Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

Speaking of irrational political beliefs...

...the philosopher Michael Huemer (Colorado) does not cover himself in glory with this sophomoric attack on Marxism.   I'll keep this brief, as I'm super busy with grading currently!

1.  Huemer says, "Without the labor theory of value, there’s no theory of surplus value, no theory of exploitation, and thus the central critique of capitalism fails."  Marx's version of the theory of exploitation has to be abandoned if one abandons the labor theory of value (as one should), but there are other theories of exploitation as a wrong available, and his "central critique of capitalism" in any case was not that it involved exploitation:  it was that at a certain point in its development, it ceases to be in the interest of the vast majority, because it harnesses enormous productive power to the production of more profit (or capital), at the expense of the well-being of the vast majority.

2.   Huemer says, "Marxism was tried many times."  It has never been tried; state ownership of the means of production has been tried in economically underdeveloped countries, with bad consequences, and I think we can agree that is a bad idea.  But that was never any part of Marx's views, indeed, was explicitly something he warned against; here's a typical remark from The German Ideology:  for communism to be possible, "[I]t [capitalism] must necessarily have...produced...a great increase in productive power, a high degree of development....[T]his development of productive forces...is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced."

3.  Huemer says, "The...most obvious objection to communism is that people are not going to selflessly work for the good of society."  Marx never proposed that people should or would work "selflessly...for the good of society."  He was quite explicit that he was making no appeal to people's altruism, but to their self-interest:  it was not in the self-interest of the vast majority to continue to live under capitalist relations of production.

I think one way to avoid public displays of "irrational" beliefs is to actually know something about the subject you're discussing, in this case, Marx's views.  Professor Huemer plainly doesn't, which is why these comments fall so far below his normal argumentative standards. But they do illustrate irrationality in politics well!

HiPhi Nation episode on civil (and uncivil) disobedience by animal rights activists in Australia

Here.  I actually talked with philosopher David Killoren (Australian Catholic U) about these issues, a bit more in the abstract, quite some time ago (and not with reference to providing help for victims of malaria!). (This episode is mainly hosted by Killoren and his philosophy colleague Richard Rowland at ACU.)  Philosophers featured include Peter Singer, Kimberly Brownlee, Jeff Sebo, and Candice Delmas, among others.  One nice thing that comes out in the interview is that Singer thinks there's no alternative to capitalism!  There are also, alas, unexplored assumptions about "harm" that play a role in Killoren's arguments towards the end.

Great moments in rock 'n' roll covers: Black Pistol Fire, "Oh Well"

And here's a contemporary rock band covering, and putting a distinctive imprint, on the Peter Green classic:

 

South Florida's Thomas Williams interviewed by Richard Marshall...

...at 3:16 am.

Evangelical Christianity as public policy, an ongoing saga

More viciousness towards transgender people from the religious fanatics surrounding Trump.

Moral psychology with Nietzsche, at the LARB

Yesterday Plato's moral psychology, today it's my turn to talk to Andy Fitch at the Los Angeles Review of Books.

Plato's moral psychology

Philosopher Rachana Kamtekar (Cornell) talks with Andy Fitch at the Los Angeles Review of Books.

The crisis of the humanities: it's the lack of jobs, not "white privilege" that's the problem

Andrew Kay, who earned a PhD in English but could not secure a job, wrote a memorable and much-discussed essay a couple of weeks ago about the disconnect between goings-on at the annual meeting of the Modern Languages Association and the disastrous job market for new PhDs.  As if to confirm his point about the depraved and delusional condition of the English profession, four assistant professors of English wrote a piece denouncing him for his white, male privilege (I'm not kidding, read the piece), the same white male privilege that left him unemployed, while these four embarrassments have tenure-stream positions.  Happily, Anastasia Berg, a young philosopher currently in a post-doc at Cambridge has written a brilliant (both in substance and style) rejoinder. An excerpt:

The authors are right that Kay’s essay is saturated, like a blood-drenched rag, with pained longing. But in asserting that what Kay is nostalgic for is the whiteness, maleness, and colonial chauvinism of Peak English, they once again draw inferences about what he does not say and ignore what he does. Kay says very clearly what he misses about his life at the university: talking to and reading poetry with an adviser he admires, doing work he cares about, and being part of a community that could provide him with the opportunity to talk about literature with those who share his love for it. This fantasy is the fantasy of those who wish to dedicate themselves to a life of the mind. It is mine.

Here, apparently, lies Kay’s real sin. It is not his unwitting bigotry. Ultimately, the scandal of his piece has little to do with his adoring descriptions of his academic adviser or his sartorial observational satire. His sin is that he fails to embrace his own sacrifice as well justified, fails to see his own loss as the "very necessary unsettling of white male dominance," fails to welcome the "cleansing flame." The problem is not what Kay says but that he dares to speak of his own predicament — that he dares to want publicly anything at all.

"What is a woman?"

Philosopher Kathleen Stock (Sussex) discusses the topic at Philosophy Bites.

(Thanks to S. Wallerstein for the pointer.)

Two philosophers elected to the American Philosophical Society

They are:  Jonathan Lear (Chicago) and Judith Jarvis Thomson (emerita, MIT).

The Good: Relative or Objective?

Philosophers Paul Boghossian (NYU), Naomi Goulder (New College of the Humanities), and Michael Ruse (Florida State) discuss.

What are "conspiracy theories"?

Philosopher Quassim Cassam (Warwick) comments.

The United States: still the most dangerous country on the planet!

Six trillion spent on war since 9/11, killing more than a half million people (that's a conservative estimate, obviously not counting lives foreseeably lost because of U.S. military actions).

Taiwan becomes the first (!) country in Asia to fully legalize same-sex marriage

A remarkable step, and also remarkable how rare this is in Asia.  The reactionary stance of so many Asian countries on this issue leads to absurd situations like this one in Japan, where a trans woman has her new gender identity recognized by law, but her marriage of 19 years may be endangered because Japan does not recognize  marriage between individuals of the same legal gender!

Hair discrimination as race discrimination

Philosopher and lawyer Nicholas Serafin (Michigan) comments.

Esoteric thought of the day

Ernst Thälmann was right that a vote for Hindenburg was a vote for Hitler. He was alas wrong about other things.

Philosophy at night at the University of Chicago

A nice write-up in the Chicago Tribune about my colleague Agnes Callard's very popular "Night Owl" series for undergraduates.

Great moments in covers of "Oh Well": Johnny Gallagher, 2015

A great Irish blues guitarist does his brilliant solo version of this month's song:

 

Montana's Paul Muench interviewed by Richard Marshall...

...at 3:16 AM.

Irish President, presenting young philosopher award: "we [do not] exist to be made useful"

The Irish President is an admirably humane person: 

Ireland needs to guard against a reengineering of the education system under the assumption that “we exist to be made useful”, President Michael D Higgins has said.

Attending the Irish Young Philosopher Awards 2019 at UCD’s O’Reilly Hall, the President said “talk of a knowledge society and the demand to enable our young people to meet its needs has at times in the discourse on education, come to dominate our view as to the ultimate aim of a secondary school education. We need to be careful”.

Alas, under capitalism, we do all exist only "to be made useful," and if we're not, we are discarded.  Some of us--in virtue of job, or wealth, or even sometimes the society in which we live--manage a partial insulation from the market's demand to deliver "value."  One may only hope that President Higgins can really make Ireland such a society.

"Transphobia"

MOVING TO THE FRONT FROM FEBRUARY 1, 2019--STILL RELEVANT, ALAS

One of the tactics for shutting down rational discussion of the gender self-ID law in the U.K. is the accusation of "transphobia."   Because I've given attention to the important and substantive views of several feminist and gay philosophers writing about this issue--perhaps most prominently, Kathleen Stock (Sussex) (e.g, here and here), but also Leslie Green (Oxford)--I'm now being accused by the usual suspects of "transphobia."  (I suspect the additional reason for the smear is that I've also been vigorous in objecting to the harassment and defamation of Professor Stock, including by many philosophy faculty and students.) 

In any case, I thought it would help to collect examples of my horrifying "transphobia" such as here and here and here.

ADDENDUM:  This new piece in New York Magazine gives a sympathetic and clear account of some of the issues being debated about sex and "gender identity."  (It uses the term "TERF," but not dismissively or as an epithet.) 

Leaving the Mormon Church

A fascinating account from philosopher Spencer Case, which sheds interesting light on the techniques of indoctrination, although they didn't work in his case.

Another one bites the dust

Feminist Philosophers, the second-oldest major philosophy blog (after this one), will be closing down after 13 years.  (We turn 16 in August.)  Over the years, I've linked many times to useful items at the FP blog (most recently, but see also, further back, here and here and here and here; back in those days, I even wrote a petition for the FP blog concerning gender diversity in conferences [an alternative to this idiocy]--at the time, Prof. Saul asked me not to disclose my role in writing it, so I didn't then).   Unfortunately, as the profession began to crack up in 2014 and thereafter, some FP bloggers played an active role, and their sanctimonious hypocrisy attracted less favorable notice here.  Professor Saul, in her farewell notice (linked above), says that she has become "pessimistic about the potential for internet-based discussions of difficult issues to help us make philosophical and real-world progress."  I suspect the correct translation is that:   internet-based discussions exposed the venal vindictiveness and dishonesty of so many who pretend they are motivated only by noble concerns.

I'll say something I've said previously:  the sins of the FP blog, which alas over time became many, should not be visited on feminist philosophers, most of whom have had nothing to do with it.

The Onion on self-satisfied "liberals" (read: the typical illiberal "woke" member of the Twitterati)

All-too-apt:

Taking a moment to reflect on his hard-won personal accomplishment, area liberal Tom Hudson expressed relief Monday that he would never again have to engage in self-examination after finally assembling all the correct opinions....“It’s such a huge weight off my shoulders. I never have to consider my place in society or my impact on the issues ever again now that I know exactly how to present myself as one of the good guys. This feels amazing.” Hudson was then immediately and savagely attacked by his fellow liberals, who insist that his current views are nowhere near progressive enough.

This is even funnier (via Jake Wojtowicz on twitter); an excerpt:

Matthew Edwards, 41, was canceled early Friday evening after he was seen in his car singing along to “Remix to Ignition.” Mr. Edwards has not watched the R. Kelly documentary, but colleagues say he was aware of its existence and general content. He leaves behind his intersectional feminist wife Julia and two woke children....

After many close brushes with cancellation, Jeremy Warble, a 30-year-old bartender and drummer, was canceled on Friday after asking exactly zero questions on a Tinder date. Mr. Warble’s earlier, narrowly evaded cancellations include: a culturally appropriative Halloween costume, repeatedly DMing a woman without receiving a response, and a conspicuous silence on social media during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings....

On Wednesday, three-day-old Lily Hobbes became the youngest person ever to be canceled, when her father read to her from Michelle Obama’s memoir Becoming and she immediately started crying....

Katharine Halloran was a well-liked medical school student at Columbia University with a lifelong passion for snowboarding. Ms. Halloran was canceled in a tragic accident on Thursday, after retweeting an article with a link to a different article by an author who once retweeted a known bigot. She is 24.

Error theory: I can't believe it!

Philosopher Bart Streumer (Groningen) comments.

The unfolding disaster for higher education and research in Brazil under the fascist Bolsonaro

An informative thread (in English) from a Brazilian philosopher currently teaching in Europe.  If you're on Twitter, please do share it with others.

Philosatire on Twitter

Still the funniest and most apt description of Twitter.  ("Philosatire" arose after the "site visit" fiasco at Colorado back in 2014:  for example.)

New LSE philosophy podcast, "Out of the Vat"

Episode 1 features philosopher of physics Steven French (Leeds).

An episode of HiPhi nation on the transgender debates in the UK

[LINK FIXED]

It begins, unfortunately, with some silly sociology, which reports the breathtaking discovery (who would have guessed?) that the public is more concerned with trans women entering female-only spaces, than with trans men entering male-only spaces.   Now one might have thought everyone knew that we have sex-segregated spaces importantly, but not only, for the protection of women from men, i.e,. people with penises, because rape and sexual assault is overwhelmingly done by people with penises.   We certainly needed social "science" for that discovery! (As this first part of the show proceeds, it becomes obvious that these social "scientists" are ideologues and activists.)  The two philosophers--Holly Lawford-Smith (Melbourne) and Robin Dembroff (Yale)--come in around 18 minutes, if you want to skip ahead.

Another triumph of infantile stupidity and faux outrage, this one at Harvard...

MOVING TO FRONT FROM YESTERDAY--UPDATED

...as the university caves in to calls to oust a clinical law professor from his role as head of one of the residential colleges.  Harvard law professor Randall Kennedy made all the right points about this a couple of months ago. 

UPDATE:  A NYT story with more details.   We're learning something about the hierarchy of marginalization and oppression at Harvard:   being on the "wrong side" of sexual harassment allegations trumps being African-American!   Good to know that's how the Harvard Red Guard currently thinks!

ANOTHER:  Philosopher Michelle Mason Bizri kindly shared and gave permission to post her letter to Dean Khurana at Harvard, who made the decision to remove Professors Sullivan and Robinson:

Dear Dean Khurana,

As a moral philosopher who strives to teach her students the values of seeking the truth, promoting the good, and remaining courageous in the face of those who would sacrifice both in the interests of expediency, I am appalled at your recent cowardice in failing to come to the defense of your colleagues, Professor Ronald Sullivan and Stephanie Robinson. If someone of your stature and privilege cannot be counted on to defend principles such as the constitutional right of the accused to counsel and the contractual right of professors to defend themselves against politically motivated attack, then the academy is in a sorry state, indeed. As professors, our first allegiance should be to educate those students in our care. You, Sir, have revealed yourself to be derelict in that duty. I respectfully request that you resign.

Yours most sincerely,

Michelle Mason Bizri
Adjunct Associate Professor | Department of Philosophy
Brown University
Website: Researchers at Brown 

Associate Professor | Department of Philosophy
University of Minnesota
Website: @cla.umn.edu

AND ANOTHER:  This article suggests there may have been other factors at play in the decision to remove Professors Sullivan and Robinson; unfortunately, the Dean's statement does not shed any light on that.  As it stands, it appears the trigger for this decision was the misguided student protests.

Great moments in covers of "Oh Well": Jimmy Page and the Black Crowes

This may be the best version after the original:

 

Some questions raised by the "white paper" on "publication ethics [sic]"

From a post-doc philosopher elsewhere, concerning the latest mischief:

1) Some of the authors have actively worked to marginalize the view that transracialism can be similar to transgenderism. What can we do to protect, engage with, and make more visible views that are marginalized by marginalized groups?

2) Apparently, there is such a thing as writing "like a white male," something marginalized scholars apparently do not do or do at the price of not being authentic. How do white males write?

3) "Nothing about us without us." It seems that originally this phrase meant that members of marginalized groups should advocate for themselves and have a seat around the table when decisions regarding them are made. How did it become an imperative that covers all utterances? Why does anyone have a right to speak with me when I speak about them?

Twitter "believe it or not," part 4: juvenile jackass confronts adult on-line

This episode is unusual only because an adult, the philosopher Leslie Green (Oxford & Queen's U) intervened after this grad student at Queen's had the outburst, below, after he insulted me out of the blue on Twitter and I blocked him:

Mr. Jokic deleted his stupid tweet when confronted by an adult.  But the real question is why more faculty aren't stepping up and doing the same thing?  I realize many aren't on Twitter, but many are.   And even if you're not on Twitter, you might want to inform yourself about how your students are behaving, if not self-destructing, on social media.   Remember that twitter, which is full of a lot of clueless folks, tends to reinforce the worst behavior:  someone who is ruining his or her reputation even as a graduate student may be getting the message from the Twitterati that they're funny, wonderful, etc.  

On citation ethics and other topics from the "white paper" on "publication ethics [sic]"

Philosopher Mohan Matthen (Toronto) writes:

It seemed that one aim of the White Paper exercise was to widen the scope of ethical concern, whether or not the authors were searching for vindication of the petitioners’ behaviour re Tuvel (though at times it was hard to resist the impression that this exactly was the aim.) But they were out of luck. The focus groups just wouldn’t take the bait. They just wouldn’t spontaneously say that there’s a natural place for ethnic or gender identity in publishing ethics. 

So, the main result was some spectacularly silly remarks about citation practices—e.g., excessive self-citation could be construed as misconduct, one editor said. (As if you could retract a paper on these grounds!) I have to say that I find some of the views on citation that people float for serious discussion are really crazy, “inclusive citation” for example. The ethics of citation in our discipline have, for a very long time, been that you must cite people who explicitly, and more or less uniquely, hold or reject views you discuss. Additionally, citation provides sources of further information. (That’s one reason why there is less citation in philosophy than in the sciences: there is less “further information.”) It’s never been the norm that you should discuss everybody who holds tangentially related views. But now, it seems, citation has come to be viewed not as a means of acknowledging priority, but as a practice that bestows fame, and the argument seems to be that fame should be an equal-opportunity commodity. What else could justify the guideline like that your citation list must include at least two women, at least one of whom is cited for her views on somebody who isn’t male? I find this preoccupation faintly (actually more than faintly) ridiculous. Philosophy and fame don’t really belong in the same thought (unless, of course, a negation is thrown in).

Out of curiosity, I looked up some papers by members of the advisory board. I didn’t get the impression of great generosity. I didn’t always find two women cited (excluding self-citations). Most importantly, I found that in many cases, there were restrictions on the areas thought relevant to the topic under discussion.  Now, to be clear, I don’t object to this. But I don’t see why it isn’t just a different, though equally insidious (or equally harmless), version of the “Is it philosophy?” question.

More mischief afoot at the APA: there's a vote to change the membership rules, giving the Executive Director Amy Ferrer authority to admit non-philosophers to the APA

A philosopher elsewhere writes:

Thanks for the post on the APA elections. I wouldn’t have known they were occurring otherwise!  It turns out, however, that the voting is not just about officers. There are also several proposals for changing the APA’s Bylaws. One of the items proposes to open up APA membership to people who may have no qualifications in philosophy, but who are simply interested in philosophy.  Here is the current bylaw:

4.2. Qualifications for Regular Membership.

1. Regular membership in the American Philosophical Association shall be limited to:
2. Persons whose training in philosophy has been advanced and systematic enough to make them competent to teach the subject at the college or university level;
3. Persons whose achievements in philosophy are sufficient to warrant their affiliation with the association.
4. The authority to pass on an individual's qualifications for regular membership in the association rests with the board, which shall normally delegate it to the executive director.

And here is the proposed Amendment

4.2. Qualifications for Regular Membership.

1. Regular membership in the American Philosophical Association shall be open to persons professionally interested in the scholarly study of philosophy.
2. The authority to approve an individual’s application for regular membership in the association rests with the board of officers, which shall normally delegate it to the executive director.

This would leave it to the Executive Director (Amy Ferrer) to decide who can become an APA member (and she, herself, is not a philosopher). One wonders why this change has been proposed. Maybe the APA needs money due to declining membership?  But another possibility is that it would facilitate the admission into the APA of ideological allies of the current push to  "diversify" and politicize the discipline. Given recent trends at the APA about which you've written, I worry that this is the real purpose of this proposed change to the bylaws. 

I had, in fact, missed this proposed change to the bylaws.  If your'e an APA member, you'd better vote this down, or the organization will soon be unrecognizable.  The idea that a non-philosopher--a true believer in any and all "diversity blather" (vide her role in the already discredited "publication ethics" project)--will be deciding who gets to join the APA, without regard for qualifications, is beyond belief.

UPDATE:  Philosopher Julia Staffel (Colorado) writes with a useful contrary perspective on this proposed change:

I noticed your post about the APA bylaws change. I was surprised to see you so strongly opposed. For those of us who have co-authors in other disciplines, this change is very welcome. One year, I ended up not submitting to the APA, because my computer scientist co-author wasn't a member, and both authors need to be members for the paper to be submitted. He felt it would be wrong to register even though it was against the bylaws, and we didn't have time at that point to inquire further before the deadline. Given that many philosophers do great interdisciplinary work with psychologists, linguists, biologists, etc., this bylaws change seems entirely sensible and necessary.

I would feel more confident this is the (sensible) purpose such a change would serve if the change were more specific about who is eligible (e.g., co-authors with APA members) and discretion were not vested in a non-philosopher.

ANOTHER:  As some folks have pointed out to me on FB, given the cost of joining the APA, it seems like this is primarily a money-making move, and nothing else.  My initial perception of it, as well as that of my correspondent, has no doubt been colored by the prominent role given to the Executive  Director in this new process, coming on the heels of that same person's involvement in the disgraceful "white paper."

More from attorney/philosopher John Bogart on the "white paper" on "publication ethics [sic]"

UPDATED WITH SECTION 3 MAY 9, 2019

Many thanks to Dr. Bogart for taking the trouble to write up the following, which he kindly gave permission to share:

I have organized my comments into three categories: (1) Administrative issues, (2) Methodological Issues, and (3) Substantive Issues.

1. Administrative Issues:

            There is no information on the selection of the Team or of the Advisory Board.  The respective roles are left obscure.  What are the responsibilities of the Advisory Board, for example?

            The demographics of the Advisory Board are not reflective of the membership of the APA or of the broader philosophical community.  The demographics are not representative along lines of gender, sex, areas of specialization, experience, geography, employment histories.  It is unclear if there is any ideological diversity on the Board.  Too many of the members of the Team and Advisory Board have known, highly controversial views on the instigating events of the project, in particular regarding the Tuvel/Hypatia controversy.  The project thereby appears political slanted and ideologically tainted. 

It is unclear where competence lies with respect to the methodology employed by the Team.  The project here is not an intra-institutional project, but one directed at a wide range of outsiders.  It may that the consultant has experience with similar efforts, but it is not apparent from the webpage. 

The Team is somewhat suspect on other grounds.  The inclusion of the Executive Director of the APA is troubling.  The project is not sponsored by the APA, yet its Executive Director is a central player and the APA released an Press Statement about the Project, quoting the Executive Director.   The Press Release nowhere says that Ferrer is acting on her own or that the APA is not involved in the project, or otherwise clarifying relationship between the APA and the project.  It strikes me as inappropriate for the Executive Director to have such a role because it creates a host of conflicts and problems that cast doubt on the integrity of the Project, when the involvement is not approved by the APA governing board.

           

2. Methodological Issues.

            There is too little information about the people who actually participated in the focus groups.  While the initial outreach was appropriately wide, that is of no help if those who actually showed up were not representative of journal editors in philosophy.  Without such information, the reporting at least sounds, if not is, merely anecdotal.  Even if there is some reason not to identify the actual participants, or the journals represented (I do not see why anonymity would be important here, but there may be reasons), other indicia of an adequately representative set should have been provided.

APA Member-at-large candidates for the Board of Officers: voting is now open

A philosopher elsewhere writes:

Voting is now open at the APA. I saw this list of three candidates for member at large:

https://www.apaonline.org/page/atlrg2019

I was wondering if you had an insight about which candidate would be best for those of us (who are I think in the majority) who don’t like what the APA blog does, don’t like what Amy Ferrer is doing to our profession, and want to return to things like, you know, encouraging journals to at least try to be blind reviewed. I guess I was wondering if you had an “endorsement,” and if so whether you’d consider stating in on your widely-read blog. I also wondered if anyone reliable knows which of the positions up for election, if any, have any chance of making a dent in the trajectory of the APA, which I think most philosophers perceive to be spiraling downward. (I was assuming member at large is the main one to keep an eye on, but my assumption isn’t based on much.) If you had information on that, I think it’d be very useful to post. 

I don't know any of them well enough to have a view.  I don't think any were involved, e.g., in the harassment and defamation of Rebecca Tuvel, so that's good.  Professor Powell has been involved with the APA Blog as I recall.  I invite civil comments from readers; if you want to be very critical, please post with your real name.  Links to information about these candidates are also welcome.

The "white paper" on "publication ethics [sic]" eviscerated

This is amusing; an excerpt:

If you liked the Thieves’ Guild’s guide to the ethics of personal property, and if you found yourself moved to tears by the Arsonist’s Society’s guide to the ethics of firefighting, you will adore the Put-the-Shiv-in-Rebecca-Tuvel Gang’s guide to publishing ethics. Yes, three out of five of the authors of the “white paper” on publishing ethics were signatories to the now-infamous “open letter” calling on the feminist journal, Hypatia, to recall Rebecca Tuvel’s paper on transgenderism/transracialism, after it had been published. [1]  A fourth serves on its advisory board, the whole of which reads like a who’s-who of the woker-than-woke-crowd who have been doing their busy best to turn our once-distinguished, highly respected discipline into an intellectually lightweight, identity-obsessed laughing-stock; the delight of YouTube trolls and right wing political commentators everywhere and fodder for every miserable conservative state-legislator looking for a reason to slash humanities and liberal arts budgets in “red” states and counties across the country.

Johns Hopkins students protest creation of armed police force

I confess I'm astonished that Johns Hopkins doesn't already have one, given their location.

A new paper on Foucault, genealogy, politcial realism, and the epistemic status of the human sciences

It's a descendant of a much older, unpublished paper, but this new and expanded version will appear in an issue of Inquiry on "Genealogy and Political Philosophy"; the abstract:

Foucault’s corpus is animated by an ethical or political impulse, namely, to liberate individuals from a kind of oppression from which they suffer. This oppression, however, does not involve the familiar tyranny of the Leviathan or the totalitarian state; it exploits instead values that the victim of oppression herself accepts, and which then leads the oppressed agent to be complicit in her own subjugation. Foucault’s critque also depends, crucially, on a skeptical thesis about the epistemological authority of the social sciences that is supposed to be supported by his genealogies of those sciences. It is this conjunction of claims—that individuals oppress themselves in virtue of certain normative claims they accept because of their supposed epistemic merits—that marks Foucault’s uniquely disturbing contribution to the literature whose diagnostic aim is, with Max Weber, to understand the oppressive character of modernity, and whose moral aim is, with the Frankfurt School, human liberation and human flourishing.

Foucault is also a kind of “realist” in his approach to the project of emancipation: he does not offer moral arguments to persuade people that they ought to behave differently than they do, but instead shows people the actual history of the institutions and norms to which they subjugate themselves. Some realists ground their diagnosis in claims about human nature (think of Thucydides, Machiavelli, Nietzsche and Freud); Foucault is closer to Marx on this score, eschewing explanatory invocations of human nature, in favor of broadly-speaking “material” considerations (although not simply economic ones) to diagnose our institutions and norms.

This essay explains Foucault's critical and realist project, and concludes with some critical reflections on its plausibility.

Some more interesting comments on the "white paper" on "publication ethics [sic]"

John Bogart, an attorney who also has a PhD in philosophy, kindly gave permission to share his quite interesting and revealing comments about the "white paper," which he read through:

There's not enough information about the composition of the focus groups to assess the value of the reported comments. It is not, e.g., the number of journals contacted but who in fact showed up. I hoped for more transparency on that point. It would also help to understand how the Team was selected and how the Advisory Board was selected. Neither looks like the APA membership or the wider profession. The project seems vague on whether it aims at an "Ethics" of publishing or a set of "Best Practices." They are not the same. Actual review processes got short shrift, e.g. “we did not make peer review a focus of our conversations.” It would be helpful to know why. The Paper gives the impression that the project is really about institutionalizing the view that demographic diversity in authors should be a primary concern of journals, that philosophical work touching on (it is hard to discern exactly what the standard is) matters of concern to marginalized or vulnerable groups should be vetted by members of such groups, and that there should be a post-publication process of discipline or sanctions. The latter receives far too little discussion. E.g., what sort of error in argument is like misstating the data? They are all three controversial, so I expected some defense or explanation of their centrality to the Paper and its recommendations. The recommendations re citation reviews reminded me the equally enlightening symposium on citation in law reviews:
https://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/1305MicroSymposiumonOrinKerr.pdf

Oxford's "Very Short Introduction" series

A graduate student writes:

Apropos this post on your blog about Peter Singer's Marx: A Very Short Introduction. I wonder which titles relevant in philosophy in the same series are the best ones to read? Or maybe which titles to avoid? (Maybe Simon Critchley's Continental Philosophy?) Perhaps you and the readers of the blog could suggest some?

The Critchley volume in that series is also weak and should be avoided.   The only other volume I know on a philosophical figure is the one on Nietzsche by Michael Tanner, which also cannot be recommended.  (This book will be the best competent and genuinely introductory book on Nietzsche, when it finally appears--the book was finished more than a year ago, but the publisher has been dragging its feet--I gather it will be out this year.)   I've read a number of books in the series, but not on philosophical topics:  some seem quite good, others a bit flaky.  Readers familiar with philosophy titles, please weigh in with volumes you would recommend as worth reading as introductions:  full name in the signature line please, and a valid e-mail address, which will not appear.  Submit your comment only one, it may take awhile to appear.

Open letter of support for Prof. Wojciech Sadurski (Sydney)

Professor Sadurski, a leading legal theorist and scholar of constitutionalism, has been a vigorous and penetrating critic of the reactionary and authoritarian "Law and Justice" party in Poland ("PiS" is the Polish acronym); he has now become the target of both civil and criminal legal actions attempting to silence him.  The open letter is here, and they are accepting additional signatories in the comments.

Unethical philosophers who participated in harassment and defamation of Rebecca Tuvel issue "white paper" on "publication ethics"

It has come to pass.  As I noted last year, "three of the five academic [authors]--Rebecca Kennison, Yannik Thiem, and Adriel Trott--were signatories to the open letter defaming Prof. Tuvel and calling on Hypatia to retract her article. That's right, the majority of this committee supported unethical and unprofessional conduct by Hypatia."  And for good measure, they've added an Advisory Board that is a "who's who" of bad behavior and contempt for academic freedom in the profession, including Linda Alcoff, Lisa Guenther (seriously?), and Rebecca Kukla.  You have to dig into the details to see the mischief that is afoot in this "white paper." (UPDATE:  see this assessment.) It is open for comment, for anyone who wants to be bothered.

UPDATE:  A philosopher elsewhere points out that Amy Ferrer, the Executive Director of the American Philosophical Association, is also involved as a co-author; as this philosopher wrote:  "It’s shocking that a non-philosopher, who is moreover a paid executive of the APA, is allowed to be involved in these partisan, highly inflammatory ventures."

ANOTHER:  Bioethicist Laurence McCullough writes:

The research team conducted focus groups and group interviews.  Both are accepted forms of qualitative research in the qualitative social sciences.  I have conducted such research with colleagues trained in qualitative social science and published the results in peer-reviewed journals.

Both of these forms of qualitative research have accepted methods for preparing accurate and anonymized transcripts for analysis and then analyzing transcripts, e.g., inductive, deductive, mixed methods.  The methodology section describes only the methods for obtaining qualitative data. There is no description of how the transcripts were prepared or how qualitative analysis of the data in the transcripts (the natural languages responses of subjects to questions posed) was performed.  The results that they report from the focus groups and interviews therefore have no scientific value.

            Laurence B. McCullough, Ph.D., Distinguished Emeritus Professor, Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.

ONE MORE:  For amusement:   Justin Weinberg tries to suppress discussion of the bad behavior of the authors of this "white paper," only to be demolished by David Wallace in two separate comments (scroll through).  (Weinberg also admits to removing other comments on this subject:  feel free to send them to me, I'll publish any amusing or especially relevant ones.)

In Memoriam: Ruth Anna Putnam (1927-2019)

A longtime member of the philosophy faculty at Wellesley College, where she was emerita, she was best-known for her work on various important figures in American pragmatism.  There is a brief obituary here.  I will add links to other memorial notices as they appear.

(Thanks to David Guberman for alerting me to her passing.)

Great moments in rock 'n' roll riffs: Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac, "Oh Well," 1969

In 1968-69, the British blues band Fleetwood Mac, led by guitarist Peter Green, ruled the British charts, including with this number, which may be the best riff in the history of rock 'n' roll.  For May, I'll be featuring various covers of this tune, but here's the original (that's Green on vocals and doing the riff, while Danny Kirwan, whose career went to ruin in mental illness, drugs, and alchohol, is doing the lead):

 

Open letter to the fascist in Brazil from the American Philosophical and Sociological Associations (and others)

The letter is here.  Of course, everyone understands the letter is being addressed to a fascist and a moron, but the hope is that at some point adverse publicity for these moves leads to reconsideration for whatever actual reasons influence such a "leader."

Wittes on Attorney General Barr

Benjamin Wittes, of the Brookings Instiution and Lawfare, is not exactly a radical bomb-thrower, so this assessment is all the more damning.

Two more tenured hires for Cornell: Hübner from Toronto, Pavese from Duke

Karolina Hübner (early modern philosophy, Jewish philosophy), Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Tornoto, and Carlotta Pavese (philosophy of language, mind & action, epistemology, philosophical logic), Mellon Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Duke University, have both accepted tenured appointments as Associate Professors of Philosophy at Cornell University, to start this fall.  This marks three senior hires for Cornell this year, in addition to the appointment of Shaun Nichols from Arizona noted back in January.

(Thanks to Tad Brennan for the information.)

Twitter "believe it or not" part 3: the Twitter kids can't figure out why no one is taking them seriously

I won't embarrass this individual, who seems more clueless than malevolent, but from this philosopher's Twitter feed I learned that Keyvan Shafiei (yes, the person who launched the out-of-the-blue verbal assault on feminist philosopher Holly Lawford-Smith, and who prefers the pronouns "they/their," which I honor in what follows) actually had the audacity to stand up at a panel on diversity at the Pacific APA two weeks ago to ask about the "harassment" [sic] of "junior" scholars by "senior" scholars (referring to my noting  their misconduct although presumably without mentioning their declaration that Prof. Lawford-Smith was a "vile fucking human").   The member of the Twitterati recounting the story reported, with astonishment, that no one on the panel took this part of the question seriously or responded to it. 

It did not seem to occur to this Tweeter that this is because it is not "harassment" to criticize people's gross misconduct on public social media platforms.  If you're really having trouble understanding this, try looking at this and this.  Or to quote the otherwise absurd Rebecca Kukla:  "Calling people out for their shitty behavior is not rude [or harassment]; it's morally necessary."  She apparently didn't notice that's what Professor Green did, however.