We need professional philosophy Sparknotes™. This might solve the unemployment issue among recently minted Ph.D's. It would be the equivalent of doc review (law), but with a benefits package to go along with the $10-15/hr. Plus, practioner's (the currently employed) will not have to wade balls deep in this shit anymore.
Looks to be a real wrist-slitting affair, but no matter. I'll take it out on my spring survey class. Both volumes of On What Matters and Temkin as assigned reading.
So that's comparable to - what? - Hume's Treatise or something like that. Which is as much as to say that the sensible thing would be to hang around for a couple of generations and wait for someone else to identify the juicy bits.
All philosophy (at least of the kind that aspires to the clarity of expression of the Anglo-American tradition) should be done nowadays in the form of lists of propositions, clearly numbered, with clear signposting as to which of the propositions are definitions of concepts, which are supposed to be entailed by which previous propositions, and so on. Come to think of it, just like Spinoza's Ethics. Skip the stylistic flourishes. Discard the multi-proposition paragraph form.
If my past experience w/ Temkin is any guide, half or more of the book will consist of things like, "Did you know that I'm friends with Parfit and G.A. Cohen?" and "If there was a world with two people,and one was blind wile the other had one eye, it would in some ways be a better world if the one eyed man had his eye put out. Why? it's just a fact about justice."
"Who has time for that?" You're a philosopher right? Like Plato and Socrates and Hegel? Isn't reading more than the rest of us part of what makes you smarter than the rest of us? Oh, I'm sorry, I was thinking of economists. My bad.
In other news Three Quarts Daily has a new philosophy judge: Justin from Canada!!
11:21. The claim is "in one respect", not "in enough respects such that we ought to do it", or even in "one important respect". Assuming that the blindness of the totally blind man is undeserved and puts him at a disadvantage, then the claim seems obvious to me. Of course were I a serious moral philosopher and were I attempt to do serious moral philosophy here, I would try to give supporting argumentation: I have no idea whether Temkin does that kind of work. So I'm not commenting on his work.
(1) The blindness of the totally blind man is undeserved. (2) The blindness of the totally blind man puts him at a disadvantage relative to the one-eyed man.
Therefore: The world would be better in one respect if both of these people were blind.
Missing premise: (3) The world would be better in one respect if nobody had an advantage over anyone else.
Does (3) mean that the world would be better in one respect if everyone had precisely the same abilities and lived in precisely the same circumstances?
Is (3) "about as obviously true as anything can be"?
The world would be better in one respect if nobody had an undeserved advantage over anyone else.
That seems to be true. But I'm still not sure if the guy with one eye has an undeserved advantage.
Maybe we need another premise to say that these two people are in competition with each other? Which doesn't seem to be as obviously true as anything can be.
Now that your arch-nemesis is judging a high-stakes competition on blogging, why don't you recommend your acrimonious posts to him? The link you forwarded has space for you to do so.
That would be an appropriate place to ramble on about him. Keep us posted once a month, please -- at most.
Hang on: before we go too far down this blind man's road, could someone please identify the/an actual passage in Temkin's work that discusses this? I sense a straw man in the offing.
8:18 - some back of the envelope calculations. There are roughly 150 days in 5 months. That means you read the book at the rate of 3 pages per day. If that's your reading rate, you are wise to stay clear of book reviewing. You should also stay clear of reviewing articles. Or indeed of blog posts: they must take you hours to read.
As I recall, Temkin discussed that thought experiment in something like the following way.
First, some anti-egalitarians argue like so:
P1. Suppose, for reductio, that equality is morally important in itself. P2. In that case, some legitimate moral considerations count in favor of blinding a sighted person in such a way that wouldn't affect the well-being of blind people. P3. But no legitimate moral considerations, even very weak and defeasible ones, could count in favor of blinding a sighted person under those circumstances. C. Therefore, equality is not morally important in itself.
This is known as the 'levelling down' argument. Temkin objects to it. His objection is that P3 relies on the assumption of welfarism (the view that nothing can be good unless it improves overall welfare). He criticizes that assumption on the basis of several apparent counterexamples.
I once had to read Frances Kamm's Intricate Ethics, because I'd agreed to be on a panel discussion of it at a conference. That was only 520 pages, but it made reading 616 pages of Larry Temkin seem like reading The Cat in the Hat.
10.17: Why must P3 depend upon welfarism? For example, might it not be held that each individual has a right to bodily integrity, and that no legitimate moral considerations speak in favour of you or others violating that right? Or might it be held that you should treat every person as an end, and that no legitimate moral considerations speak in favour of failing to treat every person as an end, and that to disable one person in order to benefit another would be to fail to treat that individual as end?
6:22 testing the comprehensiveness of our philosophy blog knowledge! I like it! (And I'm not aware of the Sunday cats reference, so I still have some work to do.)
Observations from an old cranky jerk who happens to be a professional philosopher. Occasionally philosophical, most often just vulgar. Sometimes focused on sober points of logic and issues in political theory, but more frequently fixed on nonsense. Bad metal bands, crappy guitarists, stupid lyrics, celebrities, pop "culture," telemarketers, irrationality, and other annoyances. Always misanthropic. Anti-religious. Not particularly amusing, either. Some might say insulting. Strange mail. Kook magnet. Doom. Comments from other cranky jerks, young and old.
40 comments:
And it's a LONG 616 pages. Very good, well worth reading, but slooooow going.
"Who has time for that?"
Maybe Parfit?
We need professional philosophy Sparknotes™. This might solve the unemployment issue among recently minted Ph.D's. It would be the equivalent of doc review (law), but with a benefits package to go along with the $10-15/hr. Plus, practioner's (the currently employed) will not have to wade balls deep in this shit anymore.
Looks to be a real wrist-slitting affair, but no matter. I'll take it out on my spring survey class. Both volumes of On What Matters and Temkin as assigned reading.
So that's comparable to - what? - Hume's Treatise or something like that. Which is as much as to say that the sensible thing would be to hang around for a couple of generations and wait for someone else to identify the juicy bits.
Certainly not anyone too busy to get their reviews done on time. :)
All philosophy (at least of the kind that aspires to the clarity of expression of the Anglo-American tradition) should be done nowadays in the form of lists of propositions, clearly numbered, with clear signposting as to which of the propositions are definitions of concepts, which are supposed to be entailed by which previous propositions, and so on. Come to think of it, just like Spinoza's Ethics. Skip the stylistic flourishes. Discard the multi-proposition paragraph form.
Who has the time to write that?
Who had the time?
If you believe the blurbs on Amazon: Shelly Kagan, Roger Crisp and Jeff McMahan.
Is it just me, or are there a lotta good philosophers named Larry these days?
Did Jeff McMahan really blurb his colleague's book? Maybe someone should write an article on the ethics of endorsements.
Elect Gettier to write such an article? I like to be able to finish an article in the time it takes to pinch a grumpy in the restroom.
Pinch a grumpy? I haven't heard that expression before!
I am so tired of composing and sending dreaded emails in this job!
Glad I could introduce you to the expression 5:46!
If my past experience w/ Temkin is any guide, half or more of the book will consist of things like, "Did you know that I'm friends with Parfit and G.A. Cohen?" and "If there was a world with two people,and one was blind wile the other had one eye, it would in some ways be a better world if the one eyed man had his eye put out. Why? it's just a fact about justice."
It's the combination of 10:05, 5:35 and 1:31 that keeps me returning to this blog.
1:31. The claim that the world would be in one respect better were the man blinded seems to me to be about as obviously true as anything can be.
In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is fucked?
That's funny, 9:04, because that claims seems as blindingly (sorry) false as anything I can imagine.
"Who has time for that?"
You're a philosopher right? Like Plato and Socrates and Hegel? Isn't reading more than the rest of us part of what makes you smarter than the rest of us? Oh, I'm sorry, I was thinking of economists. My bad.
In other news Three Quarts Daily has a new philosophy judge: Justin from Canada!!
11:21. The claim is "in one respect", not "in enough respects such that we ought to do it", or even in "one important respect". Assuming that the blindness of the totally blind man is undeserved and puts him at a disadvantage, then the claim seems obvious to me. Of course were I a serious moral philosopher and were I attempt to do serious moral philosophy here, I would try to give supporting argumentation: I have no idea whether Temkin does that kind of work. So I'm not commenting on his work.
9:42pm, it's not just you.
1:05am, not this shit again.
(1) The blindness of the totally blind man is undeserved.
(2) The blindness of the totally blind man puts him at a disadvantage relative to the one-eyed man.
Therefore: The world would be better in one respect if both of these people were blind.
Missing premise: (3) The world would be better in one respect if nobody had an advantage over anyone else.
Does (3) mean that the world would be better in one respect if everyone had precisely the same abilities and lived in precisely the same circumstances?
Is (3) "about as obviously true as anything can be"?
1:05,
We've already worked out that
a) You have no legitimate beef against justinfromcanada;
b) You have a perverted obsession with the man (or the person you take to be the man); and
c) You need to put a sock in it.
Which of these things did you forget?
Perhaps (3) should be:
The world would be better in one respect if nobody had an undeserved advantage over anyone else.
That seems to be true. But I'm still not sure if the guy with one eye has an undeserved advantage.
Maybe we need another premise to say that these two people are in competition with each other? Which doesn't seem to be as obviously true as anything can be.
@ 1:05
Now that your arch-nemesis is judging a high-stakes competition on blogging, why don't you recommend your acrimonious posts to him? The link you forwarded has space for you to do so.
That would be an appropriate place to ramble on about him. Keep us posted once a month, please -- at most.
Hang on: before we go too far down this blind man's road, could someone please identify the/an actual passage in Temkin's work that discusses this? I sense a straw man in the offing.
I recently wrote a book review for a book that was 448pp. Took me nearly 5 months to read. I vowed that it will be my last book review.
8:18 - some back of the envelope calculations. There are roughly 150 days in 5 months. That means you read the book at the rate of 3 pages per day. If that's your reading rate, you are wise to stay clear of book reviewing. You should also stay clear of reviewing articles. Or indeed of blog posts: they must take you hours to read.
As I recall, Temkin discussed that thought experiment in something like the following way.
First, some anti-egalitarians argue like so:
P1. Suppose, for reductio, that equality is morally important in itself.
P2. In that case, some legitimate moral considerations count in favor of blinding a sighted person in such a way that wouldn't affect the well-being of blind people.
P3. But no legitimate moral considerations, even very weak and defeasible ones, could count in favor of blinding a sighted person under those circumstances.
C. Therefore, equality is not morally important in itself.
This is known as the 'levelling down' argument. Temkin objects to it. His objection is that P3 relies on the assumption of welfarism (the view that nothing can be good unless it improves overall welfare). He criticizes that assumption on the basis of several apparent counterexamples.
So 1:31's comment seems a _little_ unfair.
616 is o.k..
666 is devilish.
I once had to read Frances Kamm's Intricate Ethics, because I'd agreed to be on a panel discussion of it at a conference. That was only 520 pages, but it made reading 616 pages of Larry Temkin seem like reading The Cat in the Hat.
I'm halfway through Temkin's book. It is slow a read but worth the effort.
A review is available here
http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/32844-rethinking-the-good-moral-ideals-and-the-nature-of-practical-reasoning/
Who has time to write irrelevant blog posts about posses, Brazilian music, Sunday cats, Dr Who, or rants about Republican candidates?
12:42,
Give your self a bigger shock
And I will give you twenty bucks.
Then repeat from A to Z
Look! Intransitivity!
I do not like excruciating pain.
I do not like it in my brain.
8:43,
Very good. You've captured the essence (and the essential silliness) of Larry's argument for intransitivity.
10.17: Why must P3 depend upon welfarism? For example, might it not be held that each individual has a right to bodily integrity, and that no legitimate moral considerations speak in favour of you or others violating that right? Or might it be held that you should treat every person as an end, and that no legitimate moral considerations speak in favour of failing to treat every person as an end, and that to disable one person in order to benefit another would be to fail to treat that individual as end?
6:22 testing the comprehensiveness of our philosophy blog knowledge! I like it! (And I'm not aware of the Sunday cats reference, so I still have some work to do.)
Sunday cat is a weekly feature on Feminist Philosophers...
Post a Comment