This is Jon Cogburn's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Jon Cogburn's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Jon Cogburn
Interests: some
Recent Activity
That makes a lot of sense. Perhaps the reason we must imagine Sisyphus happy is because we so often actually perceive the opposite.
Ha! 9. Whinging on Social Media.
By Jon Cogburn I know why lawyers are unhappy. You have to be pretty smart to get through law school and then the job is mostly unrelenting drudgery sometimes percolated with backstabbing your colleagues on the way to the top. I know why neurosurgeons are unhappy. Human beings are not... Continue reading
Posted 15 hours ago at Philosophical Percolations
But none of the stories you quote are in the least bit inconsistent with what I wrote, which is that the explanation by way of racism is radically incomplete. Just to focus on the racism of the white working class is to dismiss their legitimate complaints. This makes sense for National Review Republicans who don't think that downwardly mobile people of any color have any legitimate complaints. But for the rest of us, it's just a recipe for continued success of National Review Republicans. And the idea that people are killing themselves (the original topic of the post) because of racism is, I think, on the whole both loopy and insulting.
Toggle Commented Apr 5, 2016 on White Punks on Dope at Philosophical Percolations
Wow, thanks! These are fantastic comments. I'll do a response a stand-alone post either tomorrow or the next day.
By Phil Percs Wednesday, March 30th: Michael LaBossiere's RNC & Gun Free Tuesday, March 29th: Jon Cogburn's Genetic necessity against the Noël Carroll two-step Continue reading
Posted Apr 4, 2016 at Philosophical Percolations
By Jon Cogburn In his wonderful textbook, Philosophies of Art: A Contemporary Introduction, and canonical book on the aesthetics of horror, The Philosophy of Horror: or, Paradoxes of the Heart, one finds Noël Carroll over and over again making an argument that goes like this. Preliminary - Present in the... Continue reading
Posted Mar 29, 2016 at Philosophical Percolations
By Phil Percs Saturday, March 26th: Jon Cogburn's Vagueness Notes 8 - Semanticsm about vagueness does not block Evans’ argument Friday, March 25th: Michael LaBossiere's Body Hacking III: Better than Human Wednesday, March 23d: Michael LaBossiere's Body Hacking II: Restoration & Replacement Tuesday, March 22nd: J. Edward Hackett's The Tenuous... Continue reading
Posted Mar 28, 2016 at Philosophical Percolations
Thanks for this. I learned a lot. I'm torn, because I find the general meta-ethical claims made by natural law theorists to be plausible, but then I see those very same people so confidently defending patriarchal awfulness. I don't think natural law theory entails patriarchy. The best public defender of gay marriage in the United States was Andrew Sullivan. I miss his public voice, he was a much more convincing paleo-conservative than the people at The American Conservative, who are too often riven by traditional animus. In any case, the generally awful record of natural law theorists with respect patriarchy now and racism and slavery in the near past *should* give everyone pause. On the other hand, the existentialist stuff strikes me as hopelessly utopian. Upper middle class people do have much, much more freedom with respect to making messes of their lives (and their children's) by ignoring the wisdom of the ages. Enough social capital and cash makes the grim prospect of raising a child alone less grim. Not so everyone else. After gay marriage was legalized, a number of my facebook friends started crowing about how polyamory was next. It wasn't just a non-sequitur (though it was that; the best cases for gay marriage stress the importance of two parent households for children, human dignity, and the virtue of fidelity enshrined in marriage). It also exhibited the same kind of utopian Rousseau type blindness characteristic of the Baby Boomer left (once called "the new left"). I can't help but seeing the existentialist response to natural law theory in the same light. I realize that this response might be unfair. Again, I learned a lot from reading your post and look forward to more on this topic.
By Jon Cogburn In AN EARLIER POST I generalized Evans' original argument against ontic vagueness to suggest a counterargument to those onticists who would respond to Evans by defending vague objects without vague identity. Here I want to do something similar, but aimed at semanticists who argue that vagueness lies... Continue reading
Posted Mar 26, 2016 at Philosophical Percolations
By Phil Percs Saturday, March 19th: Duncan Richter's Leaving the provinces Friday, March 18th: J. Edward Hackett's Ressentiment, Trump and His Supporters Wednesday, March 16th: J. Edward Hackett's Meta-Considerations of a Metaphysics of Experience in Brightman’s Personalism Jason Megill's & Dan Linford's Atheists in Heaven? Duncan Richter's I didn’t realize... Continue reading
Posted Mar 21, 2016 at Philosophical Percolations
By Phil Percs Saturday, March 12th: Jon Cogburn's Which way the wind blows Wednesday, March 9th: Duncan Richter's Descriptivism versus prescriptivism Tuesday, March 8th: Justin Caouette's Some thoughts on the L.A. Times piece by Cherry and Schwitzgebel J. Edward Hackett's Some Thoughts on Soames’s Thoughts: A Rant About Analytic Overreach... Continue reading
Posted Mar 14, 2016 at Philosophical Percolations
I love that novel! It's great as an expose, but also the truth about the situation with the narrator's student was unexpectedly moving. I want to go into it, but I hate to give spoilers of that magnitude. Please, please do guest post something. If you want, just e-mail it to me and I'll get it up as a proper post with whatever picture or video you want. That would be cool.
By Jon Cogburn TAC's Rod Dreher recently hosted a letter from one of his academic readers about college overspending on new infrastructure and raising tuition. The reader tries to get us to think of student loans analogously to the real estate bubble that inaugurated the Great Recession. It's a very... Continue reading
Posted Mar 12, 2016 at Philosophical Percolations
By Phil Percs Friday, March 4th: Michael LaBossiere's Pro-Life vs Anti-Abortion Duncan Richter's Review of a movie I have not seen Thursday, March 3d: Rachel Williams's Can Anyone Change Their Sex? J. Edward Hackett's A Proper Understanding of Postmodernism Wednesday, March 2nd: Michael LaBossiere's The Texas Anti-Abortion Law & Lies... Continue reading
Posted Mar 7, 2016 at Philosophical Percolations
By Jon Cogburn In this post on Harman on Žižek on Bryant I mentioned some of my work on in my forthcoming EUP book on Tristan Garcia. I've put some of this into a draft of a paper I'll be giving at the Southwest Undergraduate Philosophy Conference this Saturday. Anyhow,... Continue reading
Posted Mar 2, 2016 at Philosophical Percolations
Wow, that's fantastic! Thanks so much. Going over to read Bryant's post now.
O.K. I'm genuinely in the realm of indeterminacy now. I was playing straight man and being facetious about the disanalogy and now I can't tell if you are doubling down on the facetiousness, or if you are doing what I would be doing now if you aren't in fact being facetious. In any case, I was trying to write as if I was really convinced he might be a serial killer and making the post even more absurd, without ceding the important point made by the satire. I think my response failed aesthetically because of the way I brought in the serious point about healthcare. I almost went into the an exploration of the kind of serial killing in which powerful people who make obeisance to the military industrial complex engage. That might have been easier to do without losing the artistic point. In any case I agree 100% that the humor makes a two substantially important points, one about the absurd standards of proof people apply to Obama and another about people who embrace murderous policy. Trying and failing to build on that by amplifying the comedic tropes in my response was a noble endeavor, albeit perhaps one that should have been attempted by a more skilled straight man than myself.
I appreciate the attempted humor, but worry that this is a little bit offensive to #blacklivesmatter because you are covering over a disanalogy in order to make the (I should say very good) post just a little bit more humorous. In my experience at least #blacklivesmatter activists are pretty open about being black. But, at least as far as I can tell, Ted Cruz is just a mountain of obfuscations about being the Zodiac Killer. I mean it's all good and fine for serial killers to want to give voice to their side of the debate. But doesn't this require being open about being serial killers? Here's the thing. I'm not sure I'm really 100% joking about this. There are good and bad things about Republicans clearly being the part of "Let them Die!" The bad is that the acceptability of this kind of expression radically degrades us all. The good is that those of us who continue to vote Republican have absolutely no excuses when people are honest about this kind of thing. So Cruz attacking Trump's anodyne statement that we won't let people "die in the streets" (because they can die in emergency rooms after not having their chronic diseases treated by Trumpcare?) as a Democratic talking point is a bit salubrious. On the other hand if he were to get the election he would certainly "pivot to the center" which means going back to refusing to show his birth certificate and all that.
By Jon Cogburn Slavoj Žižek has a characteristically interesting criticism of the version of object-oriented ontology in Levi Bryant's The Democracy of Objects HERE. Graham Harman shares some preliminary thoughts HERE. Harman is currently writing a book on critics and commentators of object-oriented ontology called Skirmishes. It's currently slated to... Continue reading
Posted Feb 29, 2016 at Philosophical Percolations
By Phil Percs Sunday, February 28th: Rachel Williams' Gender Agnosticism. Friday, February 26th: Michael LaBossiere's Why Gun Rights Advocates Should Back Apple Thursday, February 25th: Dan Linford's A Public Letter to Bill Nye Wednesday, February 24th: J. Edward Hackett's Prefatory Remarks about Philosophy and its Relationship to the Social Sciences... Continue reading
Posted Feb 29, 2016 at Philosophical Percolations
I'm sorry, maybe I'm being dense, but I'm not getting how the stories to which you linked are inconsistent with anything I wrote. I never meant to deny at all that racism is real, that it explains a lot about what is wrong with the world, and that people who are less subtle about their racism were more likely to be attracted to Trump.
Toggle Commented Feb 28, 2016 on White Punks on Dope at Philosophical Percolations
Weird that both were big fans of Abraham Kuyper. He was the most influential theologian used to justify Apartheid in South Africa. Some Dutch theologians resist this, but recent work on the Belhar Confession by South African theologians makes the case strongly that the use of Kuyper's theological innovations was not at all accidental.
Toggle Commented Feb 25, 2016 on Alternative Academias at Philosophical Percolations
By Jon Cogburn Slate continues to hit it out of the park with coverage of academic issues with today's piece on legalized concealed carry of firearms in Texas public universities. Somehow they got access to the PowerPoint presentation of the University of Houston faculty forum on how faculty should respond... Continue reading
Posted Feb 24, 2016 at Philosophical Percolations
By Phil Percs Friday, February 19th: Jason Megill's & Dan Linford's Theism and the Is/Ought Gap Thursday, February 18th: Michael LaBossiere's Apple, the FBI, & Backdoors Wednesday, February 17th: Helen De Cruz's Friendships in the face of deep moral disagreement Tuesday, February 16th: Duncan Richter's The fallacy of the course Continue reading
Posted Feb 22, 2016 at Philosophical Percolations