Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

First issue of JAPA appears...

...as pointed out by a commentator on the open thread.  I'm reading the two articles on Continental figures (one on Nietzsche, one on Heidegger), and will have more to say in due course.  Other comments about the first issue may be posted at the open thread.

New Books in March

Authors and/or publishers kindly sent me these new books this month:

Transformative Experience by L.A. Paul (Oxford University Press, 2014).

Nietzsche on Ethics and Politics by Maudemarie Clark (Oxford University Press, 2015).

The Oxford Handbook of German Philosophy in the Nineteenth Century edited by Michael N. Forster & Kristin Gjesdal (Oxford University Press, 2015).

Imagination & Convention:  Distinguishing Grammar & Inference in Language by Ernie LePore & Matthew Stone (Oxford University Press, 2015).

A Critical Introduction to Testimony by Alex Gelfert (Bloomsbury, 2014).

Talking to Our Selves:  Reflection, Ignorance, and Agency by John M. Doris (Oxford University Press, 2015).

Kids misbehavin'

Some of these are really funny.

More on Leigh Cauman

Philosopher Allen Hazen (formerly Melbourne, now teaching at Alberta) writes:

It is perhaps worth noting that Leigh Cauman (under her maiden name, Steinhardt) was Quine's first Ph.D. supervisee (at "Radcliffe College," Harvard University in those days not giving degrees under its own name to women), in 1940.  Her dissertation was about "the variable" and semantics-- I think that Quine's well-known emphasis on the analogy between variables and pronouns was something she also stressed.  I am sure that student learned from teacher and also teacher from student: I have no idea to what, if any, degree Quine's ideas should be attributed to "Miss Steinhardt," who is credited in footnotes with a few minor improvements to his "Mathematical Logic."

 

Mrs. Cauman believed that a male philosopher writing a thesis under Quine would have had more opportunities for a (non-adjunct, non-editorial) academic career than she had: doubtless wanting to live in the same city as her husband (who was, I think, an art historian, though I am not sure of that) limited her ability to seek teaching appointments.

 

I was never officially affiliated with the Columbia philosophy department, but often called on it when visiting family in the neighborhood.  My sense is that Leigh's general friendliness and generosity contributed a great deal to the sense of a philosophy "community" there.

Comments are open for additional information.

"Social justice warrior" defined

I was corresponding with a philosopher elsewhere about yet another cyber-example of the pathetic identity politics/language police, whom my correspondent described as an SJW, or "social justice warrior."  I had not heard the term before, but my correspondent's explanation of it is worth sharing:

Functionally defined, "SJW" designates someone who monitors cyberspace for slights or miscues that reveal bias, and then exploits the various tools of social media to shame the offender, express outrage, and summon the digital mob, whilst achieving for themselves a righteous fame that ties their identities and their actions to the heroes and achievements of the civil rights movement, the landmark moments of which preceded their adulthood.  SJWs divide the world, GWB-like, into the evildoers ("shitlords") and the oppressed, with the possible, but problematic remainder, being allies, whose status is ever tenuous and usually collapses into shitlord. SJWs do not distinguish between major and minor offenses -- unintentionally using "transgender-ed" instead of "transgender" is as unforgivable as any other act of oppression -- nor do they distinguish repeat and systematic from first-time offenders.  They employ a principle of interpretation that is something like the opposite of charity. (If the utterance gives offense under one interpretation, that interpretation is correct.) It is a harsh "justice".

Indeed, it's unclear whether SJWs do not fully grasp the cruelty and inhumanity of their cybermob shame tactics, the anguish it causes, typically to the socially clueless and ASD spectrum types (itself a form of ableism), or just people with older, less plastic, brains, who are unable to keep pace with the rapidly shifting pronoun and non-slur requirements, or whether this is fully grasped, and indeed the retributive point of the exercise. In any case, the SJW hallmark is cruelty in the name of compassion.  (And creating incredibly dangerous environments in the name of "safe space".)

Well, as a Nietzsche scholar, I can hardly tell you anything you don't already see better here. The difference between the Christian slave revolt and this one is that with Christianity at least, there is forgiveness.

The irony, of course, is that the SJW squanders his or her efforts on matters that rarely have anything to do with justice.

ADDENDUM:  A reader in the UK writes:

I wanted to send you a quick note with regard to your most recent post on "social justice warriors". Whilst I am entirely sympathetic to your criticisms of the online mobs, vague identity politics, etc. I thought that seeing as you hadn't heard the term before you might want to be made aware that it originated and still continues to be used almost exclusively (to the best of my knowledge) as a pejorative by so-called 'Men's Rights Activists' (read: genuinely horrible and regressive misogynists) to describe anyone with a liberal or progressive disposition. Without impugning your correspondent, I am immediately suspicious when the term is used as it suggests (and originated from) an entirely different and also toxic version of identity politics. I think the most mainstream use of the term so far has been in the 'Gamergate' movement, which many (myself included) think was a thinly veiled attempt by the same misogynists to create an aura of legitimacy around their sending of rape and death threats to relatively benign (if sometimes mistaken) critics of video game tropes/culture. 

Anyway, given the amount of baggage the term carries, I worry that you might (unintentionally) be, or be seen to be, lumping yourself in with a line of thought that is altogether more horrible than your actual political and moral beliefs. A google search of social justice warrior, or especially SJW, will demonstrate that its still very much the preserve of a nasty sort.

 

Though of course you could still agree with the definition given by your correspondent without necessarily endorsing all the horribleness associated with the term, I think there are some worrying signs in the definition itself (like the move towards claiming victimhood on neurosciencey terms) which are suggestive of additional beliefs on your correspondent's side, and of course the term itself is still used exclusively as a slur by a particular sort. 

All news to me (I had never even heard of "Gamergate," though have now looked it up)!  I'm quite sure my correspondent had nothing to do with any of this, far far from it in fact.  It still seems to me an apt term for describing a kind of facile and superficial cyber-posturing.

 

ANOTHER: Some readers disputed the genealogy of the SJW term, though I don't think its etiology matters.  See also this comment just submitted to the open thread.

Republican Mayor of Indianapolis defies Republican Governor...

...and bans discrimination against gay men and women by businesses that receive city funds.  It's hard to imagine clearer proof that the era of anti-gay bigotry is coming to an end when anti-gay animus is no longer safe even for Republicans.

In Memoriam: Leigh S. Cauman (1917-2015)

MOVING TO FRONT FROM YESTERDAY--SEE UPDATE

Dr. Cauman was Managing Editor of the Journal of Philosophy from 1962 to 1987, and also taught logic in the School of General Studies at Columbia University.  Professor Charles Parsons, now Emeritus at Harvard, but who taught at Columbia for many years as well, informed me of her passing and noted that, "She was greatly respected in these roles and others she assumed in the university community."

UPDAE:  Philosopher Laura Franklin-Hall (NYU, though she did her PhD at Columbia) kindly passed along information about a memorial service:

Memorial for Leigh S. Cauman

Sunday, April 12, at 2.00 pm

Ceremonial Hall, 4th Floor

New York Society for Ethical Culture

2 West 64th Street

New York, NY 10023

Blast from the past: Nick Cohen, apologist for wars of aggression

Another from 2004.

One-party state watch: inequality edition

Most Americans want something done about inequality, but candidates in neither party want to deal with the issue.  Now what could explain that?

Lateral moves since the fall 2014 PGR survey

With decision time coming for PhD applicants, here is a summary of lateral moves with tenure since the fall PGR:

Jonathan Kvanvig (epistemology, philosophy of religion) from Baylor University (where he was undoubtedly Baylor's leading senior figure) to Washington University, St. Louis.

Tristram McPherson (ethics, metaethics) from Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University to Ohio State University.

Alyssa Ney (metaphysics, philosophy of mind) from University of Rochester to the University of California, Davis.

Jill North (philosophy of physics) from Cornell University to Rutgers University, New Brunswick.

Russ Shafer-Landau (ethics, metaethics) from the University of Wisconsin, Madison to the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Ted Sider (metaphysics) from Cornell University to Rutgers University, New Brunswick.

David Wallace (philosophy of physics) from Oxford University to the University of Southern California.

Jennifer Whiting (ancient philosophy) from the University of Toronto to the University of Pittsburgh.

In addition to affecting the programs involved in the specialty area rankings, these moves would likely have some effects on the "overall" rankings:  Rutgers, I would expect, to be at #2 by itself, rather than tied with Princeton; Cornell would likely drop out of the top 20 (but will remain in the top 25 and will still be strong in metaphysics); the hiring of Wallace will solidify USC's "top 10" status; Wash U will move closer to the top 20; among others.

In addition, Chicago has voted out senior offers to Matthew Boyle (philosophy of mind and action, Kant) from Harvard University and Clinton Tolley (Kant, German Idealism, history and philosophy of mathematics and logic, history of analytic philosophy) from the University of California, San Diego (Tolley is a Chicago PhD).  If these offers are accepted, that would almost certainly push Chicago back into the U.S. top 20.

On a different note, I have extended an offer to another philosopher to take over as co-editor of the PGR with Brit going forward; I hope we'll have an announcement about that soon.

Open thread on issues in the profession for the week of March 30, 2015

Post your comment only once, I will approve them at various intervals during the day.

Lots of new junior appointments listed...

----at PhilJobs.  (And special congratulations to Nir Ben-Moshe, the first of the PhD students I've had the privilege of working with here to go on the job market; he will start in a tenure-track position at Illinois/Urbana-Champaign!)

"Normativity for Naturalists"

This paper is for a forthcoming volume of Philosophical Issues (the supplement to Nous) on "Normativity" edited by Ram Neta.

Blast from the past: the Derrida Industry

Way back in 2004.

Graduate student/TA strike at U of Toronto (MOVING TO FRONT FROM YESTERDAY)

This has been going on about a month, I've only recently caught up on it.  This is a good place to start.  (Thanks to Benj Hellie for the pointer.)

ADDENDUM:  Grad students at York University, Toronto are also striking..

UPDATE:  Several readers sent the news that the strike is over, with an agreement to binding arbitration on the underlying issues.

More UK uinversities behaving badly--this time Bolton

Jeez.

If you're thinking about law school...

...you've no doubt come across the legions of law school bashers in cyberspace, most rather badly informed and not too sharp.  (I used to engage this "law school is a scam" crowd, for which my reward  was mountains of vile and often defamatory abuse and campaigns of character assassination--they're a charming crowd.)  There are real issues about legal education prospective students should consider, but for a more sober perspective I commend the work on the labor economics of legal markets by Michael Simkovic at Seton Hall University; he has posted discussions and summaries of much of it at my law blog.

Indiana Governor trying to boost sales of my book...

...by showing the wickedness that religious exemptions require.

Is philosophy in the doldrums? The poll results and a discussion

MOVING TO FRONT FROM MARCH 24--see esp. comment #25 by Paul Weithman (Notre Dame).  More discussion welcome.

So with not quite 1400 votes cast in our poll prompted by Frankfurt's comments, here are the results:

Is philosophy in the doldrums?

Yes    48%661 No    36%495 Undecided    16%228

Discuss.  In particular, those who voted in the poll might explain why they voted as they did, how they understood "doldrums" etc.

Battles over funding, tenure in U of Wisconsin system heats up...

...with the head of the system pledging to resign if the Republican assault on the system makes it through the legislature.  Folks in Wisconsin, any more details, insights in to what's going on?

The expanding "circle of moral concern"

Entertaining essay, though for reasons discussed here (esp. at pp. 525 ff.), I doubt the circle will expand in quite the way they imagine.

On teaching philosophy in prison

Christia Mercer (Columbia) writes about her experience.

Blast from the past: Graham Harman makes things up

Here.

ADDENDUM:  A reader sends along this sophomoric prattle; The Monist must have fallen on hard times to be publishing material like this. The abstract alone will probably be enough for most readers, but do press on, it gives one real insight into the nether regions of the 'profession' where no actual intellectual standards prevail.  Imagine, an entire paper organized around an alleged "conflation" that any smart undergraduate would avoid!

"The Left and Appropriate Concern"

I received the following e-mail last week: 

I'm sending this email anonymously since, nowadays, being linked to even the mild views that I wish to get your opinion on is grounds for being tossed in the dustbin of "bigotry."

I've seen professional philosophers hint that they have these views, the ones I'm about to express, in places on your blog, but I'm hoping to get them conceretely addressed here.

I fear that the modern left has lost any sense of appropriate boundaries for moral concern and suffers from an obsession with identity recognition that's rapidly undoing the reasonable hierarchy of moral priorities that leftists once had. As this worry implies, I count myself, firmly, among the left. But I can't endorse the shrill, self-destructive ethos rapidly proliferating on this side of the political fence, which might well be an expression of the "Generation Wuss" mentality that you've gestured to at times.

Let me illustrate with an example. I recently read of a stranger's experience, in a Twitter thread that has since been deleted, with a transsexual friend. Having no malicious intent whatsoever, this former individual casually addressed a group of friends, of which the latter person was a part, with the word "guys." His transsexual friend (a woman) informed him sometime later that hearing the word "guys" "triggered" her, induced serious psychological distress, by way of a gender identity conflict that this word brought about. In recounting this story on the internet, the person with the transsexuxal friend stated that he wasn't interested in maintaining a relationship with this person, since he wasn't willing to "walk on eggshells" and self-police his language to accommodate what he perceived to be unreasonable fragility on the part of his transsexual friend. Unsurprisingly, the individual recounting this story was incessantly berated by victim-mongering identity politickers on Twitter, who suggested that he's an "evil bigot" with virtual unanimity.

The belief presumably animating such sickening moralizing strikes me as utterly perverse, where, by "belief", I mean the view that those who cause any offense to some vulnerable individual are morally required to take every step necessary to rectify the caused--and, in the future, avoid causing--offense. Is there no obligation on the part of "offended" persons to accept that not everything they hear will reflect the reality that they desire, and to develop some, dare I say, resilience in the face of this reality? And where will it end? Are we all to avoid speaking in public about the persons we find physically attractive, for fear that some self-aware, unattractive person will be psychologically traumatized by the experience? Though I've asked many people those questions, I'm yet to encounter a principled reason to care so deeply for the offense of "misgendering" transsexual people, while caring not at all for the exclusion that is part and parcel of recognizing that some are beautiful and others ugly. The "reasons" offered typically amount to nothing more than handwaving about how gender "matters more", as if identity politickers can, absent contradiction, merely put aside the social harm and isolation that follow from linguistic practices that establish aesthetic pecking orders, while frothing about "misgendering" and demanding radical revision of the features of language thought to be harmful to certain groups, because the latter "matters more." By that logic, it could be argued that we should dismiss (something, by the way, that I do not want to do) trans issues entirely, since trans folk constitute such a small minority of the population and, as such, the harm to them from misgendering is less serious than the harm to black people from racism. Clearly the former (the respose of identity politickers to my question about inclusion of the ugly) is to do with quality of harm while the latter (about racism) is to do with quantity, but the spirit of the notions is the same.

My correspondent gave permission to open this for general discussion.  I agree with the main themes of this e-mail, though less so with the last, long paragraph, which I don't entirely understand.  The hyper-sensitivity of coddled narcissists masquerading as moral righteousness is, indeed, tiresome, and it also does an injustice to those who actually suffer from PTSD who are entitled, including legally, to accommodation.  But what do readers think? 

Racist hate speech directed at Palestinians by Conn. College philosophy professor Andrew Pessin... (MOVING TO FRONT FROM YESTERDAY, UPDATED)

...generates outrage on campus, but no national media attention, for obvious reasons.  From the linked story:

Professor Pessin compared Gazan Palestinians to “rabid pit bulls” who need to be caged.  He described the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as a cycle of letting the “snarling dogs” out of their “cage” and then beating them back into it.  One person named Nicole commented on the post suggesting the “dogs” be put down.  Professor Pessin responded, “I agree.”  Professor Pessin directly condoned the extermination of a people.  A member of our community has called for the systematic abuse, killing, and hate of another people. 

(Thanks to Lukas Slothuus for alerting me to this story.)

ADDENDUM:  Prof. Pessin offers an "apology" here, though, oddly, without clearly renouncing the view that Palestinians are "dogs."

UPDATE:  IHE now has an informative item on this affair.  Prof. Pessin thinks it is a defense of his slurs to report that they were only aimed at Hamas, the elected representative of the Palestinians in Gaza.  He also makes the ludicrous claim that this is all an attempt to silence him, an outspoken proponent of Israel (when has an outspoken proponent of Israel ever been silenced in the United States?).  On the other hand, students asking the Administration to denounce Prof. Pessin's remarks are wrong to do so:  it is not the job of a college administration to police or editorialize about faculty speech.

Ramsey from Notre Dame to KU Leuven

Grant Ramsey (philosophy of biology, philosophy of science), currently Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, has accepted appointment as BOFZAP Research Professor at KU Leuven, effective July 2016.

Spiros does public philosophy...

...while waiting for the bus.

Wise words from Evgeny Morozov

Here

Neoliberalism in higher education watch: bill filed to privatize public universities in Illinois...

...similar moves afoot elsewhere.  Further proof that Ronald Reagan is still President, and that the Chicago School of economics still rules America.

Barry Allen did not like Steve Fuller's book

Rightly so, do read the whole thing.  From the conclusion:

In my view, in this book Fuller lends support to some dicey propositions, including creationism and intelligent design, the ideas of Teilhard de Chardin, neurotheology, and transhumanism, not to mention an epistemology of divine psychology. By itself that would not trouble me. What troubles me -- I should say, annoys me -- is that he just avers these things. There is very little argument in this book. In place of it are obsessive self-citations to the author's other publications. That annoyed me because I had time and occasion to read his new book, only to find out that I cannot understand it without reading twenty others by the same author, including maybe even his dissertation. Without studying the earlier books, I can't understand the point of this one, yet nothing in this one makes me want to read those others.

One does begin to wonder whether Fuller is really bonkers, or whether this is all simply to be chalked up to narcissistic stupidity.

A useful list of predatory publishers, journals...

...and other academic mischief.

(Thanks to Dean Rowan for the pointer.)

Catching up with Marx...

...periodically the economists do it:

Within two decades, we will have almost unlimited energy, food, and clean water; advances in medicine will allow us to live longer and healthier lives; robots will drive our cars, manufacture our goods, and do our chores.

There won’t be much work for human beings. Self-driving cars will be commercially available by the end of this decade and will eventually displace human drivers—just as automobiles displaced the horse and buggy—and will eliminate the jobs of taxi, bus, and truck drivers. Drones will take the jobs of postmen and delivery people....

Robots are already replacing manufacturing workers. Industrial robots have advanced to the point at which they can do the same physical work as human beings. The operating cost of some robots is now less than the salary of an average Chinese worker. And, unlike human beings, robots don’t complain, join labor unions, or get distracted. They readily work 24 hours a day and require minimal maintenance. Robots will also take the jobs of farmers, pharmacists, and grocery clerks.

Medical sensors in our smartphones, clothing, and bathrooms will soon be monitoring our health on a minute-to-minute basis. Combined with electronic medical records and genetic and lifestyle data, these will provide enough information for physicians to focus on preventing disease rather than on curing it....

The writing is clearly on the wall about what lies ahead. Yet even the most brilliant economists—and futurists—don’t know what to do about it....

[A]t best we have another 10 to 15 years in which there is a role for humans. The number of available jobs will actually increase in the U.S. and Europe before it decreases. China is out of time because it has a manufacturing-based economy, and those jobs are already disappearing. Ironically, China is accelerating this demise by embracing robotics and 3D printing. As manufacturing comes back to the U.S., new factories need to be built, robots need to be programmed, and new infrastructure needs to be developed. To install new hardware and software on existing cars to make them self-driving, we will need many new auto mechanics. We need to manufacture the new medical sensors, install increasingly efficient solar panels, and write new automation software.

And see also this.  Unless the productive forces of the world are used for common support, the future will be grim indeed.

UPDATE:  See also this essay by sociologist Randall Collins, which starts at p. 27 in the linked volume.  (Thanks to Benj Hellie for the pointer.)

ANOTHER:  Also relevant, from the London Review of Books.  (Thanks to Nick Smith for the pointer.)

Breaking news: disturbed man trying to gain entry to the White House

Details here.

Advertising update

There's still a 2nd from the top spot in April for $600, as well as 4th from the top spots ($450 each).  May still has one top and one second from the top available ($700 and $600, respectively).

Philosopher Adam Morton on "pitch perception"

Unusual and interesting.

Essentially open racism by a member of the U of Oklahoma Board of Regents

Wow, and double wow.

The New Infantilism makes the NY Times

A useful overview of examples, many of which resonate with nonsense we've seen in academic philosophy.

A virtual tour through ancient Rome

This is neat, show your kids!

Open thread on issues in the profession for the week of March 23, 2015

Post your comment only once, it may take awhile to appear.  Let me suggest as one possible topic an earlier thread on the empirical literature on implicit bias and stereotype threat.  What I took from that thread is that the evidence for stereotype threat is quite weak, but the evidence for implicit bias is quite strong.  On the other hand, the evidence that implicit bias operates when people engage in careful review of scholarship is weak.   Are these correct take-aways?  Citations and references welcome.

Is philosophy in the doldrums?

I, myself, thought Frankfurt's observation reasonable--there's certainly some nice work being done here and there, but nothing agenda-setting comparable to the figures Frankfurt mentions--but unsurprisingly, lots of younger philosophers dissented from the proposition that their field is in the doldrums.  So what do readers think?  I'll open a discussion afterwards.

QuestionPro

Lancaster's Alison Stone interviewed...

...at 3AM.

The myth of a "resurgence" in the problem of consciousness

Galen Strawson (Texas) comments.  Is he right?

(Thanks to Arthur Smith for the pointer.)

The sound of Nietzsche's voice...

MOVING TO FRONT FROM MARCH 19--SEE UPDATE

...reconstructed.  Very weird, I have no idea whether the method is legitimate.

(Thanks to Justin Remhof for the pointer.)

UPDATE:  It appears to be a hoax...or rather, "performance art"!  (Thanks to Glenn Branch for the pointer.)

The end of liberal Zionism?

Philosopher Samuel Fleischacker (Illinois/Chicago) comments.

The right-wing war on UNC-Chapel Hill

It is likely to come to other reactionary states before long.

NYU needs to pick their foreign partners more carefully

This was inevitable, and is probably just the beginning.

Amsterdam offers Chair to Schliesser

Eric Schliesser (early modern philosophy, philosophy of economics), currently at Ghent University, has been offered the Chair in Political Theory in the Political Science Department at the University of Amsterdam.  (Schliesser is particularly well-known for his work on Adam Smith, among other topics.)  Professor Schliesser tells me he will "almost certainly" accept this position.

McPherson from Virginia Tech to Ohio State

Tristram McPherson (ethics, metaethics), Associate Professor of Philosophy at Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, has accepted appointment as Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ohio State University, effective September 2015.

Another philosophy major turned chef

Here.

(Thanks to Ruchira Paul for the pointer.)

Blast from the past: "On academic bad manners"...

...featuring Fodor, Sterelny et al.