Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

Chomsky (?) on postmodernism (and Derrida in particular)

This is plausibly Chomsky, although the source is a bit peculiar; comments are open for correction or confirmation.  It certainly sounds like him, and the remarks about Derrida are exactly right.   An excerpt:

There are lots of things I don't understand -- say, the latest debates over whether neutrinos have mass or the way that Fermat's last theorem was (apparently) proven recently. But from 50 years in this game, I have learned two things: (1) I can ask friends who work in these areas to explain it to me at a level that I can understand, and they can do so, without particular difficulty; (2) if I'm interested, I can proceed to learn more so that I will come to understand it. Now Derrida, Lacan, Lyotard, Kristeva, etc. --- even Foucault, whom I knew and liked, and who was somewhat different from the rest --- write things that I also don't understand, but (1) and (2) don't hold: no one who says they do understand can explain it to me and I haven't a clue as to how to proceed to overcome my failures. That leaves one of two possibilities: (a) some new advance in intellectual life has been made, perhaps some sudden genetic mutation, which has created a form of "theory" that is beyond quantum theory, topology, etc., in depth and profundity; or (b) ... I won't spell it out....

Take, say, Derrida. Let me begin by saying that I dislike making the kind of comments that follow without providing evidence, but I doubt that participants want a close analysis of de Saussure, say, in this forum, and I know that I'm not going to undertake it. I wouldn't say this if I hadn't been explicitly asked for my opinion --- and if asked to back it up, I'm going to respond that I don't think it merits the time to do so.

So take Derrida, one of the grand old men. I thought I ought to at least be able to understand his Grammatology, so tried to read it. I could make out some of it, for example, the critical analysis of classical texts that I knew very well and had written about years before. I found the scholarship appalling, based on pathetic misreading; and the argument, such as it was, failed to come close to the kinds of standards I've been familiar with since virtually childhood. Well, maybe I missed something: could be, but suspicions remain, as noted. Again, sorry to make unsupported comments, but I was asked, and therefore am answering.

Blast from the past: "From the bowels of cyberspace..."

Back in 2010 (before I mellowed!).

"Semifascism" and Trump

I don't know anything about this Hamid character being attacked (although he sounds "too stupid to warrant a response," to borrow Gore Vidal's famous putdown), but this is exactly right:

Shadi speaks of fascism as an ideology like Communism or liberalism, but as the highly-respected scholar Robert Paxton points out fascism is less a coherent ideology than a set of “mobilizing passions:”

• a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions;

• the primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether individual or universal, and the subordination of the individual

• the belief that one’s group is a victim, a sentiment that justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against its enemies, both internal and external;

• dread of the group’s decline under the corrosive effects of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences;

• the need for closer integration of a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary;

• the need for authority by natural leaders (always male), culminating in a national chief who alone is capable of incarnating the group’s destiny;

• the superiority of the leader’s instincts over abstract and universal reason;

• the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group’s success;

• the right of the chosen people to dominate others without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the group’s prowess within a Darwinian struggle.

Now obviously some of these features apply more to Trumpism than others, so “semi-fascism” seems to be right on the money.

More signs of the times: life expectancy falls dramatically in U.S....

...largely because the U.S. was right up there with Brazil and Peru in mishandling the pandemic disaster, aided and abetted of course by one of its two main political parties, the Repugs.  From the NYT report:

The average life expectancy of Americans fell precipitously in 2020 and 2021, the sharpest two-year decline in nearly 100 years and a stark reminder of the toll exacted on the nation by the continuing coronavirus pandemic.

In 2021, the average American could expect to live until the age of 76, federal health researchers reported on Wednesday. The figure represents a loss of almost three years since 2019, when Americans could expect to live, on average, nearly 79 years....

While the pandemic has driven most of the decline in life expectancy, a rise in accidental deaths and drug overdoses also contributed, as did deaths from heart disease, chronic liver disease and cirrhosis, the new report found....

Lederman from Princeton to Texas/Austin

Harvey Lederman (logic, epistemology, philosophy of langauge, Chinese philosophy), Professor of Philosophy at Princeton University, has accepted a senior offer from the Department of Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin, where he will start in January 2023.  That's a big catch for Texas, which together with other hires since the last PGR (and senior departures at some of the departments ranked higher in the 2021 PGR), ought to push the department to the cusp of the top 10.

"Five Questions" with philosopher and clinical therapist Hanna Pickard (Johns Hopkins)...

...by Kieran Setiya (MIT).

Links to resources for graduate students

Adam Patterson, a PhD student at Syracuse University, has compiled an extensive set of links about reading philosophy, writing philosophy, teaching philosophy, the job market, etc.  Not all the sources are of equal quality, but many are quite good, and some I'd never seen before (e.g., Connie Rosati [Texas] on how to read philosophy [aimed at undergraduate students]).

In Memoriam: Larry Laudan (1941-2022)

Professor Laudan was one of the great philosophers of science of the last fifty years, many of whose papers and books will be read, I expect, a century from now.  I had the pleasure of being his colleague at the University of Texas at Austin, as he reinvented himself as a philosopher of law, especially the law governing proof in the criminal context, which led to his splendid book Truth, Error, and Criminal Law (Cambridge, 2006).   He taught at many institutions during his long career, and co-founded with Adolf Grunbaum, the history and philosophy of science department at the University of Pittsburgh.  There is a splendid and informative memorial notice here.  You can get a sense of the breadth of his work, and its impact, from his Google Scholar page here.

Blast from the past: Irresponsible philosophy faculty, how widespread a phenomenon?

Back in 2005, with reader discussion.  I'll open comments here in case any readers want to comment on changes in the interim.

Stephen Darwall (Yale) talks about morality, moral obligation, objectivity, and other topics...

...at The Dissenter.

Free college causes fascism, the dangers of an "educated proletariat"...

...and other oddities from the early days of the Republican war on higher education (with a focus on Reagan and the University of California system in the 1960s and 1970s).

(Thanks to Joshua Selby for the pointer.)

Just to put journal submissions in perspective

It turns out one of the papers recently selected by the Philosopher's Annual as one of the "ten best" of the year was, in fact, desk-rejected by one of the handful of very top journals, and then rejected, after R&R, by another top journal, before finally landing in a different top journal!  So from desk rejection, to R&R rejection, to one of the "ten best" papers of the year!  As the author aptly remarked:  "opinions about he merits of philosophical work can vary."  Indeed!

Adolph Reed: "Black Studies as a Class Project"

The latest from Professor Reed; an excerpt:

Inattentiveness to racial inequality’s embeddedness in capitalist political economy links directly to the fact that antiracist discourse posits “racism”—rather than historically specific political-economic and legal institutions, relations, and practices—as the causal source of (unjust) inequality affecting black people past and present. Racism, however, notwithstanding efforts to represent it as something more concrete via modifiers like “structural” or “systemic,” is an abstract idea, an attitude or belief, and is therefore incapable of causing anything.4 Insofar as the idea is regarded as the motive force determining blacks’ position in society across time and context, persistence of black people’s disproportionate representation among the most vulnerable, marginalized, and impoverished populations today can appear continuous with slavery and Jim Crow. According to that idealist reasoning, which also underlies Afropessimism’s ontological devil theory and is the essence of race reductionism, racism is the cause, rather than the result, of slavery, of the Jim Crow regime, and of contemporary inequality as well.

As usual, the whole essay is worth your time!  I'll also be posting before long about his book The South:  Jim Crow and Its Afterlives, which I also commend to readers.

Wimsatt on Lewontin and philosophy of biology

William Wimsatt (Minnesota & also emeritus here at Chicago) comments on Richard Lewontin's legacy and his influence, in particular, on philosophy of biology.   

(Biologist Gregory Mayer, who kindly flagged this essay for me, points out that, "Philip Kitcher was not a guest in Dick’s lab, but in Steve Gould’s area. Philip, though, was acquainted with and interacted with people throughout the Museum of Comparative Zoology.")

Virtual dissertation groups, redux

Joshua Smart (SIU-Edwardsville) asked me to share this announcement:

Virtual Dissertation Groups are back for Fall 2022. Open sign-ups through Wednesday, September 7^th at www.jasmartphilosophy.com/virtual-dissertation-groups.

What it is: Virtual Dissertation Groups is a free service for those currently working on their doctoral dissertations in philosophy departments (or philosophy of science or the like). Since 2014, VDG has connected students from over 30 countries to provide peer feedback on dissertation work with a minimal time commitment.

How it works: Each dissertator is placed in a group of three on the basis of a short survey about their project/area of work. Toward the end of each full month of the semester, one member will send some work (3k – 6k words) to the other two, who then return feedback in a week or so. (Usually these are written comments, though some groups choose to have video discussions.)

Great moments in obscure rock 'n' roll: Gong, "I Never Glid Before," 1973

Eclectic progressive rock band, that continues to this day, this came from their period of relative (albeit modest) success:

 

Blast from the past: Graduate students afraid to support the open letter in defense of academic freedom

Back in early 2021.

(Addendum:  the original open letter is now available here.)

Philosopher's Annual, 2021

Editor Patrick Grim has shared the results (I've added institutional affiliations).  I'll just say I'm disappointed that only one history of philosophy paper was chosen this year; some other very good ones were nominated (and not only by me, I should add):

 

The Philosopher’s Annual volume 41

from the literature of 2021

 

Louis deRosset (Vermont), “Hollow Truth,” from the Philosophical Review

Dmitri Gallow (Australian Catholic U), “A Model-Invariant Theory of Causation,” from the Philosophical Review

Alan Hájek (ANU) and Wlodek Rabinowicz (Lund), “Degrees of Commensurability and the Repugnant Conclusion,” from Noûs

Tom Hurka (Toronto), “Against ‘Good For’/’Well-Being’, For ‘Simply Good’,” from the Philosophical Quarterly

 Matthew Mandelkern (NYU), “If P, Then P!” from the Journal of Philosophy

Stephen Menn (McGill), “Aristotle on the Many Senses of Being,” from Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy

 Shyam Nair (Arizona State), “‘Adding Up’ Reasons: Lessons for Reductive and Nonreductive Approaches,” from Ethics

Theron Pummer (St Andrews), “Impermissible yet Praiseworthy,” from Ethics

Una Stojnić (Princeton), “Just Words: Intentions, Tolerance and Lexical Selection,” from Philosophy and Phenomenological Research

Monique Wonderly (UC San Diego), “Forgiving, Committing, and Un-forgiving,” from Philosophy and Phenomenological Research

 

When the University of Sydney philosophy department "split" apart for political reasons in the 1970s

This article (from Honi Soit) has been making the rounds on social media; I asked one of the protagonists in these events, philosopher Michael Devitt (now at the CUNY Graduate Center) for his take on the article.  He kindly gave permission to share the following:

This is a good article in Honi Soit, and quite accurate. It mentions the undergraduate history honors thesis by David Rayment. This gives the most thorough account of the saga that I know of. There is, however, a good chapter on it, “The Sydney Disturbances”, in James Franklin’s book, Corrupting the Youth: A History of Philosophy in Australia (Macleay Press 2003). (I supplied both authors with a lot of the original documents – oddly, I was the only participant on Left or Right who kept significant records.)

Pollitt on Rushdie and offending the religious...

...at The Nation; an excerpt:

The idea that religion should be protected from disagreement—that’s the problem. Why should the holdings of any faith be beyond critique, satire, even mockery? Religion is not a hereditary trait. It’s a set of ideas and behaviors and social practices. Those can be changed, and have been repeatedly throughout history. Blasphemy is part of that process, because it encourages questioning and independence of spirit and resistance to obscurantism and unjust authority. We progressives are supposed to take a side. Galileo or the Inquisition? Rushdie or the ayatollahs?

Sociologist Randall Collins on the "big picture"

An interesting and wide-ranging interview about the social and economic developments associated with the period of the "Great Acceleration" (roughly the post-WWII period that has brought about the climate change catastrophe); an excerpt (with some resonaces with this):

[B]efore 1940, high school graduates were a small elite and a sufficient degree for management jobs; as high school became mass rather than elite, in the 1960s the same jobs now required a B.A; by the 1990s, an MBA. The sociological argument had been that mass schooling created social equality; but statistically it became clear that extending the length of schooling continued to give more credentials to the children of educated parents. In my 1979 book, I argued that equality would never be achieved along this path; better to decredentialize by banning credentials in hiring....

Lam from Vassar to UC Riverside

Barry Lam, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Vassar College, has accepted a tenured offer from the Department of Philosophy at the University of California, Riverside to focus, as he describes it, on "public-facing philosophy."  Lam is the creator of the popular Hi-Phi Nation podcast that we have noted before.

Class is not an identity

Instructive discussion by Daniel Burnfin, a recent PhD in Philosophy and German from University of Chicago, with whom I've had the benefit of discussing many issues in Marxist economics over the last couple of years.  An excerpt from the beginning:

Ascriptive identity is a category that names different types of relatively immutable properties of individuals, whom it then groups according to those properties. Ascriptive identity concerns the properties with which individuals identify, ‘as’ which they identify themselves, or as which others identify them. That is, ascriptive identity concerns what individuals consciously think that they ‘are’ or what others think that they ‘are’. It concerns gender, race, ethnicity, ability, and so on. Moreover, ascriptive identity is primarily discursive. And it is the basis for so-called “identity politics”. Many leftists today treat class as though it were one identity among others; as though class politics were a subset of identity politics. For example, the “working class” understood as an identity might designate white, heterosexual male, denim-clad manual laborers, who listen to rock and roll and prefer lite beer. Of course, this is a caricature. But it illustrates the way in which class is distorted beyond recognition when it is understood as though it were an identity.

The Marxian concept of class does not concern the properties of individuals, or what they or others think that they ‘are’. Rather, it classifies individuals according to what they ‘do’ or the functions that they perform in a socio-economic system such as modern capitalism....

Blast from the past: Statement in defense of the academic freedom of philosophers to discuss sex and gender

Back in 2019.  Since Professor Stock was drummed out of the academy, there has been less bad behavior, although I'm sure the miscreants will rise to the occasion again should the opportunity arise.  The only hopeful news is that some of those miscreants have departed the academy altogether in the interim.

Best "general" journals of philosophy, 2022, via the Condorcet method and via an average of both methods

The results of the most recent poll (with 479 votes) are below the fold.  Contrary to what I had thought, however, it turns out that there are ways for sophisticated Internet users to vote multiple times in this poll, just as in the earlier pairwise poll (where it is easy to do so, but one has to vote a lot to have an impact).  Despite that the results were fairly stable across both kinds of poll (a striking exception was Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society).  So here is a ranking based on the average rank of each journal in both polls (avg. in parentheses), each of course subject to the limitations of on-line polling:

1.  Philosophical Review (1)

2.  Nous (2.5)

3.  Mind (3)

4.  Philosophy & Phenomenological Research (3.5)

5.  Journal of Philosophy (5)

6.  Australasian Journal of Philosophy (6)

7.  Philosophers' Imprint (7.5)

7.  Philosophical Studies (7.5)

9.  Philosophical Quarterly (9)

10. Synthese (10.5)

11. Analysis (11)

12. Canadian Journal of Philosophy (12.5)

12. Ergo (12.5)

14. Erkenntnis (14.5)

15. European Journal of Philosophy (15)

16. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (16.5)

17. American Philosophical Quarterly (17)

18. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly (17.5)

19. Inquiry (18.5)

19. Journal of the American Philosophical Association (18.5)

Runners-up for the top twenty:  The Monist (21.5) and Philosophical Perspectives (21.5)

When your publisher fails to market your book

Rev. Thomas Scarborough has found the perfect solution, which he kindly shared:

Federal judge in Florida enjoins the blatantly unconstitutional "Stop Woke" act

The opinion is here.  Judge Walker was not amused by Gov. Viktor DeSantis's outrageous legislation:

In the popular television series Stranger Things, the “upside down” describes a parallel dimension containing a distorted version of our world…..Recently, Florida has seemed like a First Amendment upside down. Normally, the First Amendment bars the state from burdening speech, while private actors may burden speech freely. But in Florida, the First Amendment apparently bars private actors from burdening speech, while the state may burden speech freely

Now, like the heroine in Stranger Things, this Court is once again asked to pull Florida back from the upside down. Before this Court is a motion for a preliminary injunction, asking this Court to enjoin a host of Government officials from enforcing portions of the Individual Freedom Act—a law that prohibits employers from endorsing any of eight concepts during any mandatory employment activity.  Because the challenged provision of the Act is a naked viewpoint-based regulation on speech that does not pass strict scrutiny, Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, ECF No. 18, is GRANTED in part.

(A broader constitutional challenge [on behalf of students and teachers] to the legislation is also being mounted by the  ACLU, since the particular issue here [described in the second paragraph, above] was more narrow.)

UPDATE:  Reader Brock Sides points out to me that footnote 12 in the Court's opinion cites Kant, Nietzsche, and Merleau-Ponty on the question of what "objectivity" is and whether it is possible!

A Condorcet poll of the best "generalist" journals of philosophy

MOVING TO FRONT FROM YESTERDAY (SUNDAY) AFTERNOON--MORE THAN 300 VOTES ALREADY(THANKS!); THE POLL WILL REMAIN OPEN UNTIL TOMORROW.

The poll is here.  Condorcet is much harder to game than the pairwise poll scheme, and it is also difficult to vote more than once, since it tracks IP addresses.  "Generalist" journals means journals that publish in several, but not necessarily all, areas of philosophy:  e.g., M&E/Language/Mind, science, value theory, history, logic.  Omissions from the last pairwise poll have been corrected.  Go to it!

AFA opposes mandatory "diversity" statements in appointments and promotion

Quite rightly, as we have discussed before.  An excerpt from the AFA statement:

Academics seeking employment or promotion will almost inescapably feel pressured to say things that accommodate the perceived ideological preferences of an institution demanding a diversity statement, notwithstanding the actual beliefs or commitments of those forced to  speak.  This scenario is inimical to fundamental values that should govern academic life. The demand for diversity statements enlists academics into a political movement, erasing the distinction between academic expertise and ideological conformity. It encourages cynicism and dishonesty.  An industry of diversity statement “counselling” has already emerged--and could easily have been predicted. There are prevalent and reasonable suspicions that beneath the stated rationales for diversity statements lurk unstated motives that include providing a way to screen out candidates who express ambivalence about DEI programming. 

The growing regime of DEI testing through forced pledges of conformity threaten to impose a suffocating orthodoxy, penalizing expressions of DEI skepticism though such skepticism exists across a wide ideological range that includes not only right-leaning scholars but left-leaning scholars as well.

 

Free online lecture and seminar series on Chinese and comparative philosophy from East China Normal University

There is a fuller description here.   The lecture schedule is here, and the seminar schedule here.   The lectures are 90-minute talks, the seminars are short-courses that run anywhere from 2-6 weeks, meeting 2-3 times a week for two hours. 

President of American Historical Association criticizes "presentism" in history scholarship and its usurpation by politics...

...singling out, inter alia, the 1619 Project, the misuse of history by conservative Supreme Court justices, ignoring the role of Africans in the slave trade, and a few other items.  He has now issued an absurd and abject apology:

My...Perspectives on History column has generated anger and dismay among many of our colleagues and members. I take full responsibility that it did not convey what I intended and for the harm that it has caused. I had hoped to open a conversation on how we “do” history in our current politically charged environment. Instead, I foreclosed this conversation for many members, causing harm to colleagues, the discipline, and the Association.

In Memoriam: Terence Parsons (1939-2022)

ORIGINALLY POSTED JULY 30--UPDATED AGAIN

Well-known for his work in philosophy of language and metaphysics, Professor Parsons was emeritus at UCLA, where he spent the last twelve years of his career.  He taught before that at the University of Illinois at Chicago, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, and the University of California at Irvine.  I will add links to memorial notices as they appear.

(Thanks to Dom Lopes for the information.)

UPDATE (8/2/22):  Ed Zalta (Stanford) kindly shared this remembrance:

I was extremely saddened to hear that Terry Parsons passed away. Though I hadn't been in regular contact with Terry for some time, he had a significant impact on my philosophical development.  I took three classes from him while I was a graduate student at U. Massachusetts/Amherst (1976-1980): one on Frege, a graduate seminar on Tense and Aspect (co-taught with Barbara Partee), and a graduate seminar in which we read through the manuscript of his then forthcoming book Nonexistent Objects.  His classes were always insightful and helped me to get a sense of what was really going on in the texts we were studying. But it was his seminar on nonexistent objects that changed my thinking in radical ways.  I learned how to do axiomatic metaphysics in that class and though I started to work on an alternative to his theory of nonexistents, Terry agreed to supervise my thesis when I approached him about a dissertation.

Great moments in obscure rock 'n' roll: Sensational Alex Harvey Band, "Midnight Moses," 1972

Scottish hard rock band that emerged out of the ashes of "Tear Gas" (a band we have featured before), they were fairly successful by the mid-1970s in the UK, but never got much notice in the U.S.  This strong number comes from their very first album:

 

California's ban on state employee travel using state funds to the benighted states...

MOVING TO FRONT FROM AUGUST 17--UPDATED, AND COMMENTS ARE OPEN FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION

...has implications for the academic freedom of faculty as well.  Suppose a faculty member needs to do lab or other in-person work with a colleague in one of the benighted states, and ordinarily they could utilize allocated research money for this travel.  Under current California law, they can no longer utilize that money, thus infringing upon their ability to do their research.  This seems to me a violation of their contractual and constitutional rights to academic freedom, although hardly the most egregious kind on offer lately.   If anyone knows of any faculty litigating this matter, shoot me an email.

UPDATE:  A law professor in the University of California system writes:

My understanding is that the funds that UC faculty use for travel come from sources that are not, legally speaking, considered to be "state funds."  I'm not sure what the precise definitions of state funds and non-state funds are, but my impression is that a large percentage of the money flowing through the UC system is considered "non-state."  See this FAQ sheet on this legislation from UC Berkeley's travel office. Frequently Asked Questions Regarding AB 1887 Requirements | Travel (berkeley.edu).  Considering the availability of "non-state funds" to researchers who need to travel to the prohibited states, I don't think this legislation has had any impact on anyone's ability to do research, travel to academic conferences, etc.  Perhaps your readers can provide examples of actual restrictions, but when I needed to travel to one such state, I was told there was no problem with reimbursing me.  

ANOTHER:  A philosopher in the UC system writes:

Would you take an immortality pill?

John Martin Fischer (UC Riverside) discusses the question at Brain in a Vat.

Honoraria for Zoom talks?

Philosopher Peter Vallentyne (Missouri) writes:

In 2014, you had some useful discussion of the role of honoraria for philosophy talks. I’m now wondering about whether people think that honoraria (e.g., $100-$300) should be paid for non-recorded virtual (e.g., Zoom) philosophy talks to other, roughly peer, philosophy departments. On the one hand, there are no travel-time burdens (the hassles of getting from A to B, downtime in the host city, etc.). Of course, valuable informal discussion with members of the host department may be lost, but there will also (at least sometimes) be a gain of avoiding non-valuable informal discussion.  Overall, it seems to me that the burdens of giving a virtual talk are generally significantly lower than those for a live talk. A small honorarium would still be appropriate, but, given the hassles of filling out the forms to provide an honorarium, it may not be worth it. I’m interested in readers thoughts on this issue. I focus on non-recorded talks, since there are separate issues for recorded talks.

My own view is that honoraria for Zoom talks are not warranted, but comments are open!

Blast from the past: megalomaniacs in M&E?

A discussion back in 2004.

In Memoriam: Donald W. Crawford (1938-2022)

MOVING TO FRONT FROM JULY 25--UPDATED

A longtime member of the Department of Philosophy at the University of California, Santa Barbara, where he was emeritus, and before that at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, Professor Crawford was well-known for his work in aesthetics and the history of aesthetics.  He also served as editor of The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism.  I will add links to memorial notices when they appear.

(Thanks to Noel Carroll for the information.)

Professor Crawford's former colleague Elliott Sober (Wisconsin) and former PhD student Yuriko Saito (Emerita, Rhode Island School of Design) kindly shared this memorial notice they prepared (below the fold):

Have things really changed in philosophy since the 1990s when it comes to publication pressure and narrowness of specialization?

On the earlier thread, philosopher Gary Kemp (Glasgow) asks:

When I was coming up in the 1990s, the complaints were: Pressure/requirements to publish, and overspecialisation. I take it that the readers here think this has grown worse. What sort of evidence do we have?

This is a good question, and I'll open it for discussion.  I also "came up" in the 1990s, and it does seem to me that publication prior to entering the job market is almost de rigeur in a way it was not thirty years ago.  Specialization is more difficult to assess.  Specialization is the hallmark of the modern academy, as Weber observed more than a century ago, and it stands to reason that as more and more universities produce more and more scholars, the need to specialize even further (in order to make the proverbial "contribution to knowledge") will grow.  But that isn't exactly "evidence" for the phenomenon, just a reason for thinking it would occur.  Readers comments welcome.  Submit your comment only once, it may take awhile to appear.

Former Delta flight attendant sues after being fired for attacking Trump as a racist on her Facebook page

The amazing part is that she has to sue on grounds of race discrimination, since private employees have no legal protection in the U.S. from being sanctioned by their employer for speech on matters of public interest.  (A public employee has some protection on this score--see the discussion of the Pickering test here.)   Faculty at most private universities are in  the unique position of enjoying the right to speak on matters of public interest without fear of sanction by their employer, thanks to the AAUP definition of academic freedom.  But there is no reason in a supposedly free and democratic society that all employees should not enjoy some version of that right.

The American system of legalized bribery of public officials

Many folks have puzzled about the behavior of the nominally Democratic Senator from Arizona, Kryrsten Synema, but I suspect in most cases the explanation involves payoffs known as campaign contributions.

Mind, body, and illness

Philosopher Tom Stern (UCL) comments.  (Some readers will recall I am not a fan of his Nietzsche work, but I quite enjoyed this essay.)

In Memoriam: Paul Humphreys (1950-2022)

MOVING TO FRONT FROM SATURDAY, AUGUST 13--UPDATED

Well-known for his wide-ranging work in philosophy of science, Professor Humphreys taught philosophy at the University of Virginia from 1978 until his death, where he rose to the rank of Commonwealth Professor of Philosophy.  There is a full list of his publications here, and an obituary is here.  I will add links to other memorial notices as they appear.

UPDATE:  The UVA memorial notice is here.

(Thanks to Harold Langsam for the pointer.)

India was actually the first country to ban "The Satanic Verses"

MOVING TO FRONT FROM YESTERDAY--UPDATED

Longtime reader Ruchira Paul writes "that the Indian government led by the Congress Party banned The Satanic Verses months before Ayatollah Khomeini issued his fatwa. Had it not been for South Asian Muslims rioting (never having read the book), the dying Iranian cleric may never have even heard of Rushdie's book."  She points me to this article, adding:

Th[is] piece is a bit biased against the Congress Party but the facts are mostly correct. The very first review of The Satanic Verses in the world most likely appeared in the leading Indian journal "India Today." The reviewer was a friend of Rushdie's who was given a pre-publication copy of the book. There were a few provocative quotes in the review (without proper context) which lit the fire among the South Asian Muslim communities in India and later in the UK and Pakistan. The reviewer claims that the quotes had been inserted into the piece by an editor without her knowledge! Who knows what actually happened. But we all know what ensued. 

UPDATE:   Another longtime reader, Dean Rowan, kindly sent along a link to the original India Today review.

Two sides to every issue: the civilized and the barbaric

From CNN:

[S]everal hardline Iranian newspapers poured praise on Matar [Rushdie's assailant] on Saturday, including the conservative Kayhan newspaper, whose editor-in-chief is appointed by [Ayatollah] Khamenei.  

 

"A thousand bravos, a hundred God blesses. His hand must be kissed... Bravo to the warrior and dutiful man who attacked the Apostate and wicked Salman Rushdie. The hand of the warrior must be kissed. He tore the vein of Rushdie's neck," the paper said.

 

Another hardline newspaper, Khorasan, published a headline, "The Devil on the Path to Hell" while showing a picture of Rushdie on a stretcher.

 

Time to remember the Revolutionary Association of Women of Aghanistan:  "Fundamentalism is the mortal enemy of all civilized humanity."

Richard Marshall interviews Matthew D. Walker (Yale-NUS)...

...at 3:16 AM.

Great moments in obscure rock 'n' roll: Curved Air, "It Happened Today," 1970

British progressive band, that enjoyed some modest success in the U.K. in the early 1970s, this single came from their debut album:

 

In Memoriam: Paul Snowdon (1946-2022)

Well-known for his work on the metaphysics of persons and the nature of perception, among other topics, Professor Snowdon was at the time of his death Emeritus Grote Professor of Philosophy of Mind and Logic at University College London.  Prior to moving to UCL in 2001, he taught for several decades at Oxford University.  There is a brief Oxford notice here.  I will add links to memorial notices when they appear.  Remembrances from those who knew Professor Snowdon are welcome in the comments.

(Thanks to Chris Timpson for the pointer.)

UPDATE:  The UCL memorial notice is here.

The "Elucidations" philosophy podcast is now posting transcripts of prior episodes

Here, including episodes with Agnes Callard, R.A. Briggs, Steven Nadler, Chike Jeffers, Nethanel Lipshitz, and others.

Trump's "Brownshirts" now threatening judge who signed off on the warrant to search his property

First we had the stormtrooper riot at the Capitol, and now we have threats against federal officials, including judges:

Far-right extremists on pro-Donald Trump message boards and social networks are making violent, antisemitic threats against the judge who reportedly signed the warrant that allowed the FBI to search the former president's Mar-a-Lago property in Florida.  Multiple members of these toxic online communities are even posting what appears to be Judge Bruce Reinhart’s home address, phone numbers, and names of his family members alongside threats of extreme violence.

Of course, some of these folks are just keyboard warriors, but not all are.  As long as the lawful authoriteis with the guns--the police, FBI, Federal Marshalls etc.--step up and protect the judges and others who preserve the rule of law in a democratic society, we can weather these outbursts.  The tipping point will come when the keyboard warriors also turn out to be the people charged with preserving the rule of law with force when needed.

ADDENDUM:  A timely example, alas, that the crazies are not all keyboard warriors.