Auschwitz
I don't know what to say right now other than:
gut-wrenching.
Imagine a hand palming a human face forever
Just over a week remains. If the Democrats and Republicans don't stop bickering and agree to how the U.S. should pay its bills, the federal government will shut down, come October 1.Because, of course, that's exactly what's happening. GOP...Democrats...six of one, half a dozen of the other... If they'd just compromise already, everything would be fine...
Alas, McGinn’s self-defense echoes a common narrative in the discipline concerning its demographic challenges. As The Times article reports, and the philosophy blogosphere will confirm, the paucity in philosophy of women and people of color is often blamed on us. Some suggest it is philosophy’s “rough and tumble” style of debate that has turned us women and nonwhite males away. Logical implication: we may just not be cut out for such a demanding field.Well, it's worth noting that the only times I have ever heard this explanation seriously offered by philosophers was when it was offered by feminist philosophers. The explanation might be wrong...it might even be stupid or sexist. But Alcoff suggests that it's offered by men in order to suggest that women and non-whites aren't up to snuff, rigor-wise. In fact, I've only every heard it offered by feminists who meant to suggest that the field of philosophy was defective on account of being too aggressive...
The issue is not debate, simpliciter, but how it is done. Too many philosophers accept the idea that truth is best achieved by a marketplace of ideas conducted in the fashion of ultimate fighting. But aggressive styles that seek easy victories by harping on arcane counterexamples do not maximize truth. Nor does making use of the social advantages one might have by virtue of one’s gender, ethnicity or seniority. Nor does stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the real world contexts, rife with implicit bias and power distortions, in which even philosophical debates always occur.As I've indicated, I agree with the first sentence (mixed metaphors notwithstanding...) But arcane examples are often the crucial examples...so I'm puzzled about what to do with the next one. The rest of it's an attempt to sneak in a particular (intellectually leftist, extremely contentious) view to the effect that things like race and sex and so forth are always relevant in philosophical discussion... It isn't true...but, perhaps more importantly, if it's going to be included, then it should be asserted and defended, not sneaked in almost in passing...