tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post976328335635699638..comments2023-06-09T14:31:42.016+01:00Comments on Philosophy Metametablog: July RunPhilosophy Metametabloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04323470189556733345noreply@blogger.comBlogger185125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-51052375657715911522015-07-19T22:32:52.731+01:002015-07-19T22:32:52.731+01:00The Onion is making fun of most of the people who ...The Onion is making fun of most of the people who whine about spaces not being safe -- upper middle class, cisgendered, heterosexual, white women. They experience almost no harassment and yet try not to lump themselves in with homsexuals, trans* people, racial minorities, and poor people, but make themselves seem like *greater* victims of harassment than those groups. <br /><br />See, e.g., feministphilosophers. Every so often there's a token mention of persecuted minorities, but mostly it's about wealthy tenured hetero cis white women and their troubles.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-88795052863370995622015-07-19T22:04:59.991+01:002015-07-19T22:04:59.991+01:00The Onion piece is not making fun of safe spaces f...The Onion piece is not making fun of safe spaces for underrepresented people. It's making fun of rich people who are feeling intimidated by *any* representation of people not just like themselves. The fact that the article is about a daughter may have been confusing for some of you. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-85255213047869749162015-07-19T21:58:04.830+01:002015-07-19T21:58:04.830+01:00All the living people who have written anything yo...All the living people who have written anything you assign your students. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-50675825805762858472015-07-19T16:54:01.179+01:002015-07-19T16:54:01.179+01:00So, 3:59, you are saying that a lot of people on s...So, 3:59, you are saying that a lot of people on social media were _upset_ with the article for mocking the infantilism? Are these people philosophers? Other educated people? Who are these people who support this madness? I'm not asking for names, I'm just baffled at the type of person that doesn't find the infantilism absurd and terrifying.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-346065407106312852015-07-19T16:49:36.150+01:002015-07-19T16:49:36.150+01:00The more I think of it, the more it seems that it ...The more I think of it, the more it seems that it really _did_ ruin the joke. I mean, here you have a pretty ham-fisted attempt at satire in the first place. But, then, at the end of an article that is supposedly mocking the PC thought control environment of campuses, the author throws in a stupid and unrealistic bit to appease the very PC folks that are the targets of the article. It's either ironically idiotic or pandering or just written by someone with a poor understanding of how things are. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-17671887404252958292015-07-18T19:30:03.315+01:002015-07-18T19:30:03.315+01:005:45 killed me, thank you.5:45 killed me, thank you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-27022599848801636812015-07-18T18:56:02.503+01:002015-07-18T18:56:02.503+01:00It's hard for me to care about 'blind revi...It's hard for me to care about 'blind review' when content warnings are still labeled 'trigger warnings', causing trauma to people who have had bad experiences with guns.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-76313043428102597472015-07-18T17:25:19.176+01:002015-07-18T17:25:19.176+01:008:42 are you for real? You put the word "har...8:42 are you for real? You put the word "harms" in scare quotes, as if there were none? You dismiss them as abstract? Since when were abstract matters inconsequential to a philosopher?<br /><br />Maybe you've just never spent much time in the adult world of work and so don't know much about the psychology of people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-12174092179238895992015-07-18T17:15:47.532+01:002015-07-18T17:15:47.532+01:00The harms are not abstract, just hidden. Mass sur...The harms are not abstract, just hidden. Mass surveillance supports the militarism, and the financial support for militarism supports it. The only governments that require mass surveillance to function are fascist authoritarian governments.<br /><br />It is straight out false to say that mass surveillance provides concrete benefits. That case has not been made. Perhaps you are confusing mass surveillance with surveillance of a particular individual in the case where a warrant has been gotten from a court on the basis of solid evidence that that person has committed a crime or is involved in ongoing wrongdoing. <br /><br />It's a serious mistake to think you have no reason to care. Every single thing you do on line is now tracked and recorded, and much of what you do offline, especially if you live in a city. This is not the fault of technology, but the fault of our political will, and it can be changed, but the longer we wait the worse things will be in the future. You are vulnerable to harms arising from poor handling of the information or arising from self-interested wrongdoers who use it to gain power they are not otherwise entitled to. The probability of identity theft, reputation destruction, etc. is greatly increased. If you ever one day were indiscrete, the chance of that being forgiven so that you could run for public office without being destroyed are nil -- these is a major contrast with someone from 100 years ago. Aside from these kinds of consequences, there is the matter of respect for persons. Where you have no privacy the decisions that are yours to make are taken from you. Certain duties to others arising from various social roles and professional roles cannot be discharged if you do not have the ability to keep their information confidential. There are both consequentialist and Kantian reasons to be concerned about. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-18958784879242151772015-07-18T16:42:54.111+01:002015-07-18T16:42:54.111+01:001:12, perhaps I speak for others when I say I don&...1:12, perhaps I speak for others when I say I don't care all that much about government surveillance. The benefits it yields are concrete, and the "harms" it poses are abstract. Militarism is obviously a completely different story.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-78784849515307587002015-07-18T15:49:16.454+01:002015-07-18T15:49:16.454+01:00The Colbert clip making fun of conservative politi...The Colbert clip making fun of conservative politicians and defending planned parenthood is a microaggression against students with a conservative or pro-life background. <br /><br />Oh shit, wait, conservatives CAN'T be the recipients of microaggressions. I forgot. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-12311451054395255192015-07-18T14:52:20.252+01:002015-07-18T14:52:20.252+01:00I think that you spend too much time thinking abou...I think that you spend too much time thinking about your dog's genitalia. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-28480371824893056332015-07-18T14:51:18.338+01:002015-07-18T14:51:18.338+01:00I have this crazy, unbelievable, yet surprisingly ...I have this crazy, unbelievable, yet surprisingly straightforward hypothesis about why AJJ frequently finds herself treated as if she's a nutter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-87922396213231537442015-07-18T14:49:25.097+01:002015-07-18T14:49:25.097+01:00Fuck off.
...I mean, thanks! Keep posting! Fuck off.<br /><br />...I mean, thanks! Keep posting! Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-8910727063847910242015-07-18T14:08:39.441+01:002015-07-18T14:08:39.441+01:00Hi 6:22, it does seem we're talking in circles...Hi 6:22, it does seem we're talking in circles. I'm sorry I wasn't as clear as I could have been. I only meant to be giving reasons for thinking your appeal to 'common sense' doesn't carry the weight it does; of course you still may be right that it does make sense to say that anger is intentional, but you'd need to do more than appeal to common sense to justify that.New Voicenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-25845464237682453602015-07-18T13:45:26.502+01:002015-07-18T13:45:26.502+01:00It's hard for me to get too worried about the ...It's hard for me to get too worried about the military industrial complex when people keep using the harmful expression 'blind review'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-54693503836753981942015-07-18T12:42:48.734+01:002015-07-18T12:42:48.734+01:00I think I will now withdraw, because I have other ...I think I will now withdraw, because I have other things I have to do. (Not philosophy.)<br /><br />Thank you all for an interesting (and, contrary to Meta...blog rep, utterly civil) discussion.6:22noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-91853957083530331242015-07-18T12:40:46.530+01:002015-07-18T12:40:46.530+01:00New Voice, I have *on no occasion* used the fact t...New Voice, I have *on no occasion* used the fact that *I think* something is common sensical as a premise. The premise is that it makes sense to speak of anger *at* someone or something or some state of affairs. Obviously you are free to deny this premise, and you have (I think), but I think you have to give a reason to deny what is common sense.<br />Again, it may be true that 'conditioning' explains why it's common sense (though I think 5:17 has a good point), but I think you have to give some reason to believe that it's conditioning.<br /><br />Finally, I can understand why you are unwilling to say what the difference is between bodily states and mental states, but you should understand that since you won't do it your claim that anger is a bodily and not a mental state doesn't count for much in this context.6:22noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-61897756684068315642015-07-18T09:12:37.038+01:002015-07-18T09:12:37.038+01:00It's hard for me to get worked about about the...It's hard for me to get worked about about the state destroying universities when massive invasive surveillance and militarism by my country is going unquestioned by most people. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-91599484474860775302015-07-18T09:06:53.937+01:002015-07-18T09:06:53.937+01:00New commenter 5:17.
I agree that links to intent... New commenter 5:17. <br /><br />I agree that links to intentional objects are not arbitrary, if a state has intentional content. <br /><br />I like your test; I think it's brilliant. But I don't think it works. If the illusion, or delusion rather, that anger has an intentional object arises from a story we tell ourselves, a narrative, of course people can know how to go on to a new case. <br /><br />I'm not so convinced by the Eiffel Tower example. Alice's anger which Alice thinks is caused by her friend and is therefore a representation of her friend, allows her anger to stablize and endure. We are better able to handle our anger if it endures a bit: treating it as if it were anger about something allows us to control it. To address your case: It would be arbitrary to extend the anger to the Eiffel Tower because typically towers have no agency and the thing about anger is that we want to blame someone else for it. It's an uncomfortable state and it seems to come from without. Maybe towers are worthy of anger in cartoons though; a little kid could be angry at the mean tower in the cartoon that purposely allowed itself to fall on the cartoon puppy, for example. This arbitrariness vs non arbitrariness about targets of our anger has to do with whole stories we tell ourselves about how the world works, and does not show that the sensational state is actually about anything or that it represents anything. <br /><br />But I don't know if this addresses your concern about the conditioning explanation. <br /><br />/Older VoiceOlder Voicenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-81723902821433932442015-07-18T03:26:54.050+01:002015-07-18T03:26:54.050+01:00SO I’M JUST HELPING MYSEL TO AN UNDENIABLE ATHORIT...SO I’M JUST HELPING MYSEL TO AN UNDENIABLE ATHORITY’S USAGE!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-3493068345367398362015-07-18T02:36:55.462+01:002015-07-18T02:36:55.462+01:00and no closed captioning. there would be complaint...and no closed captioning. there would be complaints if i did that where i teachAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-49776153588782227802015-07-18T02:33:03.813+01:002015-07-18T02:33:03.813+01:00And that some people use 'Friends' in the ...And that some people use 'Friends' in the classroom<br />the on bullshit is easy -- students think you are cool<br />and loads of LCK: accused sexual offender<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-63631115922113521742015-07-18T01:17:33.809+01:002015-07-18T01:17:33.809+01:00New commenter here. Interesting discussion.
I do...New commenter here. Interesting discussion.<br /><br />I doubt that social conditioning would make me think breathing or being tired are intentional. For instance, how do I know what I am tired at? A classic difficulty for associative explanations is that they fare poorly for novel outcomes. If I can only refer to objects taught to me by the crowd, then I can't have any novel intentional objects; e.g. I can't know I could be angry at my baseball team unless that has been explicitly taught to me. And yet we can surprise people about what we are angry at or about. Meanwhile if I can mistake breathing for an intentional state, then I need to have a way to decide what objects it is directed at that lets me go beyond what was explicitly taught. I would also say it is important that it can be directed at actual objects, properties, and events. I don't think these links to intentional objects are arbitrary--yet they should be if the conditioning explanation is correct. If the crowd tried to teach me that my anger at my friend for telling a lie was really about something completely different--say the Eiffel Tower, I would think they were crazy. At best I would have no idea what they were talking about.<br /><br />My apologies in advance if I have misconstrued what you are saying.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-30354210010100511162015-07-18T00:38:05.891+01:002015-07-18T00:38:05.891+01:00To my lovely internet philosophy friends, New Voic...To my lovely internet philosophy friends, New Voice and 6:22.<br /><br />While I'm glad that New Voice seems to be making my argument more clearly and completely than I was, I am not totally enamored of a taxonomy according to which sensations are categorized as non-mental. The feel of anger is certainly for brief periods a part of consciousness even if (as I think) instances of anger are not states of mind with intentional content and anger has no functional role in cognition. <br /><br />Do things really go wrong if we say that not all mental states have intentional content? Must every event we acknowledge to be a mental event be some occurrence of a state whose intentional content is intrinsic to the type of state it is?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com