Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

Aristotle on anger, in the news

The silly and the serious.

(Thanks, respectively, to Robert McGarvey and Michael Swanson for the pointers.)

Gottlieb on Harris on Hume...

...in NYRB.  Interestingly, since I chided NYRB for its inadequate coverage of philosophy a few years back, there seems to have been a bit more in its pages:  I note just in the last year, for example, philosophical essays and reviews by Samuel Freeman, Tamsin Shaw, Peter Singer, Rebecca Goldstein, John Gray, and Jeremy Waldron.  Cause and effect?  Who knows?  What's still the case is that Boston Review still publishes more philosophy, and more high quality philosophy across more topics, than NYRB.

Yesterday in 1824, Beethoven...

..."conducted" the premier of his 9th Symphony.  Oh to have been there.  Here's the Chicago Symphony, under Muti, doing their version last year:

 

Indiana's Allen Wood interviewed...

...at 3AM.  The interview gives a nice, synoptic account of his (revisionary) account of Kant's ethics in particular.  As always, Allen also offers fierce and bracing judgments on matters philosophical and political.  Three examples from this interview (I disagree with them to varying degrees, but that's not the point).  First, on utilitarianism (vide "effective [sic] altruism"):

The problem I see with utilitarianism, or any form of consequentialism, is not that it gets the wrong answers to moral questions. I think just about any moral theory, worked out intelligently, and applied with good judgment, would get just about the same results as any other. Mill developed utilitarianism with great humanity and insight. Perhaps that is why many utilitarians (those with less humanity, insight and judgment) say he is not a true utilitarian. I have said to two of my friends: David Lyons and John Skorupski — both excellent philosophers, who have made a deep study of utilitarianism — that they are my favorite utilitarians. The reaction of both was the same: “But I am not a utilitarian!” To this my reply was: “Ah, so that explains it.”

Consequentialist theories begin with a very simple and undoubtedly valid point: Every action aims at a future end, and is seen as a means to it. (This is precisely Kant’s conception of action.) So one rational standard of action is how well it promotes the end it seeks. Another standard is whether it aims at ends which are good. Both of these, but especially the former, depend on judgments of fact. Utilitarians are usually empiricists who think they can solve every problem by accumulating enough empirical facts. They do not realize that thinking as well as experience is necessary to know anything or get anything right.Philosophy is about getting the facts right, but it is also about thinking rightly about them. Philosophy is more about the latter than the former. That’s why empiricist philosophy always tends to be anti-philosophy (and is often proud of it). People are often most proud of precisely those things of which they should most be ashamed. (The rightward side of American politics illustrates this very well.)

The big problem for consequentialism is that facts of this last form are hard to obtain except for a few determinate ends in the fairly short run. Consequentialist theories pretend that we can set some great big ends (the general happiness, human flourishing), provide ourselves with definite enough conceptions of them to make them the objects of instrumental reasoning, and then obtain enough reliable information about what actions will best promote them that we could regulate our conduct by these considerations alone. In fact people do not know enough about themselves and what is good for them to form a sufficiently definite conception of the general happiness (or whatever the end is) to establish definite rules for its pursuit.

Further, we cannot predict the effects of our actions, especially our collective actions over generations or centuries, to use instrumental reasoning toward these big final ends to tell us what we ought to do. As a result, it is possible to use the simple point that it is rational to choose the right means to your ends to develop very elegant abstract formal theories of rational choice, and then turn these into what look like moral theories. Philosophers tend to be ravished by the formal beauty of such theories, and they don’t pay much attention to the fact that our human limitations make them pretty useless in practice, while the simple point about instrumental reasoning is too shallow to be of much real moral interest.

When consequentialist theories are developed in terms of an equally shallow psychology of the good — such as a crude form of hedonism — the results can sometimes strike sensible people as revolting and inhuman. People can be reduced to simple repositories of positive or negative sensory states, and their humanity is lost sight of entirely. When people think that moral problems can be solved by some simple strategy of calculation, that sets them up for ghastly overreaching. They think they can turn everything into a “science” the way mechanics was turned into a science in the seventeeth century. They want to turn everything over to technocrats and social engineers. They become shortsighted or simplistic about their ends, and they disastrously overestimate their ability to acquire the information they need to make the needed calculations. Utilitarians of the caliber of Mill and Sidgwick do not do these things, at least on particular moral issues about which they reflect as human beings.

 Second, on Marx and capitalism:

Great moments in obscure rock 'n' roll: Trapeze, "Black Cloud," 1970

Another English band to come out of the hard rock/blues explosion, whose most famous representative was Free; this tune is from their second album.  Members of Trapeze later went on to join better known outfits in the 1970s, such as Deep Purple and Judas Priest.  This is from their second album, Medusa, which has a couple of other good tunes, but this is the standout:

 

University of Bristol Admin orders student to remove short story from his personal website, and summons him in for a disciplinary hearing

Really?  Bristol Admins, are you nuts?

University of Wisconsin campuses in revolt

Votes of no confidence spread.  President Cross is in a difficult situation; the Regents should all resign, they have more power and they have been complicit in laying the seeds for the destruction of what was a great state university system.  Shame, shame.

Aristotle on trolling

A modern translation, thanks to Rachel Barney (Toronto).

The more you comment online, the dumber your comments become

At last, a scientific explanation for the problem that afflicts so many philosophy-related blogs (among others, no doubt).

Mearsheimer on Trump and foreign policy

This is quite interesting, though it does proceed on the assumption that Trump actually means what he says, but who really knows?  But Mearsheimer is plainly correct that Hillary Clinton is a "super hawk" with a record of terrible judgment on foreign policy matters.  Mearsheimer clearly likes that he hears Trump as moving away from the "liberal imperialism" of both the Republicans and Democrats, of which, of course, Mearsheimer himself is a critic (though, needless to say, a more nuanced one than Trump!).

Yet another conflagration surrounding expression about transgender people

This time involving the Antioch Review.  IHE quotes excerpts from the "offending" article which seem like rather mild criticism, and certainly not "hate speech" under any known statutory definition of the latter.  It all brings to mind the thought police tantrum that accompanied the discussion of Germaine Greer's views.  Alas.

Nebraska's John Brunero wins APA's 2016 Article Prize

The APA announcement is here.

(Thanks to Mark van Roojen for the pointer.)

The rise of research universities in Barcelona

Interesting piece, which helps explain why universities there seem to perform so much better than others in Spain.  In our part of the academic world, we've seen this recently with the philosophers Carl Hoefer and Genoveva Marti, who recently moved to the University of Western Ontario, but are now returning to Barcelona.

Shockley from Buffalo to Colorado State

Kenneth Shockley (environmental philosophy, ethics), Associate Professor of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo, has accepted a senior offer from the Department of Philosophy at Colorado State University, where he starts this August.

Recent PhD placement data: women more likely than men to secure permanent positions within two years of the PhD

The data and various charts are here.  What I can't tell from this data is what is "held constant" when the authors say that women are more likely than men to get permanent posts all else equal.  For example, does this analysis "hold constant" the quality of the PhD program from which the graduates come?  I'm not sure.  If more women are graduating from strong programs, proportionally, than men, then the result wouldn't be surprising.   Comments are open for anyone who can clarify what's going on here.

Sosa, Stich (both Rutgers) win 2016 Lebowitz Prize

Details here.

Georgia Governor vetoes bill that would have permitted licensed gun owners to carry their guns on college campuses

This crazy legislation has passed in other benighted states (e.g., Texas), but lucky for Georgia, the Governor vetoed it; from his explanation for the veto (#9 at the link):

Perhaps the most enlightening evidence of the historical significance of prohibiting weapons on a college campus is found in the minutes of October 4, 1824, Board of Visitors of the newly created University of Virginia. Present for that meeting were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, along with four other members. In that meeting of the Board of Visitors, detailed rules were set forth for the operation of the University which would open several months later. Under the rules relating to the conduct of students, it provided that “No student shall, within the precincts of the University, introduce, keep or use any spirituous or venomous liquors, keep or use weapons or arms of any kind…”

The approval of these specific prohibitions relating to “campus carry” by the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, and the principal author of the United States Constitution should not only dispel any vestige of Constitutional privilege but should illustrate that having college campuses free of weapons has great historical precedent.

Robert Paul Wolff's workshop on Marx's Capital at Brown...

...was recorded, happily.  Among the Brown philosophers in attendance were, among others, David Estlund and Paul Guyer.

Ockham's many razors

A nicely done and informative essay by Elliott Sober (Wisconsin), a kind of precis of themes from his recent book.

American political circus, update

So religious crazy Ted Cruz--"Lucifer in the flesh" in the memorable phrase of the former Speaker of the House John Boehner (himself not exactly a paragon of cosmopolitan virtue and enlightenment, but still quite a bit saner than Lucifer)--has dropped out of the Republican race after losing to Herr Trump in the Indiana primary.  It is true that, early on, I endorsed Trump for the Republican nomination, not realizing how much impact that would have.   Clinton, alas, will be the Democratic nominee, which means however this ends, it will be bad for humanity at large.  Bear in mind that the various polls about Clinton vs. Trump so far all show Clinton leading substantially (the exception is the consistently right-leaning Rasmussen reports), but often with 15-20% of the electorate undecided.  Trump will begin his assault on Clinton soon, which may or may not inflict damage.  Assuming Trump does not pick a woman as a running mate (e.g., his wife or daughter) or find a minority running mate, someone who would no doubt make Uncle Tom look like Frederick Douglass, Clinton would be well-advised to pick the liberal Senator Sherrod Brown from Ohio, a crucial state to win, and a running mate more likely to appeal to Sanders supporters and working class white men.  In the end, the demographics will propel Clinton to office:  women, young people, African-American, Hispanic, and Asian-American voters will all vote for Clinton, or at least against Trump, by sizeable majorities (on the order of 60-90%), which will send not only Trump but hopefully many other Republican congressional candidates down in flames in November.  With luck, the Republican Party will disappear from the face of the earth, or regroup in smaller factions, e.g., "the Lucifer Party," the "Libertarians" and so on.

Columbia's Michelle Moody-Adams discusses campus protests, free speech, and academic freedom...

...in this interview.

Forget fundamentalist terrorism: the real threat comes from...

...gun-wielding toddlers.

Marquette poli sci professor sues university

A press release here.  I have not yet read the complaint, but assuming his tenure contract with Marquette includes standard AAUP protections for academic freedom, he has a good claim.

ADDENDUM:  I'm astonished to see that Justin Weinberg (South Carolina) continues to assert, falsely, that Prof. McAdam's original blog post was inaccurate; in fact, it was almost entirely accurate.  The faculty committee report from which he quotes is astonishing, a formal confirmation that Marquette University is not a serious university that values either academic freedom or free speech.  (As an amusing aside, even the committee report acknowledges at the bottom of p. 152 that the existence of inaccuracies in the original blog post is irrelevant!)   It as written as though there is some legal ambiguity about whether Prof. McAdam's extramural speech is legally protected by his contract with the university; there is not.  It acts as though it is up to the committee to redraw the boundaries of academic freedom; it is not.   If the contract incorporates the AAUP standards, then the matter is legally closed.  Most astonishingly, it invents a new obligation, namely that when faculty speak extramurally, they "avoid recklessly causing [others] harm, even indirectly."  It is a shame there won't be a photo of the look on the judge's face when he or she reads this interpretation of Marquette's contractual obligations to protect the academic freedom of Prof. McAdams.  There is no extant interpretation of freedom of speech or academic freedom that would license such a restriction, and for the obvious reasons that it is too vague for anyone to be able to anticipate what speech it encompasses.

Classroom gunfights coming to University of Tennessee classrooms...

...since faculty now have the right to be armed too.  The infamous "Insta-ignorance," Glenn Reynolds, a law professor at UT and right-wing blogger, must be thrilled!

UW-Madison faculty vote "no confidence" in System President Ray Cross and the Board of Regents

Story here.  This is all very sad, considering that Madison has been one of the great state research universities in the country.  Will they be in the top 20 a decade from now?  We'll know within a year or two the fallout of all this turmoil--not that it will matter to lowlife ignoramuses like Scott Walker.

On Trump, democracy, and tyranny

An interesting essay by journalist Andrew Sullivan, who even works in some Plato, not implausibly.  As with everything by Sullivan, the substance is mixed, but there are, as one of the several readers who sent this to me today said, some "gems."   Herewith a few excerpts:

Could it be that the Donald has emerged from the populist circuses of pro wrestling and New York City tabloids, via reality television and Twitter, to prove not just Plato but also James Madison right, that democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention … and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths”? Is he testing democracy’s singular weakness — its susceptibility to the demagogue — by blasting through the firewalls we once had in place to prevent such a person from seizing power? Or am I overreacting?

And later:

Best Anglophone political philosophers since 1945: the results

With not quite 320 votes cast in our latest poll, here's the top 20:

1. John Rawls  (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)

2. G.A. Cohen  loses to John Rawls by 214–26

3. Robert Nozick  loses to John Rawls by 217–17, loses to G.A. Cohen by 122–93

4. Ronald Dworkin  loses to John Rawls by 227–8, loses to Robert Nozick by 103–97

5. Joseph Raz  loses to John Rawls by 217–13, loses to Ronald Dworkin by 103–80

6. Amartya Sen  loses to John Rawls by 228–17, loses to Joseph Raz by 111–89

7. Martha Nussbaum  loses to John Rawls by 225–38, loses to Amartya Sen by 111–107

8. H.L.A. Hart  loses to John Rawls by 221–16, loses to Martha Nussbaum by 112–110

9. Isaiah Berlin  loses to John Rawls by 223–21, loses to H.L.A. Hart by 107–88

10. T.M. Scanlon  loses to John Rawls by 229–6, loses to Isaiah Berlin by 112–84

11. Thomas Nagel  loses to John Rawls by 229–5, loses to T.M. Scanlon by 95–82

12. Jeremy Waldron  loses to John Rawls by 229–12, loses to Thomas Nagel by 98–81

13. Philip Pettit  loses to John Rawls by 233–10, loses to Jeremy Waldron by 84–79

14. Charles Taylor  loses to John Rawls by 225–13, loses to Philip Pettit by 101–79

15. Brian Barry  loses to John Rawls by 231–7, loses to Charles Taylor by 91–80

16. Joel Feinberg  loses to John Rawls by 230–8, loses to Brian Barry by 87–70

17. Michael Walzer  loses to John Rawls by 226–10, loses to Joel Feinberg by 83–80

18. Joshua Cohen  loses to John Rawls by 233–5, loses to Michael Walzer by 94–69

19. A. John Simmons  loses to John Rawls by 232–6, loses to Joshua Cohen by 69–67

20. Charles Beitz  loses to John Rawls by 235–2, loses to A. John Simmons by 70–59

Runners-up for the top 20 include Susan Okin, Samuel Scheffler, Iris Young, and Gerald Gaus.  There appears to have been a late surge of some strategic voting for Nussbaum, who was in the top ten even before that (one indication is that 38 people ranked her ahead of Rawls, compared to, say, 17 who ranked Nozick or Sen ahead, or the 8 who ranked Dworkin ahead--though that she came out behind Sen is, to my mind, surprising).  But as with all these polls, the precise ordinal rank is less revealing than the broader picture (the top 5, the top 10, the top 20).  In that regard, the results seem, yet again, fairly reasonable.  There were, alas, some unfortunate omissions from the poll, including David Miller, Jean Hampton, and Gregory Kavka.  And recall that among living political philosophers, only those over age 60 were included.  (Some that did poorly in earlier iterations of these polls were not included.)

Someone needs to help the Brown undergraduates get a sense of priorities

This incident is just bizarre, and certainly brings to mind a comment on an earlier thread about Brown.

Wisconsin's Sarah Paul interviewed...

...at 3AM.

Epigenetics and the return of Lamarck?

I'd be curious to hear from philosophers of biology and other biologically-informed readers about this New Yorker piece.  Accurate?  Misleading?  Links to better or other discussions of epigenetics accessible to non-biologists welcome.

Politics 101 with the help of the 2016 Presidential election in the U.S.

Thanks to Michael Swanson for sending this along:

UW-Madison Faculty Senate to consider "No Confidence" vote on System President R. Cross

A local news item here.  This is obviously related to unhappiness about the change to the tenure rules.