tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post3981981330217409238..comments2024-03-28T21:41:32.110-04:00Comments on Grim's Hall: Rebecca Tuval and Philosophy's Existential CrisisGrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-14480331028940664082017-05-16T00:21:17.467-04:002017-05-16T00:21:17.467-04:00I think of it a little differently. The SJW ethos ...I think of it a little differently. The SJW ethos and way of behaving is so clearly unjust and, at times, insane that I cannot see how anyone with a reasonable grounding in reality could allow it into their thinking, unless they were subject to fatal confusion about such matters as the distinction between openness to minority voices and grinding down non-ideologues, or between sexism and recognition of differences between men and women, or indeed between openness to a heterodox idea on the one hand and embracing that idea on the other.<br /><br />So my question would be how it came about that so many scholars went insane—or to look at it differently, how it came about that so many scholars find themselves cowed, unable to resist, unable even to respond with argument, in the face of malignant insanity.<br /><br />Or maybe there are two distinct problems: that so much is now left to "community standards", a la Grim, and that the "community standards" respected in academia are the standards of a bunch of crazy people.jaedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03328666344764784829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-50791306450616019312017-05-15T23:07:51.892-04:002017-05-15T23:07:51.892-04:00The problem with ethics is that it has lost its me...The problem with ethics is that it has lost its metaphysical grounding. This is usually referred to as the <i>teleology</i> debate. You're free to say, "I believe in a human <i>telos</i>, and it X," where X is usually 'reason.' But the arguments fielded for thousands of years in favor of that position have been rejected.<br /><br />So what's left? I think you can still make some transcendent arguments: courage is a virtue regardless of what else you believe, because whatever you believe in, courage will help you attain it and courage's opposite will not. <br /><br />But that still leaves a lot to 'community standards.' Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-53231464089577702122017-05-15T22:54:27.953-04:002017-05-15T22:54:27.953-04:00"Tuvel was criticized for not citing enough b..."Tuvel was criticized for not citing enough black or transgender scholars. Such a complaint could be leveled at virtually any philosophy paper."<br /><br />Indeed, I suspect that most working philosophers would be hard pressed to <i>name</i> a transgender philosopher -- outside of the specialized field under consideration, of course. The bulk of Anglo-American philosophy is analytical, and analytical philosophy -- like math or symbolic logic -- is shockingly non-diverse. Or so I'm told.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.com