The 2008 update of the Philosopher's Lexicon is a bit exasperating. A preliminary concern is that the treatment of continental figures continues to be shabby -- contemptuous and dismissive.
Perhaps a bit more distressing is the PL's continued heavy slant toward a certain generation of philosophers. It's hard to find a philosopher on the list born much after 1950 (the sole exception I find being Neander, with Korsgaard and Shapiro born in '52 and '51, respectively).
This isn't plausibly due to the unlikeliness of a philosopher's doing anything worthy of being immortalized in this way until their late 50s. First, the previous edition of the PL was compiled in 1987. At the time, only philosophers born before 1930 were that old, but there are plenty of entries younger than that (Plantinga, AO Rorty, Searle, Stroud, Block, Boyd, Chihara, Follesdal, Dennett, Parfit, Desousa, Donnellan, Dretske, Dworkin, ... just to get through the Ds). And second, just to pull a few out of the sky, surely such entries as the following are as amusing and informative as many current entries: luddite (a philosopher who likes technology), side (an aspect of a time-slice), William (a father of a necessary being), to chalm (to control the behavior of a zombie), to leit (to control the behavior of an academic discipline).
Much more credible as an explanation is that Dennett, the compiler of the PL, was himself born in 1942, and the doctrines, peculiarities, and insider humor of philosophers after his generation have largely eluded his attention. Seen in this light, the PL as currently constituted can be plausibly regarded as a (perhaps somewhat self-congratulatory) joke among the members of Dennett's generation.
The top-heaviness of the PL might be thought to be not entirely without negative consequences. It is natural for an undergraduate major or beginning grad student to regard the PL as a guide to the stereotypical doctrines or styles of the most important philosophers; absence from the list, by contrast, would signal marginality. If so, the PL hegemonizes Dennett's generation and marginalizes those who come afterward.
If the PL were a mere samizdat or internet barnacle collecter (deaths of philosophers, breakup lines of philosophers, and the like), this would not matter much or at all. But as published by Blackwell, the PL has a sort of canonical status as capturing humorously the profession's self-conception. While the 1987 version was an amusing relic or snapshot of the field at the time, the 2008 update takes on a somewhat darker tone.
Comments enabled and moderated; please post only once.
