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
The only all party consent states are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington. In all of the other states only one party has to consent to have the conversation recorded. I still don't know if this covers class lectures though, because you could argue that the overwhelming majority of a lecture is not a conversation between the recording student and the professor. If some other kid asks a question and I answer it and neither of us have consented to being recorded, then it should be illegal for the rightwing dude in question to record. I don't know how this would actually pan out legally though.
Shoot. I hope you can make it. You can get our room and we'll get the pull out couch in the little room off the kitchen.
I think it is different in analytical philosophy. We tend to attract people who feel like they already know the answers and that the point of philosophy is just to do apologetics for that. This is most obvious with kids who went to Christian schools and (rightfully) found Plantinga to be a huge balm to all of the other anti-intellectual strains, discovered that they were pretty good at playing the game, and decided to be "Christian philosophers" in the fideistic sense Plantinga prescribes. It's second most obvious with the kids who discovered Rand in highschool and never let go of the view that she had all the answers. The promise (if not always the practice) of phenomenology is actively hostile to "philosophy as apologetics." We're supposed to be open to the things revealing themselves to us in ways that might cause us to radically reconfigure our conceptual schemes. How this happens is actually a going research project, the Badiouian (as opposed to the more radical, though constitutively related, Derridean) "problem of the event." I should be clear about two things though. I don't mean to be impugning all or even most philosophers of religion or people who continue to work on Rand after graduate school. I don't think most of them are just doing apologetics, though apologetics might have been the gateway to philosophy proper, which I think does require constant openness to the idea that one is mistaken about one's deepest beliefs.
Yeah, I wasn't clear enough about the solos bit. I meant when all the other musicians take a break and the drummer/guitarist/keyboardist noodles for ten or so minutes. Somewhere Nick Hornby has a wonderful description of how liberating it was when he realized he could leave the arena and get a beer instead of sitting through John Bonham's drum solo and bass player's long thing on the keyboard. Grateful Dead/Fish/jam band etc. are I think the opposite of the above, where I sometimes dislike something for bad reasons. Not liking the Idea I associate with it leads me to be blind to virtues of instances of that Idea. Punks not being supposed to like hippies is a really stupid reason to reorganize your affective responses to art. I'm really conflicted about jazz. Part of the problem is that in part because of aesthetic norms that the musicians accept it's just really, really, hard to do well, and really easy to do badly. . . The Ken Burns "American Classical Music" jazz type hagiography leaves me cold, but even run of the mill pre-Bop jazz where catchiness of the melody was widely recognized as a good-making feature is transcendent as are thousands of post-bop sui generis artists who don't fit nicely into the Burns story. Again, this ties into not liking something because of the disconnect between what one takes to be the proper Idea and the particulars falling under that Idea. I bought into the Burnsy thing just to rebel against the red of my own neck. It had very little to do with the particulars deemed to be canonical by that Idea, such as Wynton Marsalis noodling with the Boston Pops or all those people who take Coltraine to be the apex of the art form. One interesting thing that falls from this is that universals really do play the Platonic role of grading canonical from non-canonical particulars. Two distinct universals (Ken-Burns-Jazz versus Django-Reinhardt-Jazz) can pick out all of the same particulars, but contradict one another about what are the better or worse instances of those particulars.
Toggle Commented 3 days ago on // Falls the shadow at Jon Cogburn's Blog
That's actually a really interesting point. I'm going to do a top level post in reaction, because I think that this relates to issues of autonomy in important ways.
Toggle Commented 3 days ago on // Falls the shadow at Jon Cogburn's Blog
The google spider likes me, and I didn't feel right about people continuing to go to those posts from searches. I was initially going to put links in to another stand-alone post, but I found two articles that did a much better job saying anything I might want to say about the article, so I just linked to them in a post today.
Image
It can be tricky for an author to write from the perspective of a character of the other gender. How do you get inside the head of your opposite? But of course, men and women aren't complete opposites. Some men are interested in fashion or cooking and some women like... Continue reading
Posted Dec 2, 2014 at Emily's Pretty Cool Blog
Actually these guys are kind of jerks. Silcox and I originally pitched Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy to Blackwell. The series editor was excited about it but the marketing people made us write another marketing report and then rejected it because there was no "marketable moment" like a Dungeons and Dragons movie. So Silcox and I sent the proposal to Open Court, which accepted it (the book has been out for a couple of years now - http://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Philosophy-Raiding-Popular-ebook/dp/B0095XK5CG/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1417045736&sr=8-2&keywords=mark+silcox ). As far as I've been able to piece this together, Blackwell gave the book to Robichaud (a book with the same name as the book Silcox and I pitched) after Open Court put our book as forthcoming on the Open Court web site. Robichaud is not a philosopher but who has done a number of these titles for Blackwell. After that it got very weird. Robichaud didn't contact his own authors for a long time, so when Open Court came out with our book, his own authors wrote angry e-mails to Mark and I assuming that it was the same book (naturally, it has the same title) and that we didn't like their papers but hadn't bothered to tell them they were rejected. It was just surreal. Then, other Open Court editors wrote us saying that the Blackwell series editor had done the same thing to them. You can't copywrite titles and "X and Philosophy" is too broad to constitute intellectual property, even if you are the one who actually pitched the thing to the press. A lawyer friend of mine looked at the proposal and marketing reports that Silcox and I did and said the last bit gave maybe a 50/50 chance of winning a court case, but at no point were Mark and I interested in doing that. For about two weeks our book was in Barnes and Nobles type stores, but then Open Court got bought out by e-books and all of their physical titles were taken off of the floors (I assume that the remaindering tax write off was part of how they made money on the acquisition). But the Blackwell popular culture volumes are still in physical bookstores. So this non-philosopher who edited a book that we pitched (and which has the same title) is getting shelf space in premier book stores. I realize that this is a first-world problem, but it's still a little bit irritating.
Hey, it's great to hear from you. I'm pretty sure I was a regular reader of your blog. I'm mostly just kvetching above. I don't at all have a beef with respect to what you describe. I am rubbed wrong by the use of the public assertion of beliefs as a way to differentiate between us good folks and everybody else (if there's anything to Nietzsche's claim that the last Christian died on the cross, it's surely do to the way this kind of thing works out in religion). Too often there's an undercurrent of rams butting horns just for the sake of doing so. And the us verses them thing is morally dangerous because it functions to allow us to remain incognizant of all of our own problems. "I believe x, y, and zed; therefore, I'm a good person" is just fallacious, but I find that the blogosphere more often then not reinforces it as a kind of sick pragmatic enthymeme. I also rubbed wrong by a lack of humility with respect to the futility of one's own gestures. Two of the reasons I had to leave newapps are related to this. First, much of what I posted seemed completely frivolous to the people who don't differentiate philosophy from political activism. Second, I did things like link to conservatives such as Rod Dreher. I should note that it's fine if people don't want to be part of a group blog where someone is too often facetious or who links to Rod Dreher, but the idea that it makes one whit of difference to the world whether newapps contains frivolous or Rod Dreher linking posts is just ridiculous. At the end of Bertrand Russell's wonderful little book, The Problems of Philosophy, he adduces two values to philosophy. First, it radically expands our sense of what is possible. Second, it teaches us to be humble. I think he was absolutely right about the value of both of these things, but I'm not so sure that academic philosophy really accomplishes them very reliably.
Ha! The shoe fits. Thanks for the great links. I wasn't familiar with either seriouseats or food52 and they're both absolutely fantastic. The article on what to do with thanksgiving leftovers (http://www.seriouseats.com/2014/11/thanksgiving-leftover-recipes.html) is pretty inspired. Sichuan-Style Hot and Numbing Sliced Turkey is in my future as is the Turkey and potato soup showcased at food52.
Thanks, that's an extremely helpful comparison. It's actually a very pressing issue in its own right, one that I think I got wrong during a fair portion of the interminable moral panics at newapps. For example, I feel so strongly about gay rights issues that it was just very hard for me to see people defending Christian colleges' rights to discriminate against gay people as informed people of good will, and in some of my public comments I didn't treat them as such. I bitterly regret that and have since had the chance to privately apologize to some of the people involved. As I said in the OP, there's already debate among feminist scholars about many of the issues you raise. I'm *not* trying to dismiss the substantive points you are making by saying this. Philosophers haven't been much involved in debates about the three waves of feminism, so there's all sorts of new things at the intersection. What I am saying is that your case would be made much more charitably if you used existing work by feminist scholars to shed light on what you take to be problematic about "feminist philosophy" as it tends to be manifest on the blogosphere. If you just did a little digging about contentious issues involving the three waves, you wouldn't need to contrast real versus phony feminism, wouldn't need to engage in anything approaching name-calling, and you wouldn't need to be trying to reinvent the wheel. I also think people would be less defensive in reaction to your critical arguments as a result. Again, I'm going to do a post about name-calling some time in the next week.
Thanks for taking the time to share. I'm going to do a separate stand-alone post in the next few days trying to show what I find problematic about the specific varieties of name calling that pervaded pmb and pervades pmmb. I'll be interested in your thoughts. I think I'm particularly sensitized to this kind of thing since I grew up in Alabama during the dying days of legal Apartheid. Note that there's a kind of white racist (sometimes even well-meaning, just very ignorant) who defends using the n-word because when he uses the n-word it's only supposed to refer to the bad ones. I do think that "feminidiot," "feminast," "feminazi," etc. are analogous in important and relevant ways, and I'll try to show as much in my post.
I actually think it's pretty wonderful on its own merits. The only way it could possibly be better is if Morrison had somehow included reference to the last batch of insane letters to Cosima Wagner, Jacob Burkhardt, Peter Gast, etc, all signed by Nietzsche as "The Crucified." But it's nearly perfect as is.
Yeah, it's probably a normal part of psychological maturation to become sensitized to the persona. If you take out GoM and TBoT all that's left is marketplace Schopenhauer with that kind of Ayn Rand condescending affectation thrown in (she actually got it from him).
I'm sorry Anon, nobody mentioned disability in the anonymous posts that you are talking about, and the his OP makes no sense if it is supposed to be about shunning anonymous people. Wallace called him out and he backtracked. This isn't some paranoid thing on my part. From e-mails I know that lots of people interpreted them the same way that I did and during this last week friends have tried to get me to read comments about me on public facebook threads made during the same time he posted the shunning thing. I do agree with you that I've made too big a deal about this. One, if he was at all successful people would have commented on the original execrable post. Two, Schliesser's original post was much more problematic if only because it was actually clear what he was saying.
She's four years old.
Thanks for this. On the second point- The passive aggressive attack on me is not in the actual post, but in the post to which he links and whose moral he reiterates in yesterday's post. Again, it's at http://www.newappsblog.com/2014/11/support-indemnification-and-preventing-retaliation.html where Kazarian endorses Schliesser's recommendation of shunning philosophers, but extends the proposal from people who sue colleagues or students to bloggers whose posts Kazarian determines to involve retaliation against members of groups of people who are discriminated against. It's not even possible that he means to be talking about the majority of philosophers in that post because if only a minority of philosophers shunned the majority in the way Schliesser describes (not inviting to talks, not accepting papers, etc.) it wouldn't make any difference. In the original post he gives the example of people who retaliate against disabled people, but doesn't name any names. Many, many people reading that took it to refer to me and Brian Leiter because we are the only people he's ever attacked by name (on newapps and facebook). His criticisms of me referred to a post I did about people who hector those they disagree with because of supposed ableist speech. On the first part- The "Policing the borders in philosophy" in Kazarian's title is meant to refer to differentiating philosophy from non-philosophy as well as holding that certain figures in Western philosophy are justly canonical. This is a big debate in SPEP that Steinbock discusses in his recent presidential address in the Journal of Speculative Philosophy. Steinbock argues that SPEP should not be considered as essentially involved with preserving a neglected part of the canon (German Idealism, Phenomenology, Critical Theory, Post-Structuralism) but should rather be identified with a sort of Levinasian attitude of openness to the other and the new. People who reject Steinbock's conclusion are border policers. This is a fine debate to have, though I disagree with Steinbock et. al. Steinbock's article is very good, and does not confuse the attack on the canon with attempts to make the set of philosophers more ethnically diverse. This confusion is what Henry Louis Gates attacks in his book with respect to African and African American Studies. First, it's a risible claim on its own merits. As if the reason we teach the Greeks and Germans is because it will increase the number of Greek and German students in the field. Second, it involves an unfair, subtle moral criticism of defenders of the canon as upholders of ethnic and gender superiority. To be clear, I think the canon should be expanded to include the philosophical traditions of non-Western and gender excluded thinkers. The Japanese philosophers into Heidegger don't study him in support of affirmative action, but because his thought is worth attending to. I also strongly support affirmative action with respect to faculty, and think that success there will remediate the gender and ethnic disparity among our students. But I still think there should be a canon and that there are good reasons that certain figures are canonical. To conflate attacking or even extending the canon with making academic philosophy more diverse is bad in all sorts of ways. Among other things, it's condescendingly racist and sexist. But it's also only defensible with respect to a crappy kind of relativism that can't recognize the objective import of the mighty dead.
Let me apologize profusely for this. In the future I'll do revisions *before* I post the thing. I think (as usual) your comments are interesting and worth thinking about, so I'd rather leave them. As far as I can tell from looking at cached versions (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fdrjon.typepad.com), the only major difference was that I took out the paragraph I cut and pasted into comment 2.
Image
I have struggled about how to write about the difficulties I've had with my son Thomas, really since he was born. Mostly, I just haven't, even on Facebook. Part of the reason is because most people simply don't understand. As a result, I knew that I'd invite a lot of... Continue reading
Posted Nov 18, 2014 at Emily's Pretty Cool Blog
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQgu0MpnKq8
Anonym, Thank you. This is a very fair request, and I think an attempted explanation would be really helpful as well as philosophically interesting. I'm absolutely crushed for time this next week, but if anyone else wants to have a go, please take a stab at it and I can maybe post the comment as a guest post. If not I'll do a post the week after.
I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to respond, and for doing so in a way that will be helpful to anyone reading this.
Thank you. That's a great idea. I've added an update and mea culpa at the top.
Wow, thanks. That's oddly moving. . . I love how it ends in a Ric Flair woo. Sonically, much of it sounds like when musicians put the guitar track on backwards like in Hendrix's "Are You Experienced" or the Beatles' "I'm Only Sleeping."