As I keep pointing out (and for abundantly good reason), philosophy for children is far and away the biggest no-brainer of all time. Right now people are fighting over crumbs compared to what's at stake here. Given the nature of philosophical activity, properly conceived - as love of wisdom and therefore organized (and therefore better) living - there is perhaps no human problem that can't be solved by more philosophy. (It gets even better with Aristotelian philosophy, which may be the best kind of philosophical activity around. If you haven't yet thought in terms of 'Ultimate living through ultimate philosophy,' then you have some catching up to do.)
The thoroughly-researched Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) entry on Philosophy for Children has an almost fresh copyright date (2018), so it's not like this article has been sitting around for a long time not being noticed on its merits. What the 2018 copyright date does say is that it took about that amount of time for a philosopher to do the necessary integration of research materials out there and consolidate the essential findings all in one place, with a compelling narrative tying it all together.
(I've had the time/resources only to go through McCarty's Little Big Minds, within the past several months or so. Just on its own it makes a compelling case for philosophy for kids, but it has a 2006 copyright date. What has happened in the intervening 13 years? Someone with the time, interest and expertise had to come along and organize all the available research. YouTube will provide leads to Jana Mohr Lone and others (edit: see also Lone's blog), but won't provide you the comprehensive set of leads available at the SEP entry.)
So we're into the second year after the SEP entry's publication, and at least one philosopher has taken up the task of blogging about it vigorously. I have just taken the next step of contacting the author of the SEP entry by email to inquire about how best this no-brainer idea can be spread ASAFP. The author probably has a good network of contacts in this area, and if a network of contacts includes philosophers, a potential intellectual juggernaut is in the making. By its very nature any opposition to philosophy for children is intellectually impotent, easily overwhelmed given enough time and dedication among the philosophers, the most advanced-level integrators in the humanities.
The question: why didn't I think of contacting the author before today? Well, this is the nature of incomplete and imperfect knowledge, and limitations on time and mental resources. Were I smarter than I am (I am merely a fanatical lover/pursuer of wisdom), this may well have happened sooner. The better (Aristotelian) policy of mental integration being applied, the sooner such discoveries can be made and exploited for maximum benefit.
And, so, if you're reading this, what measures might you take to help spread the message of philosophy for children? Perhaps contact the author of the SEP entry as I have and express your support. Provide the SEP link with a good money-quote (this linked one quoting the author that most anyone with philosophical curiosity themselves can teach this subject; and most anyone can have philosophical curiosity) on social media when good opportunities arise, making sure to mention how authoritative the SEP is. Those are a couple ideas that occur to me so far. (Do I have to do all this myself? Or will the end of history simply have to be a collaborative effort? But of course it will....)
When a philosopher-friend on facebook linked to this article (by Rod Dreher at The American Conservative almost despairing over the seductive appeal of "alt-right" views to alienated young white men seeking meaning (and we're not talking the benign and philosophical Jordan Peterson-type guidance, but, well, identity-politics for white males), the thought occurred to me: "Gee, wouldn't it be nice if this or the next generation of young males are taught to think philosophically before this all becomes a problem...." Seeing as I can't fathom a remotely plausible comeback to this, there probably isn't one.
Is there any social problem that wouldn't be optimally addressed by philosophy for kids? Just now I see on the news the latest story about cop-killing dirtbags. Put the kids on philosophy and they won't end up being cop-killing dirtbags.
Given that this topic is of the highest priority for a wisdom-lover, I will continue to pursue this vigorously however I can. Providing top-notch blog postings as evidence for the benefits philosophy can bring will continue to be a part of this process. But others with sincere concern about the future of humanity will have to do their part, as well.
I am currently discussing a bet on facebook with Bryan Caplan (Econ, GMU), winner of 14 bets in a row and counting, as to how soon philosophy for children can/will be part of the regular education curriculum nationwide (if not worldwide...). If you follow the logic of this through, at some point there will be a checkmate situation against any opposition to philosophy for children. (Just the very publicizing of the bet/idea can only affect the very circumstances being betted on, in the direction of philosophy-for-children sooner than later. Think this through, and the only end-result is checkmate, pretty soon. Just what the endgame will look like, I do not know yet, but it should be pretty awesome.) I am willing to bet with long odds. Given my own context of knowledge, it's a no-brainer.
Like Sciabarra did his homework in his own area of expertise, I did my homework well enough to notice the McCarty book in a library (who uses those anymore?) and to notice and promote the SEP entry so relatively soon after its publication, as no other philosophy blog or social-media platform is doing (yet). (I found the SEP entry by googling "philosophy for children" after finding only so much material on youtube and not being satisfied with that.)
The rest of this blog's entries, and my book, should be a good indicator of how well and thoroughly I do my homework. Philosophy for children will get them doing their homework really darn well, also.
Why delay?
[Addendum: Why does American politics kinda suck right now? Well, a huge part of it has to do with our elected 'leaders' being so philosophically illiterate when contrasted with all of the key Framers. Think of whatever social problem we have and it probably, likely, or definitely has to do with not enough philosophy going around.]
[Addendum #2: Imagine a scenario: the teachers get a 5% bump in pay/funding if they teach philosophy for kids according to the best available researched protocols, and additional bumps as results come in. Why wouldn't they go for it?]
Tuesday, January 29, 2019
Do leftists, Dems and "progressives" have a superior moral compass?
I would merely like to break down the logic of this. It's no secret that leftists, Dems and "progressives" pride[*] themselves on having a moral compass superior to that of their political opponents, i.e., the basket of deplorables. It's also no secret that leftists, Dems and "progressives" are the majority in big coastal cities (NYC, LA, San Fran, etc.). Does this mean that, according to leftists, Dems and "progressives," the greater the proximity to a big coastal city, the greater the reliability of one's moral compass?
Something tells me there are some severe Dunning-Kruger issues going on here, among leftists, Dems and "progressives." (For now, that is.)
More where that came from.
(If they're so intellectually and morally superior, why haven't they discovered and promoted philosophy for children yet?)
[*] - Clearly I'm speaking here of a false pride, not legitimate Aristotelian or Randian pride.
[Addendum: As you listen to how Dems/lefties/progs [DLPs] defend abortion rights - in terms of the right of a woman to control her own life - keep in mind that this is how radical pro-freedom people like Rand defend our rights against government controls in general -- i.e., our lives aren't the government's or the demos's to dispose of. It would appear that, given their lack of philosophical integration, the DLPs are being rather selective in their invocation of freedom on this topic. Why (the lack of philosophical integration)?]
[*] - Clearly I'm speaking here of a false pride, not legitimate Aristotelian or Randian pride.
[Addendum: As you listen to how Dems/lefties/progs [DLPs] defend abortion rights - in terms of the right of a woman to control her own life - keep in mind that this is how radical pro-freedom people like Rand defend our rights against government controls in general -- i.e., our lives aren't the government's or the demos's to dispose of. It would appear that, given their lack of philosophical integration, the DLPs are being rather selective in their invocation of freedom on this topic. Why (the lack of philosophical integration)?]
Monday, January 28, 2019
Philosophy for children, cont'd
When you can get philosophers in unanimity on something, you know (or do you?) that it's a no-brainer. One thing that philosophers can be in unanimous agreement about, once they've read the (thoroughly researched) Stanford Encyclopedia entry at the very least, is the urgent necessity to spread the idea of philosophy for children as far and wide ASAFP. Once again, a money quote:
(Is it any wonder Socrates was sentenced to death by hemlock for his philosophical activity - on charges of "corrupting the youth" and "denying the gods." I believe the human race has since learned better.)
The kind of resistance described here can be remarkably easy to overcome. For a period of years now I have been in regular personal discussion and correspondence with a Christian pastor who is thoroughly on board with the spread of wisdom-loving once I've explained the basic concept. He is now urging me to write that (ultimate?) philosophy for children book that may well need to be written (or does it?...). Take as an example the highest-level theistic philosophizing in blog format (or any other that I know of) at Maverick Philosopher. Far as I can make out, Maverick is the wisest blogger on the planet and it might not be close. (So anytime now, he, too, should be robustly on board with philosophy-for-children....) If anything, the kids need philosophy to best defend their faith against the intellectual sloppiness and hubris of the 'new atheists.' (David Bentley Hart's smackdown of the 'New Atheists' and their philosophical illiteracy is pretty epic.) Aquinas is the greatest pro-intellectual-perfectionism figure in the Christian tradition. There's nothing for Christian parents to fear here, and tons to gain. (Doesn't a loving God want intellectual perfection for us, so that we may face our earthly demise with the utmost wisdom?)
Nevertheless, because they lack background in the formal study of philosophy, many teachers are reluctant to encourage the philosophical thinking of their students. Their fears, however, are exaggerated. Familiarity with some of the standard philosophical literature might be desirable, but it is not necessary for bringing Philosophy for Children into the classroom. What is required is the ability to facilitate philosophical discussion. For this, it is much more important that teachers have some philosophical curiosity themselves than a familiarity with academic philosophical literature. Like their students, teachers unfamiliar with the discipline of philosophy may nevertheless have an aptitude for philosophical thinking—or at least a knack for recognizing when others are engaged in philosophical thought. [emphasis added]The implications of this are of end-of-history-level (or should I just say it: utopian) significance. (I now have a bet on offer with Bryan Caplan on facebook about how soon, say, philosophy-for-children might end up in the regular education curriculum. Given Caplan's betting protocols - he's undefeated in 14 bets and counting - I should be rather confident that I know whereof I speak.) One implication is this: in order to do the rightest-possible thing by our kids and get them into philosophy at as young an age as feasible, the adults need to get philosophically curious themselves. (About fucking time?) Philosophy is intellectual curiosity, and intellectual curiosity about philosophy may well be the best kind there is. Just maybe.
In light of this let's consider one piece of feedback I've gotten about this on facebook (on a homework-doing-focused group, Polymath Mafia):
Michael Strong Chris Cathcart I've been leading highly philosophical intellectual dialogues in classrooms since the 1980s. I started out in Chicago Public Schools, then created special dedicated programs in public schools in Alaska, and since then have created or co-created a charter and many private schools in which Socratic dialogue was core (I've looked at the Philosophy for Children curriculum and found it a bit too constraining for my tastes, but I've certainly spent thousands of hours engaging students of all ages in philosophical dialogue in classrooms). By the mid-1990s I had concluded that it is impossible to do this at scale with any kind of quality in government schools. The combination of political governance and bureaucratic management makes any kind of serious innovation at scale in public schools impossible. There are certainly individual teachers, principals, and occasionally superintendents who implement good programs for a period of time. But when the supporting school board member(s), superintendents, or principals leave then the programs tend to revert back towards the mean: Public education is mostly about compliance. In small districts there can be some responsiveness to parent demands, but in larger districts bureaucratic compliance is the name of the game. Moreover, in many parts of the US the parents are actively hostile to philosophical inquiry. When I was implementing Socratic questioning in Alaska, a parent approached me saying, "Your questions cause confusion. Confusion comes from Satan. What you are doing is Satanic. I'm going to get you kicked out of the district." And in most districts, 5-10 activist parents can kill just about any innovation. Thus paradoxically, in order to create a more philosophically sophisticated citizenry, we need to eliminate government schools and allow for a market in education. My book, which outlines my approach, https://www.amazon.com/Habit-Thought-Socratic-Seminars-Practice/dp/0944337392
(Is it any wonder Socrates was sentenced to death by hemlock for his philosophical activity - on charges of "corrupting the youth" and "denying the gods." I believe the human race has since learned better.)
The kind of resistance described here can be remarkably easy to overcome. For a period of years now I have been in regular personal discussion and correspondence with a Christian pastor who is thoroughly on board with the spread of wisdom-loving once I've explained the basic concept. He is now urging me to write that (ultimate?) philosophy for children book that may well need to be written (or does it?...). Take as an example the highest-level theistic philosophizing in blog format (or any other that I know of) at Maverick Philosopher. Far as I can make out, Maverick is the wisest blogger on the planet and it might not be close. (So anytime now, he, too, should be robustly on board with philosophy-for-children....) If anything, the kids need philosophy to best defend their faith against the intellectual sloppiness and hubris of the 'new atheists.' (David Bentley Hart's smackdown of the 'New Atheists' and their philosophical illiteracy is pretty epic.) Aquinas is the greatest pro-intellectual-perfectionism figure in the Christian tradition. There's nothing for Christian parents to fear here, and tons to gain. (Doesn't a loving God want intellectual perfection for us, so that we may face our earthly demise with the utmost wisdom?)
I don't agree with all of Michael Strong's points above. The schooling format is essentially irrelevant in this context. The benefits far exceed any costs. At the present time, fights over school formats or funding are fights over CRUMBS compared to what's at stake here. The only problem here is an incompleteness of (shared) knowledge, is all.
AOC and the toxic twitterized destruction of discourse
It's amazing how no one has drawn the cognitively-available stark connection between these two phenomena yet.
The most important topic that can be discussed right now is philosophy for children. You won't find that being discussed on Twitter.
Let's set aside the Trump phenomenon for now - I'm not interested in the slightest in leftist-loser and Democrat whataboutism at the moment - and look at perhaps the single most intellectually-destructive and therefore toxic figure on social media right now, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I know that twitterized memories may be short, but let's look back within the past month for the level of idiocy AOC is capable of, and rewarded with "likes" on social media for:
(This tweet was in the wake of incoming Demon Rat congresscritter Rashida Tlaib saying that they would "impeach the motherfucker!")
I'll reproduce what I said earlier in this blog, and to which there is no reasonable counter that I can remotely fathom:
In the twisted cognitive world of [AOC] & Co., such gender-baiting is now the norm even when it is illogical and gratuitous. To anyone with common sense - this excludes today's unhinged leftists - the gender of the person using foul language toward Trump is entirely irrelevant.
But even more damning of [AOC]'s cognitive "skills": anyone who knows how to read and parse language properly knows that Trump was not admitting to sexual assault. He said that he grabbed women "by the pussy" and that they welcomed it. ("You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything....Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.")
Perhaps the demonic Democrats have managed to bastardize the meaning of "sexual assault" as well?
This is not the only time AOC has spread her blatantly toxic (intellectually inferior) garbage on social media. Let's try this one out:
Ryan Saavedra provides video in which AOC says: "If we work our butts off to make sure that we take back all three chambers of Congress — Uh, rather, all three chambers of government: the presidency, the Senate, and the House." Saavedra adds: "The 3 branches of government: executive, legislative, judicial."
How does AOC respond to Saavedra's correction? Watch:
Maybe instead of Republicans drooling over every minute of footage of me in slow-mo, waiting to chop up word slips that I correct in real-tomd, they actually step up enough to make the argument they want to make:
that they don’t believe people deserve a right to healthcare.
Let's set aside for the moment the issue of a 'right to healthcare' (an issue AOC would be too ignorant to discuss non-toxically). [ * - see appended note]
Here is what AOC considers to be a real-time correction:
"If we work our butts off to make sure that we take back all three chambers of Congress — Uh, rather, all three chambers of government: the presidency, the Senate, and the House."
It is simply rationally unacceptable for an elected member of Congress to get away with saying that she made a correction here. Do I need to spell it out?
(See also: Dunning-Kruger effect, observed in those whose overestimate their own cognitive abilities and don't know it.)
(See also: Dunning-Kruger effect, observed in those whose overestimate their own cognitive abilities and don't know it.)
In just the past few days, AOC took to more flat-out intellectual laziness/dishonesty, by smearing a source based on its supposed funding source. (Only when she was called out on her obvious scummery did she back down.) She doesn't really care about doing her homework before making her claims. Nothing about AOC's MO is progressive.
[Edit: Does AOC's following have the cognitive characteristics of an apocalyptic cult? Cult leaders are well-known for their charisma but otherwise generally reviled as toxic.]
[Edit #2: In the "You can't make this shit up" department, AOC said, "I think it’s wrong that a vast majority of the country doesn’t make a living wage." How can someone possessing such a superior moral compass be so intellectually lazy?]
[Edit #3: The real problem with AOC? Her enablers.]
If we want to really crack down on social media (and especially twitter) toxicity, we should home on in its biggest offenders ASAFP.
Next up: More on philosophy for children.
[*] - The global GDP right now is roughly $75 Trillion, or about $10K for every inhabitant of the planet. How much would it cost to fund this so-called right for all people who putatively have this right? Why are the so-called rights of which AOC and her "progressive" ilk speak so expensive? This is a separate issue from whether a decent people, through some institutional arrangement or other, statist or private, help to ensure people's needs are met. This is about what kinds of enforceable claims we can make on the lives, minds, and efforts of others. [The claim of a right not to be killed is enforceable, but doesn't really make any demands on the lives, minds, and efforts of others, now does it. Anyway, the point of having a government isn't to generate desirable outcomes but to secure freedom.] Even Ayn Rand says in her Galt speech that helping others as a spiritual payment for their virtue is a selfish necessity, but not a matter of duty as such. This is even assuming people would need help in a society where its members live with maximum rationality, able (e.g.) to compose blogs that meet high philosophical standards. It's easy to make happen. Plus, healthcare costs can be drastically reduced for just about anyone who does his lifestyle homework. The Democrats and Republicans are fighting over CRUMBS right now.
Sunday, January 27, 2019
Applied philosophy for children: An NFL do-over? (you know, for the kids)
This is part of a new series of blog posts on philosophy for children - far and away the biggest no-brainer in history - and I can't think of a better time for kid-accessible applied philosophy at the present time than the case of the worst no-call of all-time. It has raised important ethical questions as to whether the Super Bowl is tainted.
In my earlier post I gave my reasons for regarding a Rams-[AFC Team] Super Bowl tainted due to the horrible officiating, and that the Rams in the name of honor and fair play should agree to a quick and easy do-over like the kids could figure out so easily in their street games. They even admitted to cheating, so why not own up to that in action? (Just resume it from where the game was assuming the play was called correctly, if the Saints score a touchdown they go the Super Bowl and if the Rams stop them they go. The poor referee [I know, I've been there, but come on, man, ffs] even gets to save face.)
I mean, let's say the NFL asked the kids - their most important fan base, currently and long term (this sport is like pro wrestling but not all scripted; I liked both as a kid but outgrew only one of the two...), what they think the fair thing would be to do. A do-over, right?
Should honor require the Rams to admit what getting away with a really significant cheat entails ethically, and to accept a do-over? What do principles of justice and virtue (honor being among them) require here? That would be a great exercise in getting the ball rolling in getting the kids to think philosophically. Yes? :)
Oh, and wouldn't that be a lot better for the ratings (you know, for the adults)? Not just the do-over, but the Super Bowl itself, which I and many others are planning as of now to avoid....
[In the posting queue: 'Ultimate Blogging tips: for Philosophers' ^_^ ]
In my earlier post I gave my reasons for regarding a Rams-[AFC Team] Super Bowl tainted due to the horrible officiating, and that the Rams in the name of honor and fair play should agree to a quick and easy do-over like the kids could figure out so easily in their street games. They even admitted to cheating, so why not own up to that in action? (Just resume it from where the game was assuming the play was called correctly, if the Saints score a touchdown they go the Super Bowl and if the Rams stop them they go. The poor referee [I know, I've been there, but come on, man, ffs] even gets to save face.)
I mean, let's say the NFL asked the kids - their most important fan base, currently and long term (this sport is like pro wrestling but not all scripted; I liked both as a kid but outgrew only one of the two...), what they think the fair thing would be to do. A do-over, right?
Should honor require the Rams to admit what getting away with a really significant cheat entails ethically, and to accept a do-over? What do principles of justice and virtue (honor being among them) require here? That would be a great exercise in getting the ball rolling in getting the kids to think philosophically. Yes? :)
Oh, and wouldn't that be a lot better for the ratings (you know, for the adults)? Not just the do-over, but the Super Bowl itself, which I and many others are planning as of now to avoid....
[In the posting queue: 'Ultimate Blogging tips: for Philosophers' ^_^ ]
Saturday, January 26, 2019
Trump's border barrier as NOT a racist immorality: a short and simple proof
The barrier(s) would only keep out those who would try to get into the country illegally. (Q.E.D. in one move?) How is that immoral? How is that racist?
Trump should also ask for some funds for that big, beautiful, inviting door for people of all backgrounds and colors, who are willing to learn about and assimilate appropriately into our can-do (etc.) culture, are willing to learn and abide by the laws like the natural-born citizenry, aren't hidden members of our society, become productive and value-adding, etc. etc., who are willing in order words to go through the proper vetting. Trump should also been over backwards to ensure that the border-detained kids are given as humane a treatment as our cherished vets (where he talks of making heads roll at the VA when they let our amazing veterans down). Right, Trump & Democrats?
[Note: "ineffective" does not mean "immoral." "Immoral" means a categorical rejection of the idea, even if it did cost the dollar that Pelosi, caving in on the principle of it (heh heh heh...), offered the President. Also, we need to get a dialectically satsifactory resolution to Mexico paying for this new barrier addition. lol ]
Trump should also ask for some funds for that big, beautiful, inviting door for people of all backgrounds and colors, who are willing to learn about and assimilate appropriately into our can-do (etc.) culture, are willing to learn and abide by the laws like the natural-born citizenry, aren't hidden members of our society, become productive and value-adding, etc. etc., who are willing in order words to go through the proper vetting. Trump should also been over backwards to ensure that the border-detained kids are given as humane a treatment as our cherished vets (where he talks of making heads roll at the VA when they let our amazing veterans down). Right, Trump & Democrats?
[Note: "ineffective" does not mean "immoral." "Immoral" means a categorical rejection of the idea, even if it did cost the dollar that Pelosi, caving in on the principle of it (heh heh heh...), offered the President. Also, we need to get a dialectically satsifactory resolution to Mexico paying for this new barrier addition. lol ]
Credit where it's due: Leiter lays the smackdown on academic identity politics (and related mischief)
A case in point for why people should be paying a lot more attention to philosophy blogs and a lot less attention to nitwits and trolls on twitter.
Some context: As anyone who's been observant of such things knows, Brian Leiter, U. of Chicago Law Professor, founder of the Philosophical Gourmet Report for industry-standard ranking of leading university philosophy programs (NYU, Oxford, Rutgers, et al), also runs Leiter Reports, billed as the "world's most popular philosophy blog since 2003." (Nevertheless, he's a loathsome leftist loser of the neo-Marxoid variety, and reckless Rand-basher.) He is a keen observer of who's who in academic philosophy. The Ladder Man, as Maverick Philosopher eruditely dubs him (for "his obsession with rankings and status. (One of the meanings of the German Leiter is ladder; another is leader as in Gauleiter.)"), knows whereof he speaks in this area (just not on Rand or capitalism, though; but on Nietzsche, jurisprudence and academic politics he speaks with authority). Finally, he had to step down as lead editor of the Gourmet Report a few years ago after having acted in a notoriously combative, divisive, rude and unpleasant manner toward a number of his colleagues. He seems to be an expert in the less appealing aspects of academic politics, then.
His recent commentary on the seemingly extraordinary American Academy of Arts and Sciences selection process merits some notice and honest facing-up-to by all concerned:
The academic PC (sic!) cohort can run but it cannot hide. The Ladder Man knows whereof he speaks here. When even a rabid leftist of his academia-related knowledge says that this shit has gone too far, that's a good sign it has. If this is happening in the most rigorous of academic disciplines like philosophy, can you imagine where it's headed in the less demanding disciplines, especially the ones with tons of politically-left inbreeding?
In any case, why should philosophers of greater merit be sacrificed on the altar of "diversity" and political connections?
(Gee, ya think libertarians and conservatives could use some friends in academia to enhance their status and therefore influence there? For the students' sake, of course. The wasting of intellectual potential for all concerned here [for now] is a bit sickening to watch.)
As illustrated previously, this is what happens when corrupt institutional practices clash with philosophy. Philosophy can and will lay the smackdown.
[I note that Kolakowski's (Oxford) academic status as a Marx-interpreter(/debunker) far exceeds that of Leiter (a mere PGR top-25 program -- WAIT, HOLD ON A SEC, he's not even in the PGR-ranked philosophy department, but rather the law school there -- ) and he seems not to have learned a bit of good social (ultimately, intellectual) graces from his Aristotelian colleague at Chicago, Martha Nussbaum, among other character faults. Should the Ladder Man shoot back that Oxford also had "the greatest Marxoid thinker of recent times" in G.A. Cohen, author of Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defense (OUP, 1978), I guess the answer lies there? How odd that would be, as I see no evidence of some subsequent dialectic between these two on the intellectual credibility of Marxism. Mises' monumental Socialism book (Eng: Yale U Press, 1951 [1922]) settled the question of the intellectual credibility of socialism nearly a century ago now, and the socialists didn't do anything adequate to respond to that (they did make an ultimately-failed attempt to answer Mises on the 'economic calculation' problem but didn't address the deeper structural folly of traditionally socialist thought which manifests in its intellectual-lightweight tendencies toward cultural destructionism and generally flouting the accumulated wisdom of tradition), or to Mises' subsequent demolition of Marxoid historical materialism. Students of the debate like Hayek had it figured out early; socialism is an intellectual basket case, the opiate of the 'intelligentsia.' It seems like a pattern of debate-avoidance among leftist losers might best explain what the Cohen-Kolakowski relationship looks like to me, and that Kolakowski is - despite shared institutional affiliations (see the parallel there at Chicago) - a dialectically superior philosopher. Never mind the demonstrably intellectually inferior character of socialism as shown here. Aristotelians are better philosophers than Marxoids, so I suggest the in-denial Ladder Man and his currently-loathsome leftoid ilk do a better job to take after his Chicago colleague. Maybe there's more nobiity to be found on Leiter's Nietzsche side of things? And, leftoids/Marxoids, if you really wanna do your homework thoroughly, with due dialectical completeness, take a lead from neo-Aristotelian 'dialectical-libertarian' Sciabarra, why don't you, ASAFP. To be continued? . . .]
Some context: As anyone who's been observant of such things knows, Brian Leiter, U. of Chicago Law Professor, founder of the Philosophical Gourmet Report for industry-standard ranking of leading university philosophy programs (NYU, Oxford, Rutgers, et al), also runs Leiter Reports, billed as the "world's most popular philosophy blog since 2003." (Nevertheless, he's a loathsome leftist loser of the neo-Marxoid variety, and reckless Rand-basher.) He is a keen observer of who's who in academic philosophy. The Ladder Man, as Maverick Philosopher eruditely dubs him (for "his obsession with rankings and status. (One of the meanings of the German Leiter is ladder; another is leader as in Gauleiter.)"), knows whereof he speaks in this area (just not on Rand or capitalism, though; but on Nietzsche, jurisprudence and academic politics he speaks with authority). Finally, he had to step down as lead editor of the Gourmet Report a few years ago after having acted in a notoriously combative, divisive, rude and unpleasant manner toward a number of his colleagues. He seems to be an expert in the less appealing aspects of academic politics, then.
His recent commentary on the seemingly extraordinary American Academy of Arts and Sciences selection process merits some notice and honest facing-up-to by all concerned:
Elections to the Academy follow certain patterns. For example, in 2012, MIT's Stephen Yablo was elected to the Academy. The following year, his MIT colleague Rae Langton (now at Cambridge) was elected. Two years later, Langton's friend and former colleague, and Yablo's spouse, Sally Haslanger at MIT was elected. Haslanger (well-known, of course, for her commitment to diversity [vide Reed for an explanation]), quickly joined the selection committee for Philosophy, and that year only one white man (in his 70s) was elected while two prominent feminist philosophers were among the small number of honorees. The latter is hardly suspicious: I've observed the same patterns over the years with formal philosophers, with epistemologists, and with Kant scholars--once one gets in, others in that sub-field are admitted in the subsequent years. As one AAAS member wrote to me a couple of years ago: "newly admitted members are often energized to make nominations," and, unsurprisngly, they invest that effort in their friends and colleagues.
But if there was ever a "popularity contest," it would be the AAAS, in which existing members vote on possible new members on a scale of 1-5 (just like the PGR scale for whole faculties!). Ballotting proceeds in two stages. Any two members can nominate someone for election to the Academy of Friends, and after an initial round of voting, 8-10 candidates are submitted to the membership for final votes. The "panel" is, I'm told, bound by the votes of the existing members, except when there are "diversity" considerations. The current panel consists of Susan Wolf (North Carolina, the chair), Julia Annas (Arizona) Sally Haslanger (MIT), Dan Hausman (Wisconsin), Beatrice Longuenesse (NYU), and Stephen Stich (Rutgers). The Chair of the panel must ultimately negotiate with chairs of other humanities committees over how many philosophers get to be put forward for membership.
A current Academy of Friends member sent me the list of the current first-round candidates. This was against the rules, but I suspect that s/he was concerned about the way things have been going. I will not name any of the nominees.
Understand that most faculty who are elected to the Academy are 60 or older; in philosophy, faculty who are elected around age 50 or younger are few and far between (examples would include, in recent years, David Chalmers [NYU] and John MacFarlane [Berkeley], and, in years past, David Lewis and Martha Nussbaum). Excluding faculty who were clearly nominated in cognate disciplines, and then put on the philosophy ballot for possible "interdisciplinary" inclusion, there were 31 pure philosophy candidates.
15 of those candidates were women, 16 were men. That's already remarkable given that only about 20% of senior philosophy faculty are women. Of those 15 women, two were also racial or ethnic minorities, and a remarkable 9 of the 15 were feminist philosophers and "friends of Sally," as it were. Of the 16 men, 3 were also racial or ethnic minorities. Out of 31 nominated candidates, there were 13 white men. Of the nominated women, 9 of the 15 were faculty members at top 50 PhD programs. Of the nominated men, 16 of 16 were at top 50 PhD programs. Of the nominated women, two were over the age of 70; of the nominated white men, three were over 70. Of the nominated women, five, maybe six, are under 60; of the nominated white men, two, maybe three, are under 60.
The academic PC (sic!) cohort can run but it cannot hide. The Ladder Man knows whereof he speaks here. When even a rabid leftist of his academia-related knowledge says that this shit has gone too far, that's a good sign it has. If this is happening in the most rigorous of academic disciplines like philosophy, can you imagine where it's headed in the less demanding disciplines, especially the ones with tons of politically-left inbreeding?
In any case, why should philosophers of greater merit be sacrificed on the altar of "diversity" and political connections?
(Gee, ya think libertarians and conservatives could use some friends in academia to enhance their status and therefore influence there? For the students' sake, of course. The wasting of intellectual potential for all concerned here [for now] is a bit sickening to watch.)
As illustrated previously, this is what happens when corrupt institutional practices clash with philosophy. Philosophy can and will lay the smackdown.
[I note that Kolakowski's (Oxford) academic status as a Marx-interpreter(/debunker) far exceeds that of Leiter (a mere PGR top-25 program -- WAIT, HOLD ON A SEC, he's not even in the PGR-ranked philosophy department, but rather the law school there -- ) and he seems not to have learned a bit of good social (ultimately, intellectual) graces from his Aristotelian colleague at Chicago, Martha Nussbaum, among other character faults. Should the Ladder Man shoot back that Oxford also had "the greatest Marxoid thinker of recent times" in G.A. Cohen, author of Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defense (OUP, 1978), I guess the answer lies there? How odd that would be, as I see no evidence of some subsequent dialectic between these two on the intellectual credibility of Marxism. Mises' monumental Socialism book (Eng: Yale U Press, 1951 [1922]) settled the question of the intellectual credibility of socialism nearly a century ago now, and the socialists didn't do anything adequate to respond to that (they did make an ultimately-failed attempt to answer Mises on the 'economic calculation' problem but didn't address the deeper structural folly of traditionally socialist thought which manifests in its intellectual-lightweight tendencies toward cultural destructionism and generally flouting the accumulated wisdom of tradition), or to Mises' subsequent demolition of Marxoid historical materialism. Students of the debate like Hayek had it figured out early; socialism is an intellectual basket case, the opiate of the 'intelligentsia.' It seems like a pattern of debate-avoidance among leftist losers might best explain what the Cohen-Kolakowski relationship looks like to me, and that Kolakowski is - despite shared institutional affiliations (see the parallel there at Chicago) - a dialectically superior philosopher. Never mind the demonstrably intellectually inferior character of socialism as shown here. Aristotelians are better philosophers than Marxoids, so I suggest the in-denial Ladder Man and his currently-loathsome leftoid ilk do a better job to take after his Chicago colleague. Maybe there's more nobiity to be found on Leiter's Nietzsche side of things? And, leftoids/Marxoids, if you really wanna do your homework thoroughly, with due dialectical completeness, take a lead from neo-Aristotelian 'dialectical-libertarian' Sciabarra, why don't you, ASAFP. To be continued? . . .]
Is the upcoming Super Bowl tainted?
It sure is, in my opinion.
The Rams were almost certainly put into the Super Bowl by shitty officiating. Now here comes the moral question: if the Rams are honorable, shouldn't they concede the NFC slot in the Super Bowl to the Saints? Just because the referee fucks up, making the most obviously shitty no-call of all time, that doesn't mean that the Rams just have to accept the non-decision, right? They know they committed pass interference, so why do they think it's okay to get away with blatant cheating? Can't exceptions to rigid rule-keeping be made when the injustice of their observance is so obvious in some cases? Especially when the rules were so obviously contravened in this case?
What lesson is this supposed to say to the nation's youth? Their soccer team gets screwed by a referee's call but then again remember how arguably the best team in football in 2019 was screwed by the refs, so suck it up, kids. Something like that? You want to breed cynicism into them? Actually, don't the kids have a way of resolving such injustices -- a do-over? They're setting a better example than the adults are, ffs.
So I guess there is by default a team to root for in the Super Bowl as is this year, the ones who aren't dishonorable cheaters, and that would be the AFC team. Right? Put the Saints in the Super Bowl as they deserve, and we've got a non-Patriots team to root for once again. Drew Brees deserves the chance, and he had one of his fine on-target passes broken up by a cheating player who openly admits he should have been penalized.
C'mon, Rams and/or NFL, do the right thing.
ADDENDUM: Here's the fairest idea I can think of. Give the Saints-Rams a do-over from the time and spot of the un-called foul. Like just televised from a practice field or whatever, relatively quick and easy. Then everyone's consciences can be clean. Yes? :)
[Addendum #2 1/27/19: An updated version of the do-over idea is available here and integrated to the most overwhelmingly important topic at present, philosophy for kids.]
ADDENDUM: Here's the fairest idea I can think of. Give the Saints-Rams a do-over from the time and spot of the un-called foul. Like just televised from a practice field or whatever, relatively quick and easy. Then everyone's consciences can be clean. Yes? :)
[Addendum #2 1/27/19: An updated version of the do-over idea is available here and integrated to the most overwhelmingly important topic at present, philosophy for kids.]
Friday, January 25, 2019
Should social media influence be redistributed?
According to the moral code advanced by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other redistributionists of the left, is it morally acceptable for some people to have way more social influence and fame than others?
Take Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for example. She possesses a level of charisma and social-media savvy that a lot of other people don't, and she exploits these talents to maximum advantage while others of greater merit remain relatively obscure. She has shot to social-stardom levels in a short period of time even though the public could barely name even the most prominent philosophers alive who've put in years of hard intellectual work. How many of AOC's zillions of twitter followers have even heard of Kripke, Chalmers, Williamson, et al, much less the philosophers who do partake in social media (namely in longer-form, more thought-intensive blogging)? Philosophers are way more thoughtful and learned than AOC (and their blogs way less toxic than her twitter feed), so why don't they get the attention she does?
Social influence is a highly valued and sought after thing, much like money/wealth. Shouldn't AOC feel guilty and be willing to have her social influence redistributed to the less fortunate?
Take Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for example. She possesses a level of charisma and social-media savvy that a lot of other people don't, and she exploits these talents to maximum advantage while others of greater merit remain relatively obscure. She has shot to social-stardom levels in a short period of time even though the public could barely name even the most prominent philosophers alive who've put in years of hard intellectual work. How many of AOC's zillions of twitter followers have even heard of Kripke, Chalmers, Williamson, et al, much less the philosophers who do partake in social media (namely in longer-form, more thought-intensive blogging)? Philosophers are way more thoughtful and learned than AOC (and their blogs way less toxic than her twitter feed), so why don't they get the attention she does?
Social influence is a highly valued and sought after thing, much like money/wealth. Shouldn't AOC feel guilty and be willing to have her social influence redistributed to the less fortunate?
Thursday, January 24, 2019
Who can teach children philosophy?
Short answer: just about anyone!
From the Stanford Encyclopedia entry on Philosophy for Children linked previously:
From the Stanford Encyclopedia entry on Philosophy for Children linked previously:
Nevertheless, because they lack background in the formal study of philosophy, many teachers are reluctant to encourage the philosophical thinking of their students. Their fears, however, are exaggerated. Familiarity with some of the standard philosophical literature might be desirable, but it is not necessary for bringing Philosophy for Children into the classroom. What is required is the ability to facilitate philosophical discussion. For this, it is much more important that teachers have some philosophical curiosity themselves than a familiarity with academic philosophical literature. Like their students, teachers unfamiliar with the discipline of philosophy may nevertheless have an aptitude for philosophical thinking—or at least a knack for recognizing when others are engaged in philosophical thought. [emphasis added]
And why should teacher and student alike possess a philosophical curiosity? Because it facilitates better living.
The left's MAGA hat meltdown
TRIGGER WARNING: If you're triggered by a hat, grow the fuck up.
This indicates that they just don't get it. Their very meltdown-style reaction to the hat shows that the hat is working to illustrate its very purpose: the left-wing hate-Trump types are the reason that America needs to be 'made great again.'
Assume that a MAGA hat wearer believes that America needs to be saved from the left-wing takeover of its institutions. The thought behind this could be, "Boy, the Trump-haters sure are intellectually childish and over the top, I'll just keep on wearing this hat and let the haters keep self-destructing whenever they see it and get 'triggered' by it." And then the haters oblige.
The lefties wouldn't even know whether they were being trolled the MAGA hat, they've gone so far off the deep end.
[Addendum: Why are so many lefties in meltdown mode right now? A lot of it has to do with how poor an example their so-called leaders set. Which only invites the question: who is setting the bad example for them?]
[Addendum #2: If you won't hear me out on this, at the very least give Dilbert creator Scott Adams a chance?]
[Addendum: Why are so many lefties in meltdown mode right now? A lot of it has to do with how poor an example their so-called leaders set. Which only invites the question: who is setting the bad example for them?]
[Addendum #2: If you won't hear me out on this, at the very least give Dilbert creator Scott Adams a chance?]
The sage and the progressive
If someone outwardly proclaims to be a sage, that might be a surefire sign that the person is not a sage but rather is too conceited to know better.
Likewise with someone outwardly self-identifying as a progressive.
Donald Trump, Ayn Rand, and their haters
I have just now arrived at a preliminary formulation regarding a striking parallel between Trump and Rand. (There is quite a lot of overlap between the haters of these two, most often on the left side of the political spectrum.) I say this the following in the context of being neither a fan of Trump's nor of Rand's polemics against a lot of other philosophers (which scholars of those philosophers don't or wouldn't take seriously). The formulation is as follows:
Sure Trump says a lot of dumb things, can be quite the dick sometimes. But have you seen his haters? They often behave like absolute pieces of shit.
Sure Rand's polemics leave a lot to be desired, but have you seen how her haters polemicize against her? They often behave like absolute pieces of intellectual shit.
And I can, if and when I have the time and interest to do so, marshal a mountain of evidence to prove all of this....
Sure Trump says a lot of dumb things, can be quite the dick sometimes. But have you seen his haters? They often behave like absolute pieces of shit.
Sure Rand's polemics leave a lot to be desired, but have you seen how her haters polemicize against her? They often behave like absolute pieces of intellectual shit.
And I can, if and when I have the time and interest to do so, marshal a mountain of evidence to prove all of this....
Philosophy for children
If this is the last thing I ever write publicly that'll be okay, because it points to the best solution I can think of for society's present ills.
In recent days I've had to take time out of my otherwise top-priority heavy-duty philosophy text research. (I only just now purchased, and need to read more than the first 50-ish pages of, Parfit's Reasons and Persons, ffs -- a task that one might think long overdue for a sage, which is not something I claim to be, as I am but a fanatical wisdom-seeker.) Why have I had to put that research on hold? Because of another topic of research of its own sort: the epistemic criminality run rampant -- also known by the term "toxicity" -- in our public discourse which I find everywhere I look on the internet and other mass media. It has reached a fever pitch, having something to do with a MAGA-hat wearing President. I've never seen it nearly this bad (save perhaps for observing Rand-bashers do their thing, which is about the lowest bar one can set). The intellectual potential being wasted here is of monumental significance. ("Monumental" seems an understatement, but "cataclysmic" may be overkill; somewhere in between?) I plan to blog further about this in the coming days, but should I happen to kick the bucket before then, here is my proposed solution to all that:
Philosophy for Children (entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a resource the authoritativeness of which any philosopher can vouch for)
YouTube videos (59K views in 7 years for the most-viewed video here? Seriously?)
YouTube videos (59K views in 7 years for the most-viewed video here? Seriously?)
If there's a way I could bet on philosophy-for-children futures, I would, because the stock is really cheap and the upside may be astronomical. I don't even need to elaborate on the merits, it's all there in its gist in the article with all the leads you'd ever really need to get the ball rolling. (One of the books in the bibliography I've read is Marietta McCarty's Little Big Minds: Sharing Philosophy with Kids. It's good, even as a semi-casual refresher for long-time philosophers. It makes it perfectly obvious that kids as young as about 7 years of age can integrate philosophical material.[*]) There's only good arguments in favor of philosophy for children, and no good arguments against that I can even fathom.
Perhaps the only thing needed to do to speed up the process of introducing this manifestly beneficial intellectual discipline to children is for a sufficiently ambitious author to integrate the available research on the subject with a fanatically intellectual-perfectionist approach to the very discipline of philosophy itself, and market the resulting product under the title of something like Better Living Through Philosophy: Kid's Edition. The only thing necessary to make that happen is for someone to do the required research....
Cost-benefit-wise, this is far and away the biggest no-brainer of all time.
(Philosophy for adults isn't a bad idea, either....)
[*] - I might add "to their immeasurable enrichment" as a rhetorical flourish, even though measurement is fundamental to our conceptual form of reasoning. But "immeasurable" may well be a technical and literal way of referring to enrichment in kind, not merely in degree. Something to think about, anyway. Ain't philosophy fun? :) (Possible future blog topic: Is philosophy fun?)
[UPDATE: Who can teach children philosophy? Short answer: just about anyone!]
(Philosophy for adults isn't a bad idea, either....)
[*] - I might add "to their immeasurable enrichment" as a rhetorical flourish, even though measurement is fundamental to our conceptual form of reasoning. But "immeasurable" may well be a technical and literal way of referring to enrichment in kind, not merely in degree. Something to think about, anyway. Ain't philosophy fun? :) (Possible future blog topic: Is philosophy fun?)
[UPDATE: Who can teach children philosophy? Short answer: just about anyone!]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)