Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

Pop singer Shakira taking online ancient philosophy course with Penn's Susan Sauve Meyer

My friend Michael Weisberg (Penn) called my attention to this amusing fact, although I had to admit to not knowing who or what Shakira was (I have since found out).  Perhaps she will endow the Shakira Professorship of Ancient Philosophy?

In Memoriam: George Dickie (1926-2020)

A leading figure in philosophy of art and aesthetics, Professor Dickie taught for many years at the University of Illinois at Chicago, where he was emeritus.  You can read bit about his work here.  I will add links to memorial notices as they appear.  (Thanks to Noel Carroll for the information.)

When polio was epidemic

A PBS documentary, that features, among others, the late philosopher Lawrence Becker (who taught for many years at both Hollins College and the College of William & Mary [due to polio, he had no use of his arms, but he typed all his manuscrips with his toes]).

(Thanks to Jim Klagge for the pointer.)

Richard Marshall interviews John Tillson (Liverpool Hope)...

...at 3:16 AM.

"Capitalism, Social Democracy and Socialism: Which is Right for America?": the debate video is now online

Here.  (I noted previously that the texts of the opening statements were available here.)   I haven't watched the video, but I do recall one mistake I made:  I should not have seemed to agree with Professor Caplan that social security should be means-tested.  Social security is a social insurance scheme, everyone contributes, and everyone collects from it.  It is not charity, but insurance. The fact that everyone collects from the insurance scheme they contributed to is another reason it is such a popular political program, a point I did make.

One curious bit during the Q&A was a fellow who was quite incensed that I pointed out, correctly, that the capitalist ruling class in Germany supported Hitler because they were afraid of genuine socialists (not social democrats).  My point--which alas Professor Caplan steadfastly ignored--is that a serious discussion of the merits of capitalism or socialism should not be based on the bad behavior of self-proclaimed capitalists or socialists. 

It was striking that Professor Caplan did not have any real reply to my basic point about the logic of capitalism:

[C]apitalist producers must reduce their costs, for if they don’t, their competitors will do so and then drive them out of business.  Since the logic of capitalism demands reduction of production costs, and since the wages of most people under capitalism are simply “production costs” to be reduced or eliminated, this cannot end well.   The only humane alternative is socialism, that is, ultimately taking collective control of the immense productive power that capitalism generates, so that its purpose is not the endless pursuit of profit, but producing what human beings need to live and flourish.

ADDENDUM:   During the debate, Professor Caplan responded to my observation that Pinochet was also a huge fan of "Chicago School" free-market economics.  (My point, again, was that the professed allies of capitalism and socialism are irrelevant to a serious discussion.)   Professor Caplan offered the rather ghoulish response that Pinochet only killed about 3,000 people during his reign of fascist terror.   Defense-by-body-count is not really my cup of tea, but if you go that route, the population of Chile at that time (about 9 million people) is relevant:  by way of comparison, it would be the equivalent of murdering more than 90,000 Americans for political reasons (and more than 750,000 tortured--see below).   S. Wallerstein, a longtime reader from Chile, also wrote with some useful additional information:

The official figure is 3,227 killed and disappeared and 28,459 tortured.  Those figures underestimate the total because in order to be listed family members had to file a report (for which they received a small pension,   which is an incentive of course) in the case of those killed and disappeared, and the victims of torture also had to file a report (for which they received a small pension too), but in many cases,  especially that of women who were almost always raped or sexually abused during the torture, no report was filed.   

If you want to use the figures, the sources are two "non-partisan" commissions, one on deaths and disappearances and the second on torture (headed by a Catholic bishop), called the Rettig Commission  and the Valech Commission  respectively.  Looking a bit more, I see that since the original commissions, they have found 30 new cases of deaths and disappearances and 9795 new cases of torture.  

Best introductory texts in the history of early modern philosophy (or to particular figures in early modern philosophy)?

MOVING TO FRONT FROM MARCH 5, RIGHT BEFORE CORONAVIRUS STUFF OVERWHELMED US ALL--THIS DESERVES MORE COMMENTS

Continuing with our new series about the best introductory texts in various areas of philosophy, I now invite readers to name what they think are the best introductory texts to the history fo early modern philosophy (either through Kant or stopping just before Kant), as well as introductory texts to important figures in the history of early modern philosophy (e.g., Descartes, Hume, Leibniz etc.)  As before, don't just name a text, but say something about why you think it's particularly notable or valuable.  Although you don't have to sign  your comment, I do think signed ones will carry more weight with readers.

Some advice for teaching philosophy on-line...

...from Dr. Matt Deaton, an experienced on-line philosophy teacher.

Bioethicist Thomas Cunningham to historian Allen Guezlo: cut it out!

(3/27 UPDATE:  Professor Cunningham, happily, tested negative for the new coronavirus.)

Professor Cunningham invited me to share this letter he sent out to many colleagues:

Does anyone know Allen C. Guelzo, a “senior research scholar in Princeton University’s Council of the Humanities?” If so, please tell him to stop it.

In his article on WSJ this morning, referring to  the plans we have been discussing tirelessly for weeks now, he asserts: “…people have become too accustomed to taking the easy way out of dilemmas, and too comfortable with making excuses for killing with the only offense for those we kill the possibility of inconvenience. Americans are better than that. Ventilators are not simple, but neither were Spitfire fighter plans…Improvise, innovate, imagine.”

Someone, please, who can tell him to stop or publicly rebuke him with argumentation, do so. Those of us working long hours in our hospitals do not have time to. While this shoddy reasoning obscures the point and is sloppy, scaremongering editorial writing, it may improve his profile. But there is no time for self-interested slop. He is correct in the sentiment, one can charitably grant him, that these are profound moral problems. But they aren’t manufacturing problems. And they are urgent.

He ignores that everyone wants more ventilators, more hospital beds, more adequately trained health care providers, more PPE, and so on, in the event the situation becomes so dire that we need far more resources than anything we have had in the past. The work that we are doing to plan for crisis conditions and appropriately operationalize triage protocols for making allocation decisions is predicated upon the assumption that this is the way to save the most lives under conditions Guelzo appears to assume, in his unwarranted optimism, are readily preventable. We all hope they are prevented. The question still remains, what if they are not? Then what do we do?

People aren't that "irrational"

Philosopher Kevin Dorst (Pittsburgh/Oxford) makes some very good points here; here's the crux of his argument (but the whole essay is worth a read):

In short, there is a widespread tendency to treat human deviations from standard economic models as symptoms of bias and irrationality. That is what I’m contesting. I’ll do that by arguing three things. First, deviations from such models are often perfectly rational; second, this is true of at least some widely-maligned “biases”; and third, it follows that until we scrutinize and refine the applications of such models, we will not know how many of the putative biases are truly indicators of irrationality. (To be clear: these claims don’t cast doubt on the importance of the turn from classical to behavioral economics—what they cast doubt on is the irrationalist interpretation of that turn.)

A worried senior philosophy major at a state flagship

An undergraduate philosophy major writes:

As somebody with serious intentions to apply to PhD programs in philosophy in the coming year or two, depending on how "gap year" plans pan out, and who will almost certainly be applying to JD programs, I have a question that I suspect many younger readers of the blog share. 

The transition to online courses will, of course, be disastrous, especially for those disciplines (namely, philosophy) that value and require classroom discussion. All-around, this is going to be a logistical nightmare -- especially for graduating seniors, with thesis defenses and such -- and I, alongside many others, am searching for ways to best streamline the process of finishing degree requirements, while also juggling other exigencies--personal and academic--of the moment. 

In my case, that (potentially) means doing away with courses that are, in relation to degree requirements, entirely supererogatory. I am, for instance, currently enrolled in an advanced course on Early Analytic Philosophy that, while of immense interest, doesn't at this point make much sense to pursue in the digital format, if I don't have to. 

Richard Marshall interviews Paul Rusnock (Ottawa)...

...at 3:16 AM.

Natural selection and coronavirus

A concise primer from philosopher Alex Rosenberg (Duke).

Philosopher of physics Tim Maudlin explains in simple but stark terms why "social distancing" works

 

Spreadsheet of recorded philosophy lectures with links

You can add to it as well.

(Thanks to Tyron Goldschmidt for the pointer.)

Support independent bookshops during the pandemic

A suggestion from philosopher David Velleman:

If people are worried about their local independent bookstores during the crisis — or even under normal conditions — they should consider buying their books from https://bookshop.org. This site enables independent bookstores to set up their own sites within the bookshop.org domain, with all fulfillment functions performed by a third party; and in addition to the returns the bookstores earn from their bookshop.org sites, they share in a pool of returns earned by sales from the central bookstore.org site. If your book its not yet available on bookstore.org, you can become an affiliate and list the book on your own sales site. You will then earn a share of the sales, but if you already link to your books on Amazon from your personal home page, you can switch those links to bookshop.org and format them in such a way that the earnings will go to your local independent bookstore instead, if they are also affiliates. (The format is https://bookshop.org/a/xxxx/yyyyyyyyyyyyy where xxxx is the bookshop.org affiliate number of the store and yyyyyyyyyyyyy is the ISBN-13 number of the book.)

Is there any bioethical consensus on whose lives to save first in a triage situation? (UPDATED)

Professor Terry Myers (English, William & Mary) writes:

The Johns Hopkins piece notes that "Unless patients can be transferred, we would then enter the uncharted territory of having to ration life-saving care in order to save the most lives—something we have never done before in an organized way.”

Is there a consensus among ethicists as to the best criteria for choosing to save one patient’s life instead of another’s?

I don't know the answer to this.  New York prepared a report in 2015 about criteria for rationing ventilators, but I don't know whether this reflects any kind of "consensus" outside this particular committee, which included philosophers but, thankfully, non-philosophers too.  From page 4 of the Executive Summary:

The primary goal of the Guidelines is to save the most lives in an influenza pandemic where there are a limited number of available ventilators. To accomplish this goal, patients for whom ventilator therapy would most likely be lifesaving are prioritized. The Guidelines define survival by examining a patient’s short-term likelihood of surviving the acute medical episode and not by focusing on whether the patient may survive a given illness or disease in the long-term (e.g., years after the pandemic). Patients with the highest probability of mortality with medical intervention, along with patients with the smallest probability of mortality with medical intervention, have the lowest level of access to ventilator therapy. Thus, patients who are most likely to survive without the ventilator, together with patients who will most likely survive with ventilator therapy, increase the overall number of survivors.

This article suggests a similar kind of consensus among the bioethicists consulted (those with best chance of surviving get priority for treatment).   Links and comments from more knowledgeable readers welcome.

UPDATE:   Thomas Cunnigham, the Bioethics Director at KP West Los Angeles and a faculty member at the Loyola Marymount Bioethics Institute, writes:

"Why travelling changes us"

Philosopher Emily Thomas (Durham) comments.  (The timing, alas, is a bit ironic here, but it's still worth a read.)

Richard Marshall interviews Fraser MacBride (Manchester)...

...at 3:16 AM.  A fascinating overview of MacBride's revisionary view of the history of analytic philosophy.  And here's a good quip from the interview:

Metaphysicians are confidently putting forward hypotheses about the nature of reality a priori once more, holding forth from their armchairs about the categories as though none of this had happened, appealing to their intuitions and what they consider to be plausible or plain common sense. Kant was dismissive of pre-critical metaphysicians that took this line. In the Prolegomena he rebuked them, “You cannot be permitted to appeal to the consent of common sense, for this is a witness whose reputation only rests on public rumour”. Nevertheless, despite the soundness of Kant’s rebuke, here we are again.

2020 Schock Prize in "Logic and Philosophy" goes to two Swedish logicians...

...Dag Prawitz and Per Martin-Löf, both emeritus at Stockholm University.

Richard Marshall's interviews with philosophers...

...organized by broad categories at 3:16 AM.   Useful for browsing the hundreds of interviews he has done.  What a great service to academic philosophy, Mr. Marshall should get a prize!

"Socialism, social democracy, and capitalism: which is right for America?"

The economist Noah Williams (Wisconsin) who organized Wednesday's debate has now made available both his opening remarks, plus the opening statements by myself and Professor Bryan Caplan (George Mason).   The event was recorded and that will be available at a later date.

Online teaching, some insights from an experienced philosophy teacher

This is useful.

Pacific APA meeting cancelled

The right decision.  Details (and information about refunds) here.

(Thanks to Mike Morris from the APA for passing this along.)

"Critical theory" is dead, dead, dead, and Habermas killed it...

...and this review just confirms it.   The Rawls-Habermas normative theory mash-up that now constitutes so-called "critical theory" is so far removed from Horhkheimer, Adorno, and Marcuse, not to mention Marx, that even associating this exercise in Kantian ethics with the Frankfurt School or Marxism should give rise to a defamation action (not sure who the plaintiff would be, though!).   Folks are free to do Kantian ethics, or Hegelian ethics, but it has nothing to do with diagnosing capitalist modernity or strategies for liberating human beings from its iron cage.  A real critical theory now needs to start with the political economy of the academy that produced this collapse of Marxism into bourgeois ethics, i.e., irrelevance.

An interview with Bart Streumer (Gronigen) on error theory...

...at IAITV.

Philosopher Kathleen Stock (Sussex) on "academic feminist philosophy"

She writes:

The problem with academic feminist philosophy is that it’s run like a fiefdom, not like a normal open philosophical discussion. There are things you are just not allowed to say, and people you are not allowed to offend. Quality suffers, and to rest of world, it shows.

There are a lot of "fiefdoms" in academic philosophy, but many currents of feminist philosophy are striking for how much they have in common with many older currents of "Marxist philosophy," where alleged moral purity and real ideological conformity counted more than anything else.  

New York area departments cancelling admitted student events (UPDATED)

This was posted by philosopher Alex Guerrero (Rutgers) in the comments on  the earlier thread, but is worth elevating to a post as well to make sure affected students see this:

In response to the continued spread of COVID-19 and to help in the collective effort to slow the rate of its spread, we will not be holding in-person visits for admitted and wait-listed prospective PhD students. We are instead offering online, virtual opportunities for admitted and wait-listed students to meet with faculty and graduate students at our respective programs, aiming to provide prospective students as much information about our programs as we can while following the guidance of public health experts. (Details being arranged directly with each of our admitted and wait-listed students.)

With wishes of safety and good health to all,

Columbia Department of Philosophy
CUNY Graduaute Center Department of Philosophy
NYU Department of Philosophy
Princeton Department of Philosophy
Rutgers Department of Philosophy
Yale Department of Philosophy

UPDATE:  Alva Noe (Berkeley) tells me that their department has also cancelled the admitted students event.

Ken Taylor, "The Robots are Coming"

A posthumously published essay by Professor Taylor at Boston Review.

Protestants, Catholics, Jews in philosophy

Daniel Kaufman (Missouri State) comments.

In Memoriam: Terence Penelhum (1929-2020)

MOVING TO FRONT FROM MARCH 2--UPDATED

Emeritus at the University of Calgary, Professor Penelhum was well-known for his work on Hume, personal identity, and philosophy of religion.  I will add links to memorial notices as they appear.

(Thanks to Christopher Williams for the information about his passing.)

UPDATE:  Reader Rev. Bruce Foster shares a nice story about Prof. Penelhum:  

You touched a memory with the posting of the death of Terence Penelhum. I got to know him very well during his sabbatical in Cambridge while I was doing my PhD. He attended the same philosophical theology seminars and lived quite close to me. We had a lot of interesting discussions especially about his fellow professor Kai Nielsen whom I had studied as an undergraduate. But what I remember most was he explanation why he didn’t like going to the American Philosophical Association meetings. He said he couldn’t abide sitting around with his fellow tenured friends drinking while watching all the unemployed new PhD’s running around begging for jobs. This was in the early 80’s. I don’t think much has changed. I always thought well of him for that comment. It revealed to me a kind heart.

ANOTHER:   An obituary from the Calgary Herald.  (Thanks to Phil Gasper for the pointer.)

Richard Marshall interviews Daniel Frank (Purdue)...

...at 3:16 AM.

What is it like to be a philosopher? Kathleen Higgins edition

Here, courtesy of Clifford Sosis as always.

Human rights and "membership rights"

Will Kymlicka (Queen's/Canada) comments.

The "quirky silliness" (QS) rankings of philosophy departments are back

And, as usual, it's garbage, outside of the top four (and Pitt, in the top four, is not better than several programs ranked much lower--this is the first year, however, in which Pitt hasn't been #1).   QS does not disclose the geographic distribution of survey respondents, even though that determines most of the results.   For more on QS's shady ranking practices, see this earlier discussion.  (Past coverage of the Quirky Silliness rankings here.)

Consulting Marcus Aurelius in the face of grief

A nicely done essay.

Lao-Tzu, Plato and the movie "Parasite"

Political theorist David Lay Williams (DePaul) comments.

Richard Marshall interviews Matthew Chrisman (Edinburgh)...

...at 3:16 AM.

Pembroke (Oxford) philosophy tutor Peter King pleads guilty to producing "indecent" photographs of a child

This is creepy.  

(Do NOT confuse this creepy "Peter King" with the distinguished historian of medieval philosophy at the University of Toronto with the same name.)

In Memoriam: Jack Macintosh (1934-2020)

MOVING TO FRONT FROM FEBRUARY 17--UPDATED

A longtime member of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Calgary (which he joined in 1966), he was best-known for his work in the history of philosophy and science, especially on Robert Boyle.  I will add links to memorial notices as they appear.

(Thanks to Mohan Matthen for calling this to my attention, and Dean Rowan for his year of birth.)

UPDATE:  The Calgary memorial notice is here.  (Thanks to Phil Gasper for the pointer.)

In Memoriam: Mario Bunge (1919-2020)

A longtime member of the philosophy faculty at McGill University (although originally a physics professor in Argentina), Professor Bunge wrote widely in philosophy of science   An obituary from a newspaper in his native Argentina is here (in Spanish).  I will add links to other memorial notices as they appear.

(Thanks to Marcos Picchio for the pointer.)

UPDATE:  There's a longer account of his life and work here.   (Thanks to David Rosenthal for the pointer.)

Here's a great idea: ask job seekers to prepare *yet another* "statement" (this one about service)

Yikes. 

Is morality necessary?

Philosophers Jason McKenzie Alexander (LSE), Barry Smith (London), and Justin Smith (Paris-Diderot) discuss.

Best introductory texts to non-Western philosophical traditions or figures?

Continuing with our new series about the best introductory texts in various areas of philosophy, I now invite readers to name what they think are the best introductory texts to non-Western philosophical traditions or figures (e.g., Chinese, Indian, Japanese, Islamic traditions; or figures like Mencius or Al-Fārābī).  As before, don't just name a text, but say something about why you think it's particularly notable or valuable.  Although you don't have to sign  your comment, I do think signed ones will carry more weight with readers.

Philosopher vs. tabloid in Canada

MOVING TO FRONT FROM FEBRUARY 21--UPDATED

The philosopher is Daniel Weinstock (McGill), whose views were misrepresented by a malevolent columnist.   Since it's Canada, a jurisdiction less protective of defamers than the U.S., I hope he sues them!   The fabrications have now cost him an official position.

(Thanks to Mike O'Brien for the pointer.)

UPDATE:   Quebec Education Minister apologizes to Professor Weinstock.

Yale faculty (philosophers and law professors) vouch for Sarah Braasch, the real victim in the "napping while Black" manufactured scandal

MOVING TO FRONT FROM FEBRUARY 18, UPDATED

The letters of support, after Ms. Braasch was the target of vilification on both actual and social media platforms, are now available for those readers who would like to know who Ms. Braasch really is:  Alan Schwartz, Scott Shapiro, Jason Stanley, Zoltan Szabo.  These letters make it unsurprising that Yale dropped-the charge of racial harassment against Ms. Braasch, a fact that got almost no media attention.

Will some conscientious journalist tackle this case in the mass media?  One hopes so.

ADDENDUM:  Since Yale did not find Ms. Braasch guilty of racial harassment, why did they ban her from campus?  It was presumably to appease the mob, including students at Yale who demanded she be ousted.

UPDATE:  A letter of support from philosopher Shelly Kagan (Yale) is also available now.

"Escape from Wuhan"

Gripping piece of writing by philosopher Spencer Case, who had been on faculty at Wuhan University.  Professor Case tells me that his "colleagues Matt Lutz, Tim Perrine and many Chinese philosophy faculty -- I'm not sure how many -- remain stuck in the lockdown."

Best introductory texts in philosophy of social science (or philosophy of a particular social science, e.g., economics)?

MOVING TO FRONT FROM YESTERDAY--MORE COMMENTS WELCOME

Continuing with our new series about the best introductory texts in various areas of philosophy, I now invite readers to name what they think are the best introductory texts in philosophy of social science (or philosophy of a particular social science, such as econmics).  As before, don't just name a text, but say something about why you think it's particularly notable or valuable.  Although you don't have to sign  your comment, I do think signed ones will carry more weight with readers.

$1 million from the Mellon Foundation to Northwestern's Prison Education Program...

...started by philosopher Jennifer Lackey!  Kudos to Professor Lackey and her colleagues.

BJHP Article Prize for 2019

The British Journal for the History of Philosophy has awarded the 2019 Rogers Prize—its annual prize for the best article it publishes—to Nicholaos Jones (University of Alabama in Huntsville) for his The architecture of Fazang’s six characteristics (Vol. 27, no. 3).  Here’s the abstract of his article:

This paper examines the Huayan teaching of the six characteristics as presented in the Rafter Dialogue from Fazang’s Treatise on the Five Teachings. The goal is to make the teaching accessible to those with minimal training in Buddhist philosophy, and especially for those who aim to engage with the extensive question-and-answer section of the Rafter Dialogue. The method for achieving this goal is threefold: first, contextualizing Fazang’s account of the characteristics with earlier Buddhist attempts to theorize the relationships between wholes and their parts; second, explicating the meaning Fazang likely attributes to each of the six characteristics; third, situating the characteristics as explicated within Fazang’s broader metaphysical framework.

(Thanks to Alix Cohen for the information.)

"Extremism" is psychological, not political

Philosopher Quassim Cassam (Warwick) comments.  I'm not sure I find this plausible, but it is worth considering (and is a more serious proposal than the usual fare).