I have stepped into the gender war currently raging in philosophy, though my contribution is heavy on "war" and light on "gender"
Philosophers have the best discourse norms in the academy. Here is 's argument for why philosophers should not sign petitions and open letters, with implications for all professors:
Really? So no Declaration of Independence or Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen or Universal Declaration of Human Rights in a philosophy class? Those texts by their nature compromise core values of intellectual inquiry?
“‘But I need to get people to see that excluding certain voices is not the way to create an inclusive intellectual environment.” Then argue for it!”
“There is no greater threat to intellectual culture than the thought that when it really counts, when it actually matters to us, we philosophers give up on doing philosophy.” on petitions in #philosophy
Virtual discussion of the day: Does this philosopher misunderstand the nature of petitions? (Please participate only if you have read the linked article.)
Impassioned argument from Agnes Callard. via ⁦
Why Philosophers Shouldn’t Sign Petitions
If you believe that petitions compromise core values of intellectual inquiry, sign here. ⁦⁩ ⁦
Here is ⁦⁩ being her awesomely provocative self #PublicPhilosophy #Retweetsnotendorsements
Thoughts? “Why Philosophers Shouldn’t Sign Petitions”
100% disagree with this.
Well, I guess I’m a bad philosopher b/c I believe in signing some petitions. Hell, if the cause is right & adding your name can make a positive material difference in the world, it might even be a matter of professional responsibility to do so.
“Numbers generate a pressure to believe that isn’t grounded in explanatory force, because having more and more adherents to a view doesn’t give rise to better and better accounts of why the view is correct.” Why Philosophers Shouldn’t Sign Petitions
Why Philosophers Shouldn’t Sign Petitions
Interesting iconoclasm from
“If you strip the list of signatures off your petition, you’ll find that you have an argument on your hands. The argument was there all along, but only when shorn of the appeal to authority does it invite counterargument—as opposed to counterpetitioning.”
Why Philosophers Shouldn’t Sign Petitions
Why Philosophers Shouldn’t Sign Petitions
Nice provocative article by Agnes Callard on why philosophers shouldn’t sign petitions
Chicagoism is a disease that comes in more or less subtle forms, but it's always the same disease.
Imagine making such a preposterous claim in an article that cites the authority of Socrates for support, that begins and ends with the authority of the author's title and affiliation, and that is published under the authority of the New York Times...
The value of this piece, ironically, is not in the argumentation. It is performative: it forces second-guessing and rethinking, because of the stance, the person making it, and the venue.
Worth pondering: Why Philosophers Shouldn’t Sign Petitions Our job is to persuade by argument, not by wielding influence.