...due to increasingly unhinged comments I infer. Too bad, it was sometimes quite amusing as it ridiculed "the Daily Snooze," "NudeChapps," the"Feminist Philosophers" and me (no nickname stuck), but I'm not surprised it got out of control: the first law of cyberspace is: anonymity + no adult oversight=cyber-cesspool.
I have been living with someone from the Millennial generation for the last four years (he’s now 27) and sometimes I’m charmed and sometimes I’m exasperated by how him and his friends—as well as the Millennials I’ve met and interacted with both in person and in social media—deal with the world, and I’ve tweeted about my amusement and frustration under the banner “Generation Wuss” for a few years now. My huge generalities touch on their over-sensitivity, their insistence that they are right despite the overwhelming proof that suggests they are not, their lack of placing things within context, the overreacting, the passive-aggressive positivity, and, of course, all of this exacerbated by the meds they’ve been fed since childhood by over-protective “helicopter” parents mapping their every move.
I think it's not really fair to ask several million Scots to vote on the question of independence without input from the philosophical community. Therefore, as a public service, I present the following poll:
...thankfully. (It's news to me that Camille Paglia is a philosopher, but in certain circles, I guess it turns out everyone is.)
(Thanks to Jim Klagge for the pointer.)
UPDATE: Tom Hurka (Toronto) writes: "The philosophers you link to are pikers compared to C.D. Broad -- Nietzsche was Miss Manners compared to him. Here's Broad on T.H. Green (taken from a forthcoming book of mine):
Broad did the same, saying Bradley was as inferior to Sidgwick in ethical and philosophical acumen as he was superior to him in literary style (FT 144) and making two brilliantly vitriolic remarks about Green. ‘Even a thoroughly second-rate thinker like T.H. Green, by diffusing a grateful and comforting aroma of “ethical uplift”, has probably made far more undergraduates into prigs than Sidgwick will ever make into philosophers’ (FT 144). And of a paper of Prichard’s criticizing Green: 'Seldom can the floor have been more thoroughly wiped with the remains of one who was at one time commonly regarded as a great thinker and who still enjoys a considerable reputation in some circles. A large part of the lectures is occupied with disentangling the strands of clotted masses of verbiage, in which inconsistency and nonsense are concealed by ambiguity.'"
Philosopher David Auerbach (North Carolina State) writes:
This Stone article [http://tinyurl.com/lmqsuf4 ] is remarkably flabby. But it had an interesting consequence (?)—the level of reader commentary was remarkably high (I’m grading on the usual curve here; there were the usual “there’s the trouble with academic philosophy…” comments). Here’s one of the comments:
"As a father of two sons, I actually conducted the experiment described in the article 25+ years ago (this was shortly before strong guidelines for human subjects research had been put into place nationally).
"First, I imposed a delay of several minutes before the moment of my older son’s conception. As the article predicts, the procedure eliminated his birth and later existence. Not only that, instead of a son, my firstborn was a daughter!
"The first outcome could have been a fluke, so, a few years later when the time came to conceive my second son, I decided to replicate the initial trial, this time by slightly anticipating the moment of conception. Confirming the earlier study, the second experiment also produced a positive result: my younger son never came into existence either! And, conformant to the initial outcome, my second child was also a daughter. In other words, by slightly delaying or anticipating the moment of conception, not only I was able to block completely the existence of both of my sons, I was also able to substitute two daughters for them!
"Philosophy is truly a powerful tool. 'Ah ! la belle chose, que de savoir quelque chose!'"
1. Drink booze. (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)
2. Spend time with friends. loses to Drink booze. by 74–40
3. Barbecue non-human animal products. loses to Drink booze. by 82–30, loses to Spend time with friends. by 62–45
4. Spend time with family. loses to Drink booze. by 88–33, loses to Barbecue non-human animal products. by 58–50
5. Tied: Barbecue non-animal products. loses to Drink booze. by 92–20, loses to Spend time with family. by 57–40 Spend time with yourself. loses to Drink booze. by 84–30, loses to Spend time with family. by 53–42
7. Moralize non-sanctimoniously. loses to Drink booze. by 97–16, loses to Barbecue non-animal products. by 50–36
8. Read philosophy blogs. loses to Drink booze. by 95–19, loses to Moralize non-sanctimoniously. by 44–38
9. Tied: Moralize sanctimoniously. loses to Drink booze. by 98–16, loses to Read philosophy blogs. by 41–38
Waste time on Facebook. loses to Drink booze. by 99–16, loses to Read philosophy blogs. by 47–36
11. Read left-wing blogs. loses to Drink booze. by 98–13, loses to Moralize sanctimoniously. by 46–31
12. Smoke dope. loses to Drink booze. by 93–13, loses to Read left-wing blogs. by 41–35
13. Burn the flag. loses to Drink booze. by 89–16, loses to Smoke dope. by 37–35
14. Tied: Produce rankings. loses to Drink booze. by 98–7, loses to Burn the flag. by 34–27 Thank Zeus you're an American. loses to Drink booze. by 98–12, loses to Burn the flag. by 41–29
16. Sign meaningless pledges and petitions. loses to Drink booze. by 97–7, loses to Produce rankings. by 25–21
17. Thank God you're an American. loses to Drink booze. by 100–9, loses to Sign meaningless pledges and petitions. by 26–25
18. Salute the flag. loses to Drink booze. by 99–8, loses to Thank God you're an American. by 25–22
19. Thank God you're not an American. loses to Drink booze. by 88–18, loses to Salute the flag. by 29–25
20. Barbecue human animal products. loses to Drink booze. by 95–8, loses to Thank God you're not an American. by 31–23
21. Read right-wing blogs. loses to Drink booze. by 101–4, loses to Barbecue human animal products. by 26–25
22. Tweet. loses to Drink booze. by 99–6, loses to Read right-wing blogs. by 27–17
Like last year, drinking booze dominated. And, also a bit like last year and a continuing tribute to the quality of the readership, barbecuing human animal products defeated reading right-wing blogs. Happy 4th to those who celebrated!
This is an extremely funny set of e-mails. I've no idea whether it was an actual exchange between a parent and the "school chaplain."
(Thanks to Ruchira Paul for the pointer.)
UPDATE: Philosophy student Matthew Hernandez writes: "The man doing the email exchange is David Thorne, a comedian/writer who regularly 'trolls' people in real life and then posts about it on his website: http://27bslash6.com/ (Most likely a real exchange, as he regularly does this kind of thing.)"
Continental Philosophy Farhang Erfani, a philosopher at American University, provides a useful set of links to news, events, interviews, reviews, videos, etc. related to "Continental philosophy" (broadly construed)