happens to members of a fundementalist religious sect who dare to challenge the holy texts.

Gary

12 day(s) ago

"Hilda · November 29, 2017 at 2:35 pm

“Unfriendliness” and “disagreement” barely scratch the surface of the dynamics present in this case.

The speaker commits epistemic injustice in at least three ways:

(1) He fails to recognize that his “truth” is truth as conceived in a white-western-hegemonic-analytic conceptual framework. He cannot even conceive of a different way of philosophizing

(2) He fails to recognize his positionality as (i) the member of a systemic and systematically privileged class and (ii) addressing a philosopher from a systemically and systematically underrepresented and marginalized group

(3) Through his insensitive address, he epistemically objectifies the speaker as knowing-less-than and/or not a true or reliable epistemic source

This case is beyond diplomacy and etiquette, it is socio-political in the sense that it is a subtle and almost invisible method of perpetuating marginalization in a field that is already severely undiverse"

Is this a joke? I can't tell.

Allama

It sounds like a joke.

If truth is a construct, then how can someone 'know-less than' another per se. (assuming knowledge is factive)? Moreover, what reason do we have to think that her assertions about social classes are correct, given that truth is a construct. Isn't it just, social-class-as-constructed (by her)?

All of this shit is a mess.

Debendranath

12 day(s) ago

Things are getting really bad. We had a candidate for a position that involved teaching political philosophy. Their idea for the course was to teach a section on white privilege, read some stuff from BLM, and teach Mill's Racial Contract (which is utter garbage in style and content; worthless guilt by association style of argument). The candidate didn't seem to know anything about the subject, just some orthogonal critiques and trendy SJW crap.

Thomas

God, I know, re: Mills. I tried to teach some of Racial Contract in intro applied ethics last spring for probably the same sorts of reasons as your job candidate had, and was amazed at how shallow it was. In order to have something to go on --and not admit my mistake by just trashing the reading I myself assigned--I tried to reconstruct the partners in guilt argument as raising vague epistemic problems for the liberal tradition, but I think it was pretty obvious how much I was stretching.

Hippocrates

12 day(s) ago

His paper 'Ideal Theory as Ideology' is just as bad. Just Marx's theory of ideology re-packaged through feminism.

Thomas

12 day(s) ago

His paper 'Ideal Theory as Ideology' is just as bad. Just Marx's theory of ideology re-packaged through feminism.

Hippocrates

I haven't read that paper, but it sounds like there might be some (repackaged) content from your description. In contrast, the RC has no philosophical content. Much of it reads like a jargon laden breathless rant. Some sentences are nearly a page long, if I recall. And there are few arguments.

The central thesis of the book doesn't raise any problems for social contract theory. Roughly, it's just that some racist enjoyed the theory. They didn't think that black people could be contractual equals. . . . This allowed them to rationalize colonization, etc. OK. Whatever. What does that tell me about the theory? It can be applied poorly. Duh. And??? I hear that Hitler liked apple pie.

Our job candidate said that it offered a "devastating critique" social contract theory. hahahahaha. I bought the book to check up on this claim. And so ended that search.

It's not as if many people nowadays think that any version of social contract theory works to legitimize political authority and political obligation anyway. . . . But Mills hasn't even put an additional nail in the coffin. Why people get so excited about his work is utterly mysterious. Maybe some of his other work is better. I saw some of his stuff on race summarized during the Tuvel affair, but I haven't had time to read into it.

Chia

12 day(s) ago

Things are getting really bad. We had a candidate for a position that involved teaching political philosophy. Their idea for the course was to teach a section on white privilege, read some stuff from BLM, and teach Mill's Racial Contract (which is utter garbage in style and content; worthless guilt by association style of argument). The candidate didn't seem to know anything about the subject, just some orthogonal critiques and trendy SJW crap.

Thomas

We should, of course, be discussing this kind of material in class, especially given its current ascendence. The problem, however, is that if it’s being taught without room for critique, it’s indoctrination not education.

Mao

12 day(s) ago

Very well put, Thomas.

As you say, there's just loads of stuff out there now from the more polished SJW set -- and it's getting published as actual philosophy and spared any rigorous criticism in the literature, which is much worse -- that amounts to no more than "A, B and C said D, and believed that practice E was justified under D; practice E is wrong; therefore, not-D." That's the end of the argument. There isn't even any attempt to show that E really follows from D.

I teach my first-year critical thinking students to avoid this crude, elementary fallacy. I tell them that it and many other fallacies they learn are the sorts of things they need to know in their lives and also that it's good they're learning it in this course because otherwise they might take another freshman or sophomore course and make the mistake with a key reading. And I think that's right. Students taking sophomore philosophy courses after having completed a basic critical thinking course should know better than to make such a stupid blunder. And yet, people are getting tenure with this garbage, and nobody is blinking an eye because it wouldn't be very 'inclusive' to do so.

Hilary

12 day(s) ago

Very well put, Thomas.

As you say, there's just loads of stuff out there now from the more polished SJW set -- and it's getting published as actual philosophy and spared any rigorous criticism in the literature, which is much worse -- that amounts to no more than "A, B and C said D, and believed that practice E was justified under D; practice E is wrong; therefore, not-D." That's the end of the argument. There isn't even any attempt to show that E really follows from D.

...And yet, people are getting tenure with this garbage, and nobody is blinking an eye because it wouldn't be very 'inclusive' to do so.

Mao

Are you speaking out in public about this? Are you raising objections when it comes up in department meetings?

Hilary

12 day(s) ago

Things are getting really bad. We had a candidate for a position that involved teaching political philosophy. Their idea for the course was to teach a section on white privilege, read some stuff from BLM, and teach Mill's Racial Contract (which is utter garbage in style and content; worthless guilt by association style of argument). The candidate didn't seem to know anything about the subject, just some orthogonal critiques and trendy SJW crap.

Thomas

We should, of course, be discussing this kind of material in class, especially given its current ascendence. The problem, however, is that if it’s being taught without room for critique, it’s indoctrination not education.

Chia

Exactly. Professors of philosophy shoud be reading this material, responding to it, and teaching it critically in their courses.

Chia

12 day(s) ago

Things are getting really bad. We had a candidate for a position that involved teaching political philosophy. Their idea for the course was to teach a section on white privilege, read some stuff from BLM, and teach Mill's Racial Contract (which is utter garbage in style and content; worthless guilt by association style of argument). The candidate didn't seem to know anything about the subject, just some orthogonal critiques and trendy SJW crap.

Thomas

We should, of course, be discussing this kind of material in class, especially given its current ascendence. The problem, however, is that if it’s being taught without room for critique, it’s indoctrination not education.

Chia

Exactly. Professors of philosophy shoud be reading this material, responding to it, and teaching it critically in their courses.

Hilary

And criticisism can actually make a thesis more robust as better arguments can be formulated to defend it from critique. The same goes for the critiques themselves. JS Mill was right about the necessity of criticism for keeping truths “alive”.

This is where the SJWs will mutter something about how arguments that “deny my humanity” or “deny my right to exist” should not be permitted or debated. Such claims are nearly always opportunistic hyperbole aimed at silencing opposition. In the end it is a losing strategy.

Thomas

12 day(s) ago

Very well put, Thomas.

As you say, there's just loads of stuff out there now from the more polished SJW set -- and it's getting published as actual philosophy and spared any rigorous criticism in the literature, which is much worse -- that amounts to no more than "A, B and C said D, and believed that practice E was justified under D; practice E is wrong; therefore, not-D." That's the end of the argument. There isn't even any attempt to show that E really follows from D.

...And yet, people are getting tenure with this garbage, and nobody is blinking an eye because it wouldn't be very 'inclusive' to do so.

Mao

Are you speaking out in public about this? Are you raising objections when it comes up in department meetings?

Hilary

I did, at least among the search committee. I scanned sections of the book, distributed them, and argued that it was junk. No one could take the candidate very seriously after that.

Philolaus

12 day(s) ago

For fuck's sake, it's 'Mill', not 'Mills'.

If you're gonna strut around and talk shit, at least get the name right.

Cratylus

12 day(s) ago

The dogmas of the authoritarian left are a new religion. You can't criticize without being branded a heretic and tossed from the group. That's the same thing that happens to members of a fundementalist religious sect who dare to challenge the holy texts.

Gary

Almost there. It's more important to see that SJWs are not merely religious, or even that they are authoritarians, but that they are religious conservatives. Their sanctimonious moralizing and puritanism is conservatism. Justin Weinberg is the Pat Robertson of the academic philosophy world.

Hilary

12 day(s) ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_W._Mills

For fuck's sake, it's 'Mill', not 'Mills'.

If you're gonna strut around and talk shit, at least get the name right.

Philolaus

Indeed.

Hilary

12 day(s) ago

Very well put, Thomas.

As you say, there's just loads of stuff out there now from the more polished SJW set -- and it's getting published as actual philosophy and spared any rigorous criticism in the literature, which is much worse -- that amounts to no more than "A, B and C said D, and believed that practice E was justified under D; practice E is wrong; therefore, not-D." That's the end of the argument. There isn't even any attempt to show that E really follows from D.

...And yet, people are getting tenure with this garbage, and nobody is blinking an eye because it wouldn't be very 'inclusive' to do so.

Mao

Are you speaking out in public about this? Are you raising objections when it comes up in department meetings?

Hilary

I did, at least among the search committee. I scanned sections of the book, distributed them, and argued that it was junk. No one could take the candidate very seriously after that.

Thomas

Thank you.

posts per page.