Should Philosophy Change In Order to Attract More Women And Non-Whites?
I'm only going to comment on one thing in this. Incidentally, these aren't the kinds of issues that can be freely and openly discussed in philosophy anymore. If you don't toe the party line pretty damn closely, you'd better just keep your mouth shut.
(For the record, I don't keep my mouth shut at all in person. I don't usually engage at the Daily Nous because it's not a venue for serious and open discussion (as you can see). It's largely an organ of the philosophical left. At best you can fruitlessly stir up a hornets nest there. (Well...that's not right. Actually, the majority of the comments always seem to dissent from the DN's PC lean...) I sometimes comment anonymously if I can't resist the urge...but the real problem with the DN is that people read it at all. Or, rather: that, after the anti-Leiter coup, it now functions as the most visible philosophy blog. It would better to just ignore it--or for someone to produce a non-left-leaning venue for such discussions. Participating when the discussions are (like this one) skewed so far left just plays into the hands of the PC politicization of philosophy. Furthermore, the internet philosophical left is so rabid that you always have to ask yourself whether making your point is worth the lunatic dog-piling you're likely to get...)
But anyway, here's a question that seems to arise a fair bit anymore, in one form or another: should philosophy change (e.g. focus on different topics) in order to alter its demographics in a more "progressive" direction?
I think we can answer this by asking an analogous question: should physics change (e.g. focus on different topics) in order to alter its demographics in a more "progressive"-friendly direction?
(For the record, I don't keep my mouth shut at all in person. I don't usually engage at the Daily Nous because it's not a venue for serious and open discussion (as you can see). It's largely an organ of the philosophical left. At best you can fruitlessly stir up a hornets nest there. (Well...that's not right. Actually, the majority of the comments always seem to dissent from the DN's PC lean...) I sometimes comment anonymously if I can't resist the urge...but the real problem with the DN is that people read it at all. Or, rather: that, after the anti-Leiter coup, it now functions as the most visible philosophy blog. It would better to just ignore it--or for someone to produce a non-left-leaning venue for such discussions. Participating when the discussions are (like this one) skewed so far left just plays into the hands of the PC politicization of philosophy. Furthermore, the internet philosophical left is so rabid that you always have to ask yourself whether making your point is worth the lunatic dog-piling you're likely to get...)
But anyway, here's a question that seems to arise a fair bit anymore, in one form or another: should philosophy change (e.g. focus on different topics) in order to alter its demographics in a more "progressive" direction?
I think we can answer this by asking an analogous question: should physics change (e.g. focus on different topics) in order to alter its demographics in a more "progressive"-friendly direction?
posted by Winston Smith at
9:50 AM
3 Comments:
As in many things, I suspect the details matter on this. Yeah, a lot of the stuff in feminism has no more logical rigor than Plato. So the question becomes: why do we bother studying him, anyway? Surely there is feminist work that is better. (And surely there is work out of Asia, etc, that needs translating and commentary.)
No more logical rigor than Plato...Jesus, man. All I can bring myself to utter is: that’s not cool.
I'm with the Mystic, PM.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home