It’s simple, really: whenever my students hear me snap my fingers and quote Marx’s 11th thesis on Feuerbach, they spontaneously begin to decry homophobia, sexism, racism, ageism, monologism, lookism, bagism, dragism, and journalism.
That would be Michael Bérubé, in Public Image Limited, a tremendously delightful essay on the crimes of the PC professor that I just discovered today.
It’s as if the major news organizations have been listening to criticism. In a New York Times article on McCain’s claims that Obama would be soft on Hamas, we get a clear verdict:
But important nuances appear to have been lost in the partisan salvos, particularly on Mr. McCain’s side. An examination of Mr. Obama’s numerous public statements on the subjects indicates that he has consistently condemned Hamas as a “terrorist organization,” has not sought the group’s support and does not advocate immediate, direct or unconditional negotiations with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president.
First there was the gas tax, where you had talking heads saying that there was a consensus among economists that it was a bad idea, now this. Bitch PhD notes an even more awesome headline.
I was wondering about how objective (in the good way!) this characterization was, but the article is well-written. Instead of just relying on Obama’s statements, it included a bit of legislative history that I hadn’t known about:
That is not a new position for Mr. Obama. In 2006, he, like Mr. McCain, was a co-sponsor of the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act, which called on “members of the international community to avoid contact with and refrain from financially supporting the terrorist organization Hamas” until it met all of the same requirements that Mr. Obama enumerated again on Thursday.
Achewood has wandered into “I do what the voices in my head tell me to” or “I see dumb people” t-shirt territory with its newest offering. Never mind that it’s an inside joke–the rest of the world won’t know that.
By whatever weak standards govern politicians, Newt Gingrich is supposedly an important thinker and source of new ideas. So it’s interesting to see his proposals for turning around the republican party. He’s worried that the party could return to permanent minority status, and thinks they need to unveil a new agenda within the next few months. Here are his ideas:
A few remarks. One is the biggest bandaid imaginable, and also the issue that prompted James Fallows to run a contest for the stupidest bipartisan idea ever. Worse, it appears that a majority of Americans have been convinced that it won’t help.
In the middle of the list you have a few ideas that might be interesting, but they’re incremental reforms that are unlikely to excite the public. The best they might do is help the republicans ameliorate their current reputation for gross incompetence. But that’s the sort of thing that takes time to accomplish.
The only item on the list that is really a big issue is #3, and absent any details, it’s meaningless.
If you compare this proposal to the Contract With America, it comes up quite short. Setting aside whether the contract featured good ideas, it at least had big ideas. Perhaps Newt didn’t think he was able to make bigger proposals without the agreement of other figures in the conservative movement. Regardless of why this proposal looks the way that it does, it’s hard to imagine a Republican seeing it and finding a real answer to their problems in the current election.
Followup: After posting, I saw that Ross Douthat had his own take on Newt’s ideas. He’s unimpressed, perhaps because he also has ideas about how to change the Republican party, ideas that I’m quite curious to read.
A while back, there was discussion in these parts of what effect “Operation Chaos,” Rush Limbaugh’s plan to have his supporters vote in the Democratic primaries to prop up Clinton and prolong the race, might have. From the Indiana primaries, Marc Ambinder has numbers that make it clear that the effect was probably quite small.
“…the well known and highly typical style of many texts in analytic philosophy which seeks precision by total mind control, through issuing continuous and rigid interpretative directions. In a way that will be familiar to any reader of analytic philosophy, and is only too familiar to all of us who perpetrate it, this style tries to remove in advance every conceivable misunderstanding or misinterpretation or objection, including those that would occur only to the malicious or the clinically literal-minded.”
Where is my hunched back when I need it?
I’m reading Clifford Geertz on ‘thick description’ because I’m interested in the notion of ‘thick concepts’ as they have been discussed by ethicists since Bernard Williams’ Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Thick concepts are a magical knockout blow against non-cognitivism. Williams got the concept from Geertz, who in turn was influenced by Gilbert Ryle’s work.
Only Williams didn’t. Or at least, Geertz doesn’t appear in the index of the book, nor in the endnotes. How the hell did I come up with the idea that these two authors are related? On the basis of testimony, Jonathan Dancy says Williams got the notion from Geertz, but I read Dancy on the subject after I’d picked up Geertz. Best I can do is this rather unspecific footnote in the SEP. Seems like everyone heard somewhere that Williams was on about Geertz, but no one ever actually had any evidence for that.
One suspects that Ryle was involved, since Williams and Ryle crossed paths at Oxford back in the good old days. Even with Ryle’s diminishing influence later on, Williams was probably familiar with his ideas.
It’s probably not important that I be able to connect Williams to Geertz via direct citation, but it’s irksome not to remember whether there is a concrete link.
Honestly, I’m pretty sure I got the idea from a list that Scott Eric Kaufman made.
I’m hereby declaring victory over the semester. Unlike Shawn, I lack a direct entitlement to do this, but I fear I’ll never have the opportunity if I don’t seize it now. In fact, I’ll be working on finishing up several papers over the course of the summer. I’m in the middle of a paper for Kieran about silencing, and more generally the issue of whether reasons ever change their valence between situations. After that, there will be other papers which I won’t enumerate.
At the moment, I still don’t know what I’d like to focus on. To illustrate the range of topics I’m still actively interested in, I’ll merely cite ethics and the philosophy of Carnap. Perhaps having wrestled with a few paper ideas, I’ll be in a better place to decide by the end of the summer. If all goes well, I’ll start preparing for a prospectus (dissertation proposal) in the spring of next year.
I think Timothy Burke’s portrayal of grad school is the most dystopian that I’ve seen yet. While it’s no longer the time of year that prospective students are considering where to go, I’ll offer the following modest plug for the Pitt philosophy department: I have no fucking clue what he’s on about.
The Federal Reserve is proposing new regulations concerning credit card debt that have been pushed by consumer advocates for awhile now.
The proposed regulations, which could be finalized by year’s end, would label as “unfair or deceptive” practices that consumers have long complained about. That includes charging interest on debt that has been repaid and assessing late fees when consumers are not given a reasonable amount of time to make a payment. When different interest rates apply to different balances on one card, companies would be prohibited from applying a payment first to the balance with the lowest rate.
I’m curious how one defends “charging interest on debt that has been repaid.” I didn’t realize the Federal Reserve had a hand in regulating credit cards, but these changes look like an unambiguous good.
I doubt you want to try, but I dare you–try and convince me that this isn’t an unalloyed good: [Pennsylvania] state senate approves ban on political robo-calls. I got roughly five calls from each candidate in the three days before the primary this season. This is doubly silly since Barack Obama (personally–I mean, the guy himself) knew that I’d be voting for him, since I up and donated to his campaign right after he won SC. So why call me? I mean, his best buddy here on the northside already wasted two calls asking me if I wanted to do get out the vote stuff (I hemmed and hawed and eventually said I was too busy).
…Is the central problem of the history of philosophy for me. Near the end of Tom Ricketts’ Wittgenstein seminar last year, I asked him how the concerns that animated the philosophy of Russell and Wittgenstein relate to those of the present. I can’t fully remember his answer, but it involved Carnap and Quine. Now, near the end of the Carnap/Quine seminar, I can’t answer the parallel question. Apropos that thought, I just found a relevant quotation from Tom’s Frege, Carnap and Quine: Continuities and Discontinuities
On the story I tell, the central strand of the analytic tradition in philosophy decisively shaped by our three figures has, I think it is fair to say, no salient continuation among those who name themselves the heirs of that tradition.
This certainly fits my impression, or at least my confusion, though I don’t trust myself to assert the corresponding judgment. This sets up a trend of what I’m getting out of Tom’s history courses.
We’re now reading an Evans paper in order to examine the disagreement between Strawsonian and Quinean approaches to the referential dimension of language. If the trend continues, we’ll be getting even closer to the present. Taken to its logical conclusion, this would give the result that we can’t get from here to here, or more poetically, “there’s no there here.”
See, Bill, when you downplay Obama’s South Carolina victory by comparing it to Jesse Jackson’s 1988 victory, YOU are the one playing the race card. When you accuse your opponent of having a plan to play the race card from the beginning, THAT is playing the race card.
I looked at the memo that Bill mentions (if there are others, no one knows about them) and it says nothing of the sort–they do collect racially charged Clinton camp quotations, ranging from the seriously offensive, like Cuomo’s statement that you can’t “shuck and jive” in New Hampshire to really stupid things like mentioning Obama’s decades old drug use (I don’t think that history should matter, but I didn’t see the racial element).
Off to go vote in an hour.
Did Bill deny ever saying it one day after the initial comments. Yes. Did I listen to audio of him saying it? Yes. That’s really astonishing.
I lied when I said I wouldn’t be posting for two weeks (surprise, that!). See, it turns out that someone on the internet is wrong.
Matthew Yglesias has linked to a post claiming that colleges know how to take care of students, and ensure high graduation rates. The offered advice is: treat ‘em like athletes. Contrary to the stereotypes, athletes have better graduation rates than the student populace at large, and the gap grows the less advantaged the athletes are in the first place–unsurprisingly, there’s a large gap in graduation rates between middle class second generation students and poor first generation college students. However, there are three reasons to doubt the model will extend to students in general.
First, there’s money issues. The constant observation and interventions for athletes aren’t cheap for universities, so it’s an open question how many of them have the resources to extend them to the student body as a whole. At the same time, athletes’ graduation rates will be boosted by the fact that they are often on scholarship. The full scholarships that basketball and football players get at big universities are rare, but even a bit of money matters given that monetary difficulties are a huge reason for students failing to complete college. Even when students don’t drop out because of money, the need to work long hours is often a severe obstacle to getting good grades.
Second, there’s the issue of leverage. Perhaps it’s too bold of a conjecture, but I think not that many students quit college because they just can’t handle the work, but that they’re insufficiently motivated (or they’re so bogged down with none-college obligations that they can’t put in enough effort–see above). Even in logic, a course that is quite hard for many students (and oddly easy for others), the students headed for failure are more likely than not the ones who I can’t recognize because they don’t come to class, or those who can’t be bothered to turn in homework.
Athletes have a very compelling and immediate instrumental motivation–they can’t do something they love this year unless they keep their grades up. Non-athletes have the compelling motivation of lifetime earnings and such, but we know just how good Homo Sapiens is at reacting to anything not right in front of its face. More than that, some of the measures described by Rotherdam are unlikely to sit well with students: “they live in special housing and often eat in special facilities.” Leaving aside the question of how those special facilities work when extended to the student population at large, how many kids are going to sign up? Athletes also often have 7 AM weight training–picture the average student’s reaction to that prospect.
Third, many of the ways that athletes are treated undermine the educational goals of the university. The author of the post suggests that the stereotype of athletes enrolling in easy majors is just a stereotype. I’m very curious what he bases that on. Cases like Georgia’s basketball course, featuring questions like “how many points is a three point goal worth” are probably rare, but there are subtler ways of rigging the game. Athletic departments often compile lists of recommended courses, going so far as to guide students away from courses taught by particular teachers because of the workloads involved. The point is that what athletic departments are motivated to do is keep graduation rates up for their own sake, regardless of whether that amounts to giving the students a well rounded education.
I have another two weeks of class or so, during which I’m going to be quite busy, I suppose. At the same time, I’m rather tired of blogging. So don’t expect me back until around the 20th.
I was at Barnes and Noble with Miss Lady yesterday, and I glanced at the delightfully titled Philosophy for Dummies in order to have a look at our disciplines PR efforts. The results were disastrous. I looked at just two sections: the definition of knowledge, followed by the index. The definition of knowledge was that knowledge is justified true belief. The index confirmed that Edmund Gettier makes no appearance in the book.
If I were writing a pop philosophy book (ha!), I don’t think I’d include much Gettierology or the associated Chisholming, but it seems crazy not to mention the whole phenomenon. It would be as easy as saying “counterexamples have been given to this definition, which most contemporary philosophers find compelling. There is an ongoing effort to reformulate the definition,” followed by a description of a Gettier case.
Then again, since I assume the book is there to produce a mere simulacrum of learning, it doesn’t really impact its quality whether or not it includes Gettier cases.
In the midst of arguing that the pressure for Clinton to leave the race is primarily bullying or sexist (link now fixed)–and I’ll admit that I don’t exactly see the argument that it is mostly a gendered phenomenon–Melissa McEwan of Shakesville makes an important bit of snark:
If you’re like me, I know you can’t read an article about Hillary without thinking, “I wonder what Bill thinks about all this!”
It’s one of the stupidest things about the campaign that Hillary’s voice has sometimes been drowned out by Bill’s presence. However important his legacy was to her position in politics, this is her campaign, and it will be her presidency, should she be elected. Bill would be first among her advisers–less than Dick Cheney but more than Al Gore–but she would the leader and the voice for her administration.
So it’s quite sad that the media has all too often treated her campaign as one run by a quasi-corporate entity, ‘the Clintons,’ or that Bill is such a fixture in the headlines.
But aside from the media, y’know who’s worth blaming? Bill himself. Remember back in February when Bill was running around South Carolina dissing black people and the official off-the-record line from the campaign was “oh my god, SHUT. HIM. UP. Please help us-we don’t know how to do it. He is a relentless force of nature.” I don’t think it’s just Obama supporters who see him as having tarnished his reputation (you might try James Fallows–a longtime fan of Bill who is highly disappointed).
In a lot of ways, Hillary’s position coming in to the heart of the campaign was impossible and unfair. Find a way to keep Bill out of the picture and she loses a strong campaigner, and looks defensive–aside from the fact that it would be contrary to her instincts, since they are a political team. Put him in play, and she risks shifting attention to him.
I will say that while this is unfair and impossible, it doesn’t yet add up to a story about misogyny. Three points. First, the talking heads were quite ready to crown Clinton the nominee well before any votes were cast. At one point Obama was a genuine underdog, however long ago that may seem. I think this underscores the point that very few people within the Democratic party have qualms about a female president. Second, whatever the state of play among pundits, Clinton seems to lead the all important category of misogynist Democrats. Third, let’s note that there’s a parallel sense in which Obama has faced an impossible and unfair task. I for one, think that what has been directed at him may well have been uglier than the parallel things directed at her.
No president has been more than an inch shorter than the national average in two centuries. McCain is 5′7″. I won’t cry for the unfairness of it, but it wouldn’t increase my faith in democracy if that was the best explanation of his impending loss. (Link)
I’m disappointed that Davidson didn’t make the final four, but let me highlight the fact that two tournaments ago I was calling bullshit on the whole “OMG, all four #1 seeds have never made the final four” meme. Just going by probabilities, having all four #1 seeds make the final four should be quite rare–but also the sort of thing that we should expect to eventually happen. So it’s no surprise that it took 29 years until it just now happened.
I, for one, am quite curious to see what other cliché will replace this one for the sportscasters next year.
On an unrelated note, have a look at this delightful image of “Psycho T”
Note to ESPN talking heads–when Stephen Curry has 15 points in the first half, that does not constitute Kansas doing a good job defending him. It is an ok job, or a not terrible job. But 30 points would be a good total, even if the first half was on 5-12 shooting.
Followup: Was that five points in the first 1:30 of the second half? I guess when that’s the alternative, 15 points is good.
Shared items | Kathryn on Hard to Argue With |
 | Alistair McNaught on The Original of Laura |
 | Justin on About Defecting |
| Kathryn on About Defecting |
 | About Defecting … on Is That An Endorsement? |
