You are overthinking it. Those names are just promotion. Anybody can publish a statement--having everyone do so individually and anonymously would make everything mostly indistuinguishable and pointless. Having names attached gets attention, and asks that what is being said be considered. A petition is not marching orders to think a certain way, even if some might wish it would be. It puts the case in front of the public, just as you would like.
49
As a University of Chicago graduate, I take the Chicago principles of speech and academic freedom very seriously and see the problems with petitions. I was taught by Proferssor Zingales, the free thinker with the bravery to invite Steve Bannon to campus for an exchange of ideas. The fact that so many students fail to understand the Chicago principles was alarming. The students knew what they were signing up for, and then feigned to act outraged when the principles were put to a test.
Cancel culture is horrible. It is a sugar high of debate, far easier to cancel a speaker than debate their ideas/strengthen your own arguments. It turns everyone into a victim and requires discrimination to evaluate an idea.
41
If I, speaking only for myself, sent a letter to the head of a university arguing this or any other policy position, said head would not bother reading my letter. This is entirely reasonable - there are plenty of cranks sending plenty of crazy letters, and it's not worth one's time to read them all.
By having numerous distinguished individuals sign a petition, the organizers ensure that the recipient will have to read and seriously consider it. This isn't asserting power in place of reason. It is a necessary precondition for reason to be involved at all.
58
A petition is not an intellectual activity, it's a political one. That many people—and many prominent people—agree with a position doesn't prove the position either right or wrong. But it does make politicians pay attention to it, and that is the point of a petition.
If you prefer, however, that next to no one pays attention to your positions and those positions have essentially no impact whatsoever on the real world, then go ahead and just do philosophy. I guarantee that will work.
272
@617to416 Philosophy has more impact than you think. The job of philosophy is to provide thoughtful, reasoned arguments meant to apply not just to this context but to all comparable contexts.
It is the philosopher who asks "why tell this person that their speech is harmful, but not that person?" Is this not the question that we are asking all the time right now? It is the philosopher who can't settle on a "because the majority said so" response. If you are going to say "hate speech is wrong, but controversial speech is okay" then it is a philosopher who thinks out what constitutes the one and not the other.
This is important work, even if for many it isn't recognized as such.
17
@617to416
The petitions were a political activity, but they were not made for politicians, they were made for influencing and/or protesting their peers in academia.
The author is not saying they shouldn't have been carried out--she is artfully and thoughtfully questioning the action of petitioning as a forum.
For example, who is being petitioned? Is there a policy in a university Philosophy department that will be affected or influenced by these petitions or are the petitions made to the whole field in acts of dissent? Is there a potentially legal issue or one of policy? Does the issue need to be actually resolved in any way, and how so? Whose the decider?
Is it a free speech issue? Most likely, but she is asking if this might be dealt with in a healthy debate rather than the possibility of the majority ruling. Numbers matter but so do ideals, policies, legalities, constitutions, etc. To change any of these does not necessarily mean sheer numbers rule.
Our U.S. Senate's majority is ruling by obstructive force, as is our President, and we live in a democracy. There is no healthy debate, consensus or compromise. Need I say more?
9
@GreenSpirit
The problem with Ms. Callard's argument is that she begins by claiming that she is against the very act of petitioning regardless of content:
"I refused to sign, because I believe that petitions, regardless of their content, compromise core values of intellectual inquiry."
She then concedes that maybe petitioning is not out of the question for philosophers:
"Plausibly, the philosophers who write and sign petitions needn’t conceive of that activity itself as a philosophical one — they wouldn’t use petitions as teaching tools in their philosophy classes. I grant that philosophers should sometimes take off their philosophical hats."
And finally she admits that it is indeed the content of the petition more than the act of petitioning to which she objects:
"I am not saying that philosophers should refrain from engaging in political activity; my target is instead the politicization of philosophy itself."
What I think Ms. Callard actually objects to is philosophers using the petition process to pressure other philosophers to be silent. I might agree with her on this point (though with reservations in cases where the targeted philosophers are promoting ideas—such as anti-Semitic theories—that have dubious intellectual value and produce materially harmful consequences in the real world), but why then begin by questioning the whole—politically useful—act of petitioning? Exactly because philosophers are thoughtful people, their political activism should be welcome!
17
you can't have a philosophical argument if you don't have free speech, just sayin.
2
I certainly agree that philosophers and other scholars should not be "de-platformed" for expressing their ideas, but the contention that philosophers ought not sign petitions does not follow from this. The key issue is the argument expressed in the petition, not the names of the other signers.
Also, I do not share for Socrates's contempt for the hoi polloi.
4
So, those who claim to be philosophers are somehow superior to those who sign petitions and attempt to make the world better?
In the Pacific Northwest, initiatives are measures that can be put on the general ballot for the citizens to vote on. Measures get on ballots via circulating initiative petitions and getting enough signatures to qualify for a ballot spot. It is a way for the people to put to the vote laws that their legislatures have failed to enact. By ballot measures in Washington, the people have banned the use of cruel leghold traps for killing animals, approved new gun regulations, passed a measure to make police more accountable for use of deadly force, banned taxes on groceries, and legalized marijuana. In Oregon, the people voted to protect wildlife habitat and watersheds.
The author rejects participating in democracy, ignoring that if the people stop participating, democracy crumbles.
The author's stance is one of moral cowardice that allows the perpetuation of injustice. She would rather play ivory tower word games than petition for redress of grievances, a stance that would allow slavery and genocide, because really who would lower themselves to sign petitions against such things?? Nero fiddled while Rome burned, the so-called philosophers prattle on while the world is burning up, but even the signing of a petition is too much effort and commitment for the self-proclaimed elite.
2
Surely this argument to stay above the fray would apply to any academic. She's arguing that only UPS drivers, shop clerks and, worse, lawyers should be involved in politics.
1
On the Times website this is currently called "No, I won't sign your petition". Except that's not the title. Changes the meaning too.
2
If the authors point is that the truth is not a popularity contest, I couldn't agree more.
The one and only absolute truth is Cogito Ergo Sum. Which I tend to describe to lay people as "Something's Happening". Meaning that, while the content of your thoughts may not be accurate, you are having thoughts nonetheless.
Not only can this not be logically or rationally denied, it is the only thing that cannot be logically or rationally denied. Everything else that is constructed on that axiom, i.e. reality, is a probability matrix.
Will the sun rise tomorrow? While we can't be absolutely certain it will, it's pretty likely. Will Donald Trump ever tell the truth? While not impossible, it's pretty unlikely. Thus, reality is essentially a matrix of probability. Of likely-hood.
What this means, as is relates to the notion of truth, is that the truth is something which is so extremely likely, and reliable, that to consider otherwise makes your logic and reasoning skills extremely suspect. Like pretty much anything that comes out of Donald Trump's cake hole.
So, the "truth", as well as "facts", are those things which have an almost certain probability of being accurate. Of being born out by logic, reason, math, science, rationality, and intelligence. Even if you are the only person on the planet who knows it.
And these days, with the rise, embrace, and ubiquity, of "the big lie" it can often feel that way.
1
Interesting stuff. It would appear that the Dunning-Kruger effect can hold for philosophers as well as any other area that has confidence as a component.
2
Rally round the...oh, never mind. Talk about a niche principle. And we wonder why philosophy departments are withering.
1
This is one step away from book burning.
2
I don't sign any petitions other than for candidates running for office because 90% of it including nearly all the folks on street corners asking you to sign to keep abortion legal, oppose Trump are doing for groups that literally sell your name. I won't sign change.org with requires you to register and has some questionable policies on privacy and what it does with the information. I feel bad but the vast majority of petitions are not only meaningless ( like Trump cares if New Yorkers sign petitions against his policies) but they are basically a business to gather and sell data and I get enough of that from big tech.
2
The best of philosophy: a cleverly worded argument for the author's lack of moral courage. No wonder the discipline is in some trouble.
2
I disagree with the premise that the purpose of petitions is to persuade their targets to accept their contents because of the number of signatures. Instead, I believe that the purpose of petitions is to persuade their targets to read and consider their contents. The more signatures, the louder a petition's voice, but loudness alone, while unquestioningly good at attracting attention, rarely convinces.
3
this reads like satire.
3
I am a retired physician. I take issue with the philosopher’s characterization of my profession. Is she ready for my characterization of hers? Or are philosophers not self deluded keepers of the holy grail?
3
Very interesting. You make a persuasive case.
I was just about convinced when it occurred to me that there’s more than one thing going on with the statement that calls for deplatforming.
That statement is also political. It invokes the authority of organizations and calls for actions with serious consequences for others.
I wasn’t much impressed with their reasoning. If you took away the conclusory language you wouldn’t have much left, except perhaps for the argument that the Aristotelian Society’s wish to be neutral amounts to detachment which in context amounts to explicit indifference and complicity. I also think their statement implicates the idea that a group of persons can call for sanctioning speech or conduct without bothering to demonstrate to the rest of us that a reasonable person would consider the speech or conduct a sanctionable offense - it’s enough that the right people took offense.
If I asked you to sign a petition subscribing to my criticism of their reasoning in the above paragraph then your argument applies in full force. I made a legal and philosophical argument, you can make your own, and readers can judge for themselves.
But I thought the petition did a pretty good job of opposing a political statement with another political statement that invoked free speech and the need for reasonable inquiry.
2
If rational arguments made by dispassionate expert observers were effective at changing minds, we'd have solved the climate crisis decades ago.
2
You really had me on board with your argument until you went into how doctor's are all out for our best interests. What kind of world do you live in where doctors are by default the good guys? That is not the real world. As such, people power is needed over reasoned argument from time to time.
Petitions are the lazy person's way of making a point. On any given issue one could do more and have a greater impact. But that might take time, effort, or money.
This is an excellent example of how philosophy under the guise of neutrality and claim being above the lot (by refusing to aggregate with other signatures) turns conservative and doesn't challenge questions in life that can be probed by all philosophers just like Montaigne and many other did in their own time.
A philosopher is NOT a person who thinks theoretically in an ivory tower.
A philosopher is ALSO a citizen who addresses challenges of our times. Therefore their is absolutely no reason why a philosopher shouldn't be involved in the debate of our times like any other person, thus sign petitions.
As for the claim that discussion among philosophers should remain among philosophy departments' closed walls ("intramural") where they can exchange "philosophically" it is nothing but stupid : philosophy is a beautiful discipline that attempts to give a reason why things are the way they are. This may take many forms and may help people who try to understand their world …
There is ample evidence that most philosophers who succeeded in doing so in they own humble way most of the time avoided loosing their time "philosophically" chit-chatting with colleagues from Academia : Socrates, Spinoza, Descartes, Nietzsche, Montaigne, Wittsgentein to name but a few …
No truly philosophy minded person will ask a "philosopher" to act as one because philosophizing is to act as a human being first and foremost…
Today, Academia may host philosophy for practical reasons it is NOT its cradle.
3
Exceedingly well said and worth saying. Bravo!
1
Professor Callard has gotten everyone thinking. Good on her.
I never minded petitions until we lived in a world where people get "cancelled." I know I won't be told what to think and I prefer not to get bullied. Words and thoughts change frequently, especially on college campuses, which always engage in refining our language. But today any infraction brings a preening mob. It's ridiculous and anti-intellectual. Almost a bonfire.
1
Please sign my petition to stop people from asking us to sign their petitions.
2
Dancing on the head of a pin, or what!
Either you believe in the inviolable right of free speech or you don't. Whatever "deplatforming" is, it strikes me as an arbitrary limit on free speech. Weren't Voltaire, Hume and Socrates "deplatformed"?
2
Ms. Callard is and intellectual coward. She want to have these high ideal on what would make society better but she refuses to actually stand up for her beliefs.
3
... or write Op-Eds.
On the contrary Mrs phl;osopher.
When in 1971 Le Manifeste des 343 Salopes signed a petition saying that they had had an abortion, it was because they were influential women from the fields of literature, cinema, intellectual life that the petition had a historical weight .
Arguments are not made to persuade and even less represent a job.
After that i am wondering what kind of philosopher you are. Or rather i already know.
Just reading your text in diagonal already shows some contradictions. You are a behaviorist , not a philosopher .
Many of the French philosophers of metaphysique engaged in political activities and signed petition : Sartre, Merleau Ponty , Deleuze , and many others .
Obviously another level of philosophy of you cite Socrate.I don't even want to read you.
The last sentence is enough .
Just the fact that the NYT publishes this kind of ignorant diatribe is an intellectual shame .
1
You should learn to write in a more precise concise, manner. I thought that NYT writers were selected in part about their ability to communicate. You deserve an F
2
This really is the stupidest argument I've ever heard. It is basically saying that intellectually inquisitive people cannot engage in politics. Yet politics is how things actually get done in society. Petitions are a formal process.
In many ways, this argument is against democracy itself. How else are people going to come to a consensus (or even a majority) except by counting who and how many?
But even informally, how else does one stop the erosion of civil rights? Or protest well anything? Which means that philosophers are supposed to sit on the side lines and let human rights be violated because it might violate proper inquiry?
Cowardice thy name is philosophy.
3
No one alive should refer to herself as a philosopher. And no one cares what these pseudo lovers of knowledge think anyway. What a load of self satisfied nonsense!
Sounds good. But at the end of they day, the people who control the platform will probably side with the group that has the most names on their petition.
2
I think it's an excellent point, with respect to philosophical argument. But the petition as previous responders have argued is not a philosophical argument. I'll add that it is in response to a non-argued tacit sort of "petition," of the many who have power wielding it to keep out the few who lack power. It's unlikely that those who are contributing to the exclusionary dynamics would argue for its happening principled grounds; they are moving with the practices of the culture. An explicit statement by many, hopefully with authority, seems like it's exactly the way to respond.
1
Socrates also thought democracy was the worst form of government, aristocracy, the best (Republic.)
You have made some important points though. I get asked to sign too many petitions, sometimes not being told their exact content.
It matters to whom the petition is addressed, however. I find it inane to sign petitions to people who are sure to ignore them, e.g. Trump. However, I do think it is appropriate to petition corporations, especially if I am a customer or own stock. And they often respond positively. I also feel okay petitioning like-minded politicians on issues they have not yet adopted. I am of their cohort.
2
I want to persuade Politicians that they will lose my vote. Does that change their opinion?
1
“An expert understands where her expertise runs out; unlike the layman, the expert knows what she doesn’t know.”
WRONG!
Anyone who has endeavoured towards expertise and the responsibilities of professionalism knows that knowing one’s own limits to knowledge is a work in progress at best. As someone who has spent most of my life in this category, I can assure you that there is little to distinguish the professional or expert from the layman in this regard. This is because I believe, that such a skill relies on prioritising and owning the ethical commitments (ie; humility and putting society’s needs over one’s own needs) that underpin the desire to limit one’s intellectual scope to what is truly known. This is no mean feat and within the professional disciplines, a topic ill regarded and poorly taught.
3
@Carl
Of what we are ignorant we are also unaware.
3
I think that I understand the author's point as it applies to petitions that are not related to scientific fact. But back in the year 2000 on the eve of an International HIV/AIDS Congress in South Africa, several thousand physicians signed a carefully documented "Durban Declaration" affirming that despite the opinions of the then-president of that Country, HIV was the cause of AIDS. That petition was published in Nature. This year I have been involved with a fairly similar document on Vaccine Hesitancy, which was again based on hard data, signed by more than 70 experts and published in an academic journal. I don't think a blanket statement can be made here.
4
Agnes Callard, thank you so much for your touching piece, at least touching to me. "As a philosopher, I want my influence to be philosophical, which is to say, I want to bring people to believe only what they, by their own lights, can see to be justified."
2
The problem here is not that what many believe can be false, though that is a problem. The problem is that even if it’s true, the fact that many believe it doesn’t shed any light on it why it’s true — and that is what the intellectually inquisitive person wants to know. Is this problem mitigated by the fact that the list is not about sheer numbers because authorities appear on it? I think intellectually inquisitive people do gravitate toward those with expertise, because they are in an especially good position to answer our questions. But this goes only for experts taken severally. One expert is a learning opportunity; being confronted with an arsenal of experts is about as conducive to conversation as a firing squad.
Oh, for heaven's sake. I have no idea what your point is and this is so wordy I don't care. . .
2
Ms Callard in her ivory tower. Come on down to the street and see how most of us live, and what few options for expressing our views are available.
9
A petition’s purpose is not to substantiate a truth claim; it is to effect change. Whether or not that change is beneficial or damaging is what is up for debate, not whether or not the petition is making a claim that is “true” or “false.”
Beneficence and detriment are value judgments which can be reasonably up for debate. They do not have to given the philosophical imprimatur of “truth.” And majorities, which this writer bemoans, are what is needed to effect change. They’re not becoming a majority to codify a truth claim.
In essence, just sign the petition that you believe will do good!
4
This response was so good that I repeat it verbatim:
“persuade by argument, not by wielding influence...
Ms. Callard is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Chicago.” Then why list your credentials? Why publish in selective venues? The venue is argument from authority — of editors and reviewers. The authority serves not to quash debate but to draw attention.
8
I loved this essay, thank you! What a fun argument to lay out. Inquiry and critical thinking. Love it!
Agreed, petitions are not valid arguments regarding truth or philosophy. But petitions are a way to protect those who may offend and attract retribution. It should be remembered that while Spinoza was upsetting religious communities by his written comments about the Torah/Bible, people who spoke their minds about religion in the streets were routinely and brutally attacked, in the tolerant Netherlands.
1
I understand the basic idea - ideas and arguments should stand on their own merits. But this world is far too complicated for all of the most important issues to be decided without any appeal to authority. Do I truly understand every detail of the scientific basis for the theory of evolution? No. But I understand it at the layperson level, and I trust the scientists who DO actually understand it at the detailed level to have represented it truthfully in textbooks. Same for human-induced climate change - no, I do not actually understand every bit of evidence relevant to concluding it is true. Climate scientists spend years of their lives training and researching to be able to understand it all. I simply don't have time for that -- and I sure as heck don't have time for that AND for studying every detail of the scientific basis for evolution!! And those are only two examples. So, in short, there are many important issues where we, the people, need to rely on the expertise of those who have studied the issue thoroughly. For an expert to punt every time because 'ideas should stand on their own merits' is, frankly, irresponsible. Into the void will rush non-experts and their flawed ideas.
3
A position is being posited which structures choices into a constraining, binary, either/or. Realities' interacting, everpresent, dimensions include: Uncertainties. Unpredictabilities. Randomness. Lack of TOTAL control, notwithstanding one's efforts, alone or with others. Timely as well as not.
Prof.Callard's description of philosophers can too easily be (mis)interpreted as THEY BEing a homogeneous group; not diverse. In many measurable and unmeasurable ways and characteristics.
A STATE in which each one's IDENTITIES(self-created as well as created and labeled from external sources) and their "acute" and "chronic," BEHAVIORS, and roles, in ranges of environments, situations, contexts, etc., should BE...
Prof Callard's caveat-style chooses to know, to inform, what is best, in terms of predictable outcomes. Her caveat fails to consider the daily gift(s) of "Fail better..." as well as the daily challenges presented by "unexpecteds."
As I read her words and considered possible implications, I was reminded of a point of view: "Mann tracht und Gott lacht." Man thinks and God laughs.
Is willful "behavioral-neutrality" the most menschlich choice for philosophers, salaried or not, in a toxic WE-THEY culture which enables violating, by words and deeds, created, selected and targeted "the other(s)?"
Is ongoing, empowered willful Silence, the most helpful option to the implications and consequences of willful blindness? Willful deafness? Willful ignorance, given available facts?
1
Of course a petition cannot do the job of a carefully crafted, in-depth argument. Even large numbers of ordinary, uninformed or badly informed people signing a petition tells you nothing besides the fact many people agree with it.
But what enough experts or academics signing a petition in favour of currently unpopular views does, is publicly demonstrate that the unpopular view is not the obviously correct one, and that the opposite view is at least intellectually defensible, valuable information in itself.
If those experts stay silent, it will be assumed they agree with the currently popular view.
Experts and academics should make it a point of piping up when they disagree with a popular policy.
3
If Professor Callard is arguing for a requisite link between civic advocacy or action, and independent, cogent and uncoerced thinking about the 'why' and 'how' of such advocacy or action, I say amen. If Professor Callard is cautioning--strongly, with a philosopher's lens--against the various forms of a la carte "polls" and on-line "trending" which short circuit thought and distort discussion, again I say amen. I fear, though, that her arguments run the risk of compartmentalizing, even separating, the realms of a mere or unrigorous politics and a pure and thoroughly intellectual weighing of issues.
1
"An expert understands where her expertise runs out; unlike the layman, the expert knows what she doesn’t know."
I wish more so-called experts in everyday life would recognize and admit this to be true. No one can know everything about a single topic.
1
Professor Callard states "I refused to sign [a Petition], because I believe that petitions, regardless of their content, compromise core values of intellectual inquiry." In the real world, Professor, that's called cutting your nose off to spite your own face.
5
Kind of a long-winded way to say that Appeal to Authority is one of many possible logical fallacies.
2
When I arrived at the word “deplatforming” I realized that Callard’s essay was pure satire in the spirit of Swift’s “Modest Proposal”, wherein philosophers fricassee their petitioning non-tenures to both purify the platform and set themselves above the fray of civil and democratic society.
This philosopher’s suggestion that her profession may not jointly affix their names to a common cause offers an ironic benefit to readers, that we no longer will be inflicted by the authors’ names emboldened on their academic works or papers of opinion, for the arguments presented within should suffice to stand on their own without dilution by attribution. In this aspect the current essay disappoints as Callard has seen fit to take personal credit for her satire.
3
This all strikes me as an elaborate justification for not taking a stand on the issue. The "deplatformers" already made this a political issue within the discipline. The horse is out of the barn. So either agree or disagree..... or say nothing for fear of consequences. But pretending to exist in too rarefied a realm to participate is unconvincing.
4
The midsection of this op-ed brought Hamilton and Madison's fear of mob rule to mind.
On a practical level, having collected petitions, myself, and having observed others doing it for causes unrelated to mine, I know how little thought people put into signing them. Petition gatherers — good ones, at least — know how to truncate and slant arguments and appeal to people's emotion to get them to sign. Why should an amalgamation of uninformed, half-interested names of people unlikely to take any further action on or show any lasting interest in the matter after signing be of consequence to politicians?
2
Ms. Callard changes her view mid-piece. She starts by saying, "I refused to sign, because I believe that petitions, regardless of their content, compromise core values of intellectual inquiry." This sounds as if she thinks that all petitions compromise core values of intellectual inquiry. But then faced with the objection that philosophers are also citizens, and as citizens they are not necessarily acting as philosophers, she limits her objection to petitions to "this case." Intellectual honesty requires her to have said, "I refused to sign, because I believe that, in this case, a petition would compromise core values of intellectual inquiry." But of course that would be less radical and less interesting than a wholesale attack on petitions, which she does not in fact argue for or endorse.
1
I could understand a philosopher not wanting to sign a petition in favor of say, universal health care, but the concept of free and open dialog is not just another issue. It is the foundation on which all of philosophy rests.
That foundation is being threatened by a small but extremely vocal group of bullies who believe that everyone should have a seat at the table - except for the people who’s views could potentially hurt someone else’s feelings.
Ironically, the rights of people who seek to limit free speech are both included and protected under this umbrella of free and open dialog, even as they seek to deny that right to others.
Political cowardness and elitism. You may not be aware of this in your ivory tower but there are pressing racial, freedom of speech and climate issues which have reached a crisis point. How kind of you to take the time to explain to us why you won't be participating in the historic events of your life time.
1
Speech cannot cause harm unless it incites violence.
The criminal law deals with that.
1
Ms. Callard, oh Ms Callard, please add your name to my petition here, which asserts that philosophers ought not sign petitions ... .
3
Reading the fine print on petitions is too time consuming when I am exiting the market and my ice cream is melting in the heat, or the petitions are too simplistic or unclear, and petition gatherers have lied to me too many times about the purpose of their petitions, so now I usually say "No, thanks." In this city, I view panhandlers and petition gatherers as pests.
1
Ok, suppose there is mass misinformation (and this is not wholly unrealistic) that:
"The Sun does not exist."
Umberto Eco explored a conspiracy theory like that in his seminal and prescient Foucault's Pendulum.
Now: would you sign a petition challenging such a false assertion?
Or would you say to the doubter: go, relearn Copernicus and Galileo, be intellectually curious.
Where does it end, this curiosity? Does not a good education also encompass understanding what parts of culture and science are beyond dispute, and what parts are not?
2
Of course no petition-- even one that both declares something to be true and offers evidence or reasons in support of its position--can force people to think through for themselves why they should agree or disagree with it. But it doesn't follow that petitions signed by experts or celebrities somehow encourage people to be mindlessly deferential to the signers or discourage them from thinking for themselves. Author seems to make that incorrect inference.
1
Is it appropriate to invoke Socrates/Plato in an argument rejecting invocations of authority to advance a point of view? Arguably it's hypocritical to do so.
I actually think it's great to invoke important philosophers when making an argument, because thoughtful readers will not think "it must be true because Socrates apparently thought it,' but rather "she is trying to draw my attention to the Socrates' arguments against Meletus/Gorgias/ Protagoras/other interlocutors."
In other words, bringing authorities into an argument could operate as an "argument from authority," which is a logical fallacy, or it could operate as a kind of shorthand, with the names invoked symbolizing those substantive arguments.
I've had many disputes in which I've invoked famous authorities to support an argument, but always in the latter spirit, not the former. It's too difficult to reconstruct the entire history of Western philosophy every time one wants to weigh a materialistic, economic-deterministic, praxis-focused interpretation of a matter versus a hermeneutic discourse-analysis or psychoanalytic approach to a problem such as persistent poverty or questionable educational choices. It's easier to talk about "how Marx, Durkeim, Foucault, or Geertz might view the problem."
Petitions certify by signers that their own analyses, which can & should be looked into, broadly agree with the petition's assertion. It's a salutary shorthand to preempt a default presumption the signers may not agree.
4
@Anon
By the way, should the author have insisted that her status as a University of Chicago associate professor be concealed? Perhaps she should have insisted on anonymity lest we unduly credit her arguments based on her "authority" and not reasoning and evidence.
Obviously, I do not think these things. The simple truth is that life is short, and we rely on authority in such cases not as a final arbiter of truth, but to establish preliminary sense of likely credibility. I read an A.O. Scott review not to know where a film is good or not, but to help decide it's likelihood of being satisfying for me or well-crafted. I can only "know" ("in the sense of having a defensible opinion) that by seeing the movie myself. Petitions, academic titles, film reviews etc. are not substitutes for self-undertaken, independent analysis or assessment; they are supplementary tools. We should make a proper distinction between the proper uses and abuses of these tools.
3
@Anon
Oops. "whether," "its" etc.
1
Should a philosopher maintain a single identity immutable to his/her other identities and circumstances?
Or, historically, should Socrates not have drank that hemlock potion?
1
It must be profoundly lonely to be so high up in that ivory tower, gazing out at the tiny, uncomprehending heads of the "laymen" far below. But then, having only oneself for company is probably having the best company one could possibly imagine.
1
The writer gives us a perfect example of the total destitution of the human heart and soul (and mind) that can be wrought by our higher education system.
1
One time a philosophy colloquium occurred in which international, expert philosophers presented their views at university on hermeneutic methodologies meant to deconstruct Christianity's dogma and reason theories. I was a graduate student focusing on formal logic and proof. The head of the graduate school, Dr W, and his younger sidekick, Dr D, invited me along to attend and hear the argumentation of Dr D versus his counterpart, a European existentialist named PR. Following, they heatedly questioned one another until Dr D exclaimed 'bu....hit' several times. PR was flaming hot but said nothing. Afterwards, while walking with Dr W to the department offices, I asserted Dr D's retorts sure did not persuade by using argumentation. Dr W then asserted to me with total seriousness, 'No, but it sure shuts them up, doesn't it!' I still consider that advice as wise and prescient.
1
What would Plato do?
1
I only wish that Prof. Callard's arguments weren't so often theoretical missives denying unfortunate worldly facts. At least she's predictable in that way. Perhaps in a perfect (read: philosophical-idealistic) world people could just state their case and everyone would be heard equally and respected on the merit of their arguments. But that's not this world, and that's the whole point of such petitions: they are meant to level a playing field so systemically corrupt that good argumentation by the oppressed has not been enough to fix it.
Callard's argument also belies the fact that the fact that the field itself has become slanted by unphilosophical force. Why is it that western philosophers have almost always, right down to the present, been wealthy white males? Because wealthy white men are just inherently more able to articulate persuasive arguments? I don't think so. The answer is the exercise of thoroughly unphilosophical force in a non-theoretical world, and that is what the petitions she criticizes are meant to fight back against.
Just as with the issue of graduate student unionization at the University of Chicago, which Callard stands against on purely theoretical (read: immaterial) philosophical grounds, the professor is respectfully asked to let those who seek justice in the real world work effectively, not fantastically, for that justice.
2
Based on this reasoning, why would a philosopher vote? Isn't voting what one does as a product of one's reasoning? Wouldn't signing a petition be the same kind of act?
This is not to disparage a Quaker practice of valuing consensus when conducting meeting business and not allowing the majority to rule by voting. The emphasis is on an idea's merit and honing it to respond to all objections vs. winning. Of course, this radically changes the power dynamic. For nations to adopt this kind of dialogue for practical decision-making would be revolutionary indeed.
3
Why stop with petitions? Perhaps philosophers, insofar as they are acting as philosophers, should abandon all extra-philosophical forms of speech.
Unfortunately, this would seem to mean that philosophers must stop assigning grades to papers, setting up requirements for majors, inviting speakers, making hiring decisions -- basically, everything about running a college philosophy department aside from the actual philosophizing that occurs in the classroom or faculty offices.
This would be a very Socratic position to take. But it's hard to see how this would be good for the profession of for the philosophical enterprise in general.
5
Ms (Dr.?) Niall should take a writing course. I'm not sure what she was arguing, and finished convinced she didn't either her prose was so...what? Awkward, I guess.
Like so many signature gatherers, Agnes Callard misunderstands the purpose of a petition. A petition IS a tool of persuasion but not in the way you think. Signatures enable you to present a persuasive argument to strangers who are otherwise unwilling to listen. Hear me out.
I've canvassed an absolutely absurd amount of turf. Door to door. Year round. The first thing you look for in any neighborhood is community leaders. If you can get just one well respected person to sign your spiral folder, everyone else is much more willing to listen to you speak. You are presenting an argument. The petition helps you find the audience.
Think of it this way: The petition gets your foot in the door. Your talent to present an intelligent argument clearly and concisely is what actually persuades people to not just sign your paper but to actually support your position. That's what separates good canvassers from signature collectors. You need the ability to communicate effectively on the fly with absolutely anyone. The petition is simply a point of engagement. "Here, look at my clipboard." I have at least a few seconds to speak before you run away.
Unless their is some legal argument behind the signatures such as ballot initiatives, the signatures are really only useful in persuading politicians. People who are, at least in theory, commanded by popular thought. For everyone else, you could just as easily use a soap box. One on one engagements are generally more effective though.
1
I read the whole piece, but I put on the brakes for a moment at the beginning when I encountered "core values" and wondered: is this going to be a "mission statement" for Philosophy, Inc.?
Well, maybe it is, but there's no exhortation to level the playing field for a win-win in order to grow Philosophy. Or is there?
1
Ms. Callard says: "One thing that is distinctive about philosophy is that unlike other disciplines, it is philosophical all the way down." I disagree: Philosophy is psychology all the way down. Therapy, to me, has at times seemed to extend beyond psychology to existence, but I know that means nothing because everything is psychology. We cannot live the cosmos without feeling something about us. We may believe in an infinite god but feel like a turd in the gutter. We may believe we are just a randomly congealed set of particles embedded monolithically in a bigger pond of particles -- animate and inanimate barely different -- yet feel as serene as a god. It's all psychology, the universe. After a philosopher asks: "How do we know that we know?" and can never answer the question by the limitations of phenomenology, she is reduced to the psyche.
1
A large number of physicists in Germany once signed a letter trashing the theory of Relativity (because if was novel and it was truly creative in some cases and in some cases because it stemmed from Einstein, who was Jewish).
Einstein's response was that if Relativity were actually wrong, there would be no need for multiple signatures.
Signing a letter or petition along with many other people provides little evidence that the content of the letter or petition is valid.
Same point that the author is making.
1
Sorry, not a helpful analogy. Political acts and ideas(or non act in the essayist case) are not the same as scientific consensus.
1
@Dennis
This gets to the very heart of the validity of ideas, whether they be scientific or political. If a large number of people believe in an idea at any given moment, does that make the idea valid?
Appeasement of Hitler was extremely popular in the UK during the years before WWII.
Many petitions were signed in favor of appeasement.
But guess what?
It was dead wrong, terribly wrong, and as a result Hitler came very close to defeating and occupying England.
The validity of and idea stems from the evidence and not from how many people sign the petition or letter. That is the difference between rational thought and mob rule.
1
Academic philosophical debate hasn’t reached a conclusion or solved a problem in very long time, if ever. Some problems just can’t wait any longer.
2
I'm inclined to agree with the author, because that is my personality. I bet that like me she cringed when the democratic debaters were asked to raise their hands when asked "Who here would abolish their private health insurance in favor of a government-run plan?" Yuck.
More importantly, I am struck by the unusual stance that we all have distinct roles in society, and that we should in many ways limit ourselves to those roles. I am not a public figure in any way, so this obviously doesn't apply to me. But consider a Supreme Court Justice, for instance. Should such a person sign petitions, perhaps in the evenings after dinner and a glass of wine, when they are not wearing their Supreme Court Justice hat? Ms. Callard is simply extending that idea to other, lesser public figures. That notion could, in fact, prove ennobling for our culture in general - and not just for those figures acting accordingly.
Some may decline to call it what it is. They be poltroons. If they are academics, they are hypocritical poltroons. It is groupthink, with all the negative, Orwellian connotations that goes with it. And because of the tyranny of its adherents and the resignation of those who simply choose to dispense with it, it grows. Like a bacillus. It has already thoroughly infected the "elite" learning institutions. It is working it's way through the corporate host and in more than a few instances, it has paralyzed government. We shall see whether the tide goes out or whether a political tsunami is building. The smart money is on that sort of calamity long before any sort of climate-related devastation.
3
Philosophical debates rarely, if ever, get resolved. If they do, it is virtually never through the force of argument. That's just not how philosophy works, and it's a self-aggrandizing image of the profession I wish philosophers would abandon. Attitudes change (sometimes partially thank to arguments, sometimes not, and often over a long period of time), and consensus follows.
So the question seems to be: should we give up on trying to make any difference at all and just sit back while plainly transphobic speech proliferates under the guise of intellectual freedom? (I realize, of course, that I am here defending the opposite position from the one in the petition Callard refused to sign.)
"It’s not a matter of the audience’s being unwilling or unable to entertain a philosophical mode of argumentation — they are speaking to philosophers." -- Having spoken to some philosophers on the other side of this, they may not be unwilling to entertain philosophical argumentation, but they do come off as unwilling to entertain certain arguments--in this case, the relevant ones.
So the question for Callard is this: if a group of people is currently being clearly abused by a particular group in the profession, and others are jumping in to defend the bullies, should the rest of us refuse to do anything, simply resort to ineffectual philosophical arguments, and sit back happy that we've made a philosophical difference?
6
Not to participate in public debate because one considers oneself a "Philosopher" is washing one's hands from what is occurring in Society.
7
On the surface, this article is arguing that because of the inherent conflict in the methods and goals of philosophical thinking and petitions, philosophers should abstain from signing such written requests. By doing so, this piece is in reality making an argument for depth and complexity over ‘easy’ political stands. As a teacher who is committed to promoting dialogue both inside and outside the classroom—and as a bilingual person whose identity is rooted in two distinct world-views and approaches to conversations—intellectually, I couldn’t agree more with this stand. Indeed, despite my liberal views on most popular causes, I’ve often found myself becoming frustrated by methods and conversations that like petitions, too often shut down discourse and ostracize those who raise any reservations.
I can understand, however, why a professional philosopher would welcome such a challenge. I can only hope the author understands that most ordinary Americans—including thinking ones—spend much of their waking hours at the workplace, where too often these days complex thinking around popular political causes is misunderstood and/or vilified by a majority that’s either understandably unwilling or disappointingly unable to embrace the discursive approach afforded to philosophers.
Doctrine is in, thinking is out. Welcome to Trump’s America dear friends.
2
This strikes me as self-important and a little melodramatic. Sign the petition, don't sign the petition: not a lot rides on this. My own inclination would be to render unto Caesar what is Ceasar's, and save the rest for your classroom, but philosophy won't live or die either way.
4
In my work "Mind Insurgent Handbook: Official Field Manual for the Revolution of Reason", I point out over sixty ways the human mind is tricked into accepting and holding a belief. Among these are "The Law of Large Numbers" and "Credentials Trap" - both of which are represented when philosophers sign petitions. In the near future, we will program the human mind in the computer based on a "survival" algorithm, which will provide irrefutable proof as to how we trick the mind with our ridiculous beliefs about what is supposed to survive - producing minds programmed de facto for destruction. These minds see the survival of a particular belief as more important than the survival of us all. When we understand all this, we will begin the long trek back to reason and sanity.
See RevolutionOfReason.com
1
@RLB: The Republican Party is a mutual admiration society of fakes.
1
Watching “The Great Hack” provides the antithesis of philosophical discussions about important issues like Brexit? Trump for president? This organization-conceived by Steve Bannon and others—thrived on fake news, fake questionnaires and petitions—all designed to lead voters to the choice Cambridge Analytica was being paid to support. After all Bannon’s “philosophy” was that to profoundly change a society you first have to Destroy the existing one! Then build the one you want. Thus today we have the state of the UK and the U.S. terribly split. Have they succeeded?
2
Guess the Times and other sites should remove the "Recommend" and "Like"/"Dislike" options!
All in favor of this idea, just hit "Recommend" before you are deprived of it!
1
@teach How many people adjust their opinions, however slightly, to get more likes? Or if not their opinions, at least how they express their opinions? We all influence each other, right into our own little collective bubbles. So... not a bad idea, even if I suspect you were being facetious.
1
Philosophers shouldn't actually *do* anything at all.
Action, activity, interaction with real day to day, flesh and blood reality and the denizens thereof are anathema to philosophy.
Philosophers must be free to think. Free from day to day concerns, free from the hurly-burly, give and take of life, free from the constraints imposed by inter-personal relations, even from the constraints imposed by family and the responsibilities and obligations our culture assumes come with that familial minefield.
Only when that kind of freedom is achieved can philosophers truly discover the pure and immaculate love of wisdom and the good life their discipline seeks.
Physics was called "natural philosophy" before it came to its modern name.
1
Not so sure I agree with the conclusion. I guess a lot depends on our conception of what it is exactly that a petition does. I present a conception below that suggests that signing a petition isn't necessarily so bad.
Part of the point of the signatures on the petition is to say that the argument contained within the petition is an argument worth looking at--it is a respectable piece of argumentation that deserves consideration. As finite beings, we don't have the time to look at all the arguments out there. What often directs us to the best arguments are people who say those arguments are worthwhile. If a petition has more signature from respectable people, I am more likely to read the petition to see whether its arguments are convincing.
The same goes with reading philosophy. If there wasn't a whole tradition of reading Hegel, I might take a glance at his work and deem it not worthwhile as it is too difficult and obscure. Because there is a tradition of reading Hegel, however, I am more likely to read and re-read his works in search of the depth I am told is there. I will treat his works more seriously because there is a tradition of reading him. However, I don't infer from the fact that there is a tradition of reading him that Hegel is right about things.
Signatures function like a tradition of reading Hegel. The problem is not that petitions have signatures, but that people take the signatures to mean that the argument in the petition is sound.
5
I respect the author’s adherence to principles of timeless, intellectual rigor. Certainly, the case is well made that there is a place for this ethos in philosophy and in life. If you choose not to be a signatory to such conventions, that is your choice, and seems a reasonable one.
However, two points concern me.
First: “…Argue for it! If you strip the list of signatures off your petition, you’ll find that you have an argument on your hands.”
Indeed, the argument was there all along, so how does a petition or open letter change that fact? Is your main concern that those opposed will be cowed by the so-called authority of a petition and the argument will be chilled or shut down? A petition does not, in any practical terms, end the argument. You will still find worthy opponents presenting the counterargument. The argument will not, as we have seen, disappear.
Second: If, as the current social science purports to have shown beyond reasonable doubt, individuals subject to various conformational and inherent biases are not actually persuaded by facts, but rather only moved by emotions, perhaps if one is seeking to effect change, the “aggression” achieved when voices join together is not only warranted, but one of the only effective tactics at one’s disposal, short of more destructive types of aggression.
Philosophers may stay out of the fray, hoping to convince. But activists know better that effective action must be employed if we are to live in a material world.
4
The author speaks from a radical viewpoint where people get their answers from within by the use of their own rational faculties. Democracy, as Plato noted, is actually fundamentally antithetical to this type of inquiry. In a democracy, everyone gets their opinion, or their vote, no matter their level of knowledge. In today's world, a petition's weight comes from the number of signatures it gets and not from the quality of arguments which it supports. It might be that we just live in such a post-truth time that the thought that anyone having true 'knowledge' on an issue seems far fetched and that the most one can aspire to is to have a 'perspective'. To be honest, we are trained to follow the lead of masses. Media, petitions, elections, news, common viewpoints all guide us. Rare is the person who can look at an issue for him or herself.
3
After making her argument about remaining philosophically detached (and therefore refusing to sign a petition), Prof. Callard still hasn't revealed whether she is in favour or opposed to deplatforming (an attempt to silence controversial speech) or not. Although Socrates does indeed point out in the Laches that the majority opinion isn't superior to the right opinion regarding the nature of courage and whether it can be taught, he says in the Apology that he would rather die than cease philosophizing and, thus, criticizing his fellow Athenians for caring more about wealth and honours than their own souls. So, Prof. Callard seems to be more concerned about being, or appearing to be, philosophical than about addressing the issue of deplatforming. In other words, she seems more concerned about herself than about the moral choices of her fellow citizens. Moreover, deplatforming is exactly what the citizens of Athens were doing to Socrates.
2
Professor Callard argues for the general claim that "philosophers shouldn't sign petitions." Unfortunately, sweepingly general claims like these are easy to counter, and have.
But the particular petition at issue has been ignored, and its context is paramount.
The case at issue is a petition to disinvite Kathleen Stock from giving a talk titled "What is Sexual Orientation?" to a meeting of the Aristotelian Society, a professional philosophy conference. Stock's pieces are written in the tradition of careful critical examination and inquiry expected in the field.
What prompted the petition are prior papers from Stock arguing that sexual orientation differs enough from sexual identity that conclusions regarding one (e.g., grounds for granting rights) do not readily transfer over as conclusions regarding the other.
Stock does not visibly engage in hate speech, but the upshot of her arguments are that trans rights may not be as well grounded as gay rights, and may need to be rethought.
Naturally, such arguments will be portrayed as "attacks" on trans people, and classed as akin to hate speech.
The upshot of Callard's view is that philosophers - anyone wishing to engage in critical inquiry, really - should engage with Stock's actual arguments (which are contrary, not hateful) and counter them with better arguments, rather than use petitions like this. Because appeals to authority, and use of petitions like this, tend to shut down critical inquiry, helping no one.
5
Normally I dislike Paul of Tarsus, but he had one good quote: beware of philosophy and vain deceits.
2
An attitude is all it take to be a philosopher. Many don't sign petitions because they can't write in caveats.
Wow I have always loved philosophy. I took at least 3 or 4 philosophy of science courses at both undergrad and grad level. But when I read the original petition that the writer refers too, it makes me want to completely defund all philosophy programs immediately! I mean really if there is one thing a "professional" philosopher should know *not* to do is to present supposed (but actually quite controversial) truths that, according to them, must be accepted without argument!
I quote from the original: "Not every item of personal and ideological obsession is worthy of philosophical debate. ... The existence and validity of transgender and non-binary people, and the right of trans and non-binary people to identify their own genders and sexualities, fall within the range of such indisputable topics."
So let's really digest this: There is only one set of rules that applies to discussing transgender and non-binary people, and we are the rule makers! And no evidence is needed to support this argument, it just is what it is!
I mean really these are professional philosophers? Every person signing that petition should be fired immediately, as I definitely would not want them teaching anyone their "philosophy"!
And the fact that the writer did not bring this up to completely invalidate the petition, but rather relied on a weaker "philosophers just shouldn't sign petitions" is very disappointing!
9
Philosophy may not last much longer as a paid discipline in an age of mass opinion making. But in appreciation to this op-ed, I also note that being an honest sage has rarely in history ever been a "profession". I appreciate that some philosophers are willing to go the distance.
3
When I sign a petition, I am bearing witness that I support the statements in the document. No more, no less.
I find this article to be barely readable. Bertrand Russell can be cited, whatever the success of his arguments, for producing texts that are pellucid and direct.
8
@Donald Dal Maso: Absolutism limits most options.
2
"There is something aggressive about the way in which voices gain strength and volume by being joined together. Numbers generate a pressure to believe that isn’t grounded in explanatory force, because having more and more adherents to a view doesn’t give rise to better and better accounts of why the view is correct."
True. But that is the form democracy takes. It's also the form religious influence often takes. So yeah, there are issues with the way a large group of people can shape policies. Human rights laws are there to make sure majority rule doesn't impose on minorities. Would you be without those laws and expect those minorities to defend themselves in the face of majority fury with reasonable arguments?
I think in this petition is a bit like human rights law, because the point of it is that philosophers won't be able to do their jobs at all if this totalitarian mentality around deplatforming continues.
This is the reason for free speech laws. And this is the reason free speech culture should be protected in institutions of higher learning.
1
@Adele: The US Constitution purports to protect the liberties of minorities by limiting what the majority can legislate to a defined set of specific powers.
The writer’s arguments have the appearance of logic but in fact contain so many inconsistencies one wonders if she is willfully masking them to support her premise. Take the nonsensical analogy of the doctor who breaks someone’s nose in a bar fight. She uses this to mean that just as the doctor is off duty, so the philosopher is periodically off duty.
One’s philosophical, political, and social beliefs are not things an individual checks at the time clock when stamping out at the end of the work day, short of being completely disingenuous or Machiavellian. The analogy is flawed, and by extension, so is the conclusion.
She must ask herself this currently important question: can she espouse a philosophy of racial and gender equality from 9 to 5, and then on her own time speak and act in overtly racist or supremacist ways. If she does so, then contrary to anything she says about not being a racist or supremacist, she is one.
2
I think you misunderstood the author’s point. The example of the doctor was meant as a counter argument to her premise, as in why shouldn’t the philosopher be allowed to take off her hat? Her answer is she should not, just as you argue
2
@rlschles: All the meatiest philosophers concentrated on physics, not fantasies.
1
@Steve Bolger That is your opinion. I suspect plenty of people who spend a little time to reflect on your statement will disagree. For one thing, physics does not have much to contribute to any discussion about ethics and if you think ethics is but a minor component of philosophy, then at some point during your education or self-education, you were sorely misled.
3
The associate professor's position is not only weak but also goes against the very founding of our democracy and the role of all thinking people in that democracy. "Philosophers" in her position assume a greater role -one that is above political participation or civic engagement- than everyone else in society, which is in my opinion both untrue and arrogant.
2
I have pretty much stopped signing petitions. They do nothing to positively change anything, and usually those who want you to sign, also want you to pay to express your opinion. Not for me.
2
I know I shouldn't have, but I was drawn to your argument because you are a professional philosopher at a recognized institution. Had the byline read "Agnes" from Chicago, I might have overlooked it. Know what I mean?
Nor do I give much weight to medical opinions offered by my barber. But when an argument is signed by persons whose intellectual credentials are greater than mine, I am more likely to pause and consider. So I don't agree with your argument, Agnes.
7
Another comment which stems from a misreading of the author. She doesn’t say that you should accept her opinion on authority, only that she will argue for it individually rather than on a petition
I think the point of the petition is not to convince anyone of anything but just to ensure that voices (arguments) are heard and not "cancelled"by self-made censors. It's like joining a union: job protection against powerful forces that can capriciously shut one down.
2
I have a correction: it was the economist Simon Wren Lewis's blog, which offered a petition that I signed for economists for economic equality.
1
There's a reason why the right to petition for redress of grievances, is a First Amendment Right and of no less stature than the famed press/speech/religion rights from the same sentence of the same document.
3
@Jeff Bowles: The first phrase of the first amendment specifically prohibits Congress to enact any faith-based belief into law. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
Defend free speech or surrender to Trump on the one hand and the self-proclaimed “Justice” vigilantes on the other.
That’s our choice.
Lenny Bruce did not die in vain.
3
This is tired and unconvincing argument for inaction, and it's fairly unsurprising to see it come from a faculty member at (arguably) America's foremost bastion of ultraconservative thought. For those of you who can smell how fraudulent this is, you might be interested in the words of an actual thinker who wrote, "Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it."
1
I have been reading the book Dark Money. I was a tenured university professor. Now I toil in the garden of retirement. I have more time to read and reflect.
I have been ashamed at the penetration of "tax free foundations" into the universities with "centers" with seemingly innocuous names like "The Center for Economic Inquiry" only to find that they are fronts for foundations funded by the 1 percent to "educate" and indoctrinate. Favored faculty are funded, students cultivated, supposedly "learned" papers presented but only if they meet the standards of the funders.
This is not academic freedom. It is academic prostitution.
The university laps up this money. The money has more than strings. It has ideological handcuffs.
The rich should be able to spend their money anyway they wish.
They should not be able to hide this under the cover of "philanthropy".
Their foundations should be paid for with "AFTER TAX" money.
The taxes that they avoid paying would then go to the "general welfare" which is in the preamble of the American Constitution as the purpose of the United States.
The book now notes that there is little difference between their version of intellectual inquiry and lobbying.
With Citizens United these links are hidden and there is no effective enforcement.
George Mason University became a front for the Koch brothers.
The Federalist Society, the same thing.
Hidden money and Academic Freedom are two different things.
Vietnam Vet
6
This is all true but what does it have to do with the article?
@Al Petitions are a low cost way for academics who are out of favor with billionaires (and are thus drowned out by the billionaires' generously funded 'approved' institutions), to get their contrary and alternative viewpoints noticed and listened to.
2
@Michael. I came across the term "kept intellectuals" almost forty years ago. I think it is a most appropriate characterization.
3
I hate to admit it but I really don’t care what Philosophers think or do. They just argue among themselves.
2
I’m couldn’t get past the first paragraph. Restricting speech is offensive and hurtful to my chosen identity of a free speech advocate and, as such, I spent my time instead drafting a petition to deplatform the deplatform petitioners.
1
I would think a great example would be academics who, without having read the full report and therefore not possession of all the facts, signed a petition letter in support of Avital Ronell. Talk about a show of force with nothing behind it.
1
The author won’t sign the petition because the author believes in a thoughtful argument. Then the author fails to make a clear argument supporting or rejecting the ideas in the petition. What a way to undermine your case. It seems like you are refusing to participate in the world. When people stand up to be counted on an issue, you refuse to do so. What is the likely outcome of this behavior, dear Philosopher?
2
Excellent argument. Thank you for publishing.
This has nothing to do with "which is our job".
What happens is that, in the West, we have the tradition of treating philosophers as timeless and universal thinkers. This is one of the cornerstones of the ideology of Western superiority.
Asians ("Orientals"), Africans et al can afford to be "exotic", "mystic", "religious" and parochial, but not Westerners -- otherwise, how can we justify the atrocities we comitted during the colonial period? How can we legitimate our conquest of the whole world during the 19th Century?
1
Good luck getting through life without relying on authority. I guess the author doesn't rely on medical doctors, auto-mechanics, lawyers, etc.
2
@Sash
The author said nothing about not relying on authority. She said that you should not base your opinion on that of an authority or of anyone else. You should burn some calories reading various sources and thinking for yourself. In other words, don't be a ditto-head.
Some who work hard to sound like they are authorities are doing so mostly for the benefit of ego and/or bank account.
As for doctors, if they are willing to go to school for18-20 years to master a field of science and to continue to learn for the rest of their careers- they have pretty good credibility. I, for one have respect for doctors of philosophy. But in any case, I do my own research and thinking. That was the point of the article.
2
In the meantime I appreciate being informed (and appalled) that the practice known as “deplatforming” exists.
1
Talk about living in an ivory tower, this is over the top. Philosophers are people, and they should act like people, not like some special class of priests.
1
This is a lot of words spent to miss the point.
1
The author is overPetitions are typically tools for political action, not tools to get people to stop thinking. In fact they could be invitations to consider something I may have otherwise ignored if so and so did not sign it. Seen in this light petitions invite thought, rather than impede it because of “authority”
2
“...aims to effect persuasion with respect to what appears in the first part not only by way of any argument contained therein but also by way of the number and respectability of the people who figure in the second part. Such a document tries to persuade you to believe (that it is right to do) something because many people, some of whom are authorities, believe it (is the right thing to do). It is not always wrong to believe things because many people believe them, but it is always intellectually uninquisitive to do so...
0 for 2...
1. If you’re going to subtly spin “not always wrong” in
place of “not always right”, that line should read:
“...It is not always (wrong/right) to believe things
because so many people purport to believe them...
2. “...but it is always intellectually uninquisitive to do so,
without independently considering of the reasoning, or
verifying/triangulating on the facts...
PS
You folks never persuade much of anything by argument – any more than any NYT editor does...
What persuades is the stringing of footnote facts into an asymptotically-certain necklace...
Which is why editors and philosophers generally don’t include footnotes and citations...
Said more succinctly – you all find them inconvenient, when conversing with your mobs...
2
Congratulations for taking a purely symbolic stand against one of the few even marginally effective means of recourse the people have in our society.
I hope you're also a believer in solipsism, because the only life you're improving is your own.
2
@Ryan
I did not mean to derogate people who had disagreements with the author in a thoughtful manner. Is respectful even too much to ask?
This is a conscious reflection on the nature of engaging in political discussion. However, in California, the mother of all petitions drives, petitions have nothing to do with political discussion, but are instead a dated, and cheap way ($1 a signature, with low numbers required) for industry to get their cloaked agenda on the ballot. So, before signing any petition, regardless of your station, find out who's funding it, and why.
1
We can't understand everything from first principles. Most of us trust climate change is real because a majority of scientists (which we have deemed are experts deserving of trust) tell us it is real. We take on faith that the argument is sound, even if we haven't studied the evidence in detail ourselves. The world is too complicated and human knowledge too deep for us to thoroughly study everything and confirm what is true. We pick experts to trust because one can be mislead if one is not well-versed in the field. That's why I vaguely trust what comes out of certain mouths and vaguely distrust what comes out of others. The source matters.
2
If only persuasion based on an argument's merits actually worked in policy making. Having been involved in lobbying our state government to pass bills dealing with environmental protection over the last decade, I can tell you that in the halls of the legislature, the facts don't matter when it comes to politics. The only thing that does work is public pressure.
5
My view is that Philosophy has no ground. It consists of words about words and so, definitions of definitions. It is not about things. It is about ideas. There is no possibility of settling disagreement among participants in philosophical discourse. A philosophical claim must remain opinion and belief, never knowledge. It is not however mere talk about nothing because it’s claims are instruments of constructing the rules of a society, norms are declared, not discovered.
I'm not sure the purpose of petitions is always to persuade others that the position is correct simply because a large number of people hold it. More often than not, the purpose is to alert the public or those in power that a significant number of people find this issue important and their viewpoint deserves consideration.
The merits of each specific petition can be considered individually; if it's designed for the sole purpose of excluding others, then it might be inherently unjust (but this does nothing to say that signing petitions themselves ought to be avoided).
3
Interesting, I can quite appreciate that a true philosopher putting their name to a petition is intellectually limiting and potentially corrosive to true intellectual discourse, Petitions and indeed politics is limited to specifics of people, time, places, trends and politics. None of which are permanent or core to pure thought and therefore can lock a philosopher in. However, with respect to petitions, not all all petitions are created equal and could be supportable as a proposition if it is cast in widest possible terms. For example, deplatforming is by it its nature limiting, exclusionary and anti-thought and coercive. However supporting a pro platforming that supports the right of all views to thought and expressed free of recrimination or sanction is a worthy and unconfining position for a philosopher or anybody who supports academic freedom, free speech and supports diversity and growth. More discourse, not less would seem to be core philosophical principles. Deplatforming on the basis of their views on sex and gender results in the creation of an intellectual gulag!
64
@Niall
I agree. While a 'petition is intellectually limiting and potentially corrosive' to intellectual discourse, what is happening on campuses today from certain elements of the student body (and fearful faculty) is true corrosion of the right to speak freely of the worst kind - one fuelled by the righteous so steeped in their moral belief that no debate is possible. An academic will be burned on the stake for not conforming to the only view that matters: their own. Back to the 14th century we go.
8
@Niall,
You wrote, "More discourse, not less would seem to be core philosophical principles." I think that one of the points of the author's argument is that by its nature, a petition (being an appeal to authority) curtails discourse. Imagine me, a high school graduate, confronted by a petition supporting a position I disagree with but signed by a multitude of philosophy professors. The obvious nullification to my position would then be, "But all the experts agree that you're wrong."
A petition is a bullhorn, not discourse.
6
Her argument is simple: Philosophy is a thought-independent activity which stands opposed to the expression of collective opinion. Unless it doesn't.
She also infers that, unlike other 'professionals', philosophers cannot just put down their 'highly specialized conceptual tools' for the sake of the common good. They're simply above that; it wasn't for nothing that Plato labeled them 'Golden'...
Yet to have obtained her position, she wrote a dissertation that conformed to certain standards. Ditto, of course, for the peer-review process that enabled her to be published.
In other words, to be a 'philosopher' means to work on problems deemed 'philosophical'. This is what she does. So posture as if she weren't just problem-solving like the rest of us is to act in Bad Faith.
3
With respect, Prof. Callard misses the point. Petitions do not substitute for arguments. Nor do they replace doing philosophy with doing politics. Petitions like the one she refused to sign are intended to shield the vulnerable so that they may engage in philosophical argument without fear of retribution.
On many campuses today, my own included, persons who defend the right to express controversial opinions are often subject to social pressure from their faculty peers and students. Sometimes that pressure can be extreme. The individuals and groups exerting pressure are not interested in making an argument; they are intent on shutting down the expression of ideas that they consider invidious. These would-be censors are found on the right as well as the left.
Signing a petition in defense of the freedom of expression signals to others who share your conviction that they are not alone. This can mean the world to, say, a junior faculty member who feels isolated within her department because she is out of step with more senior colleagues and their graduate students. Knowing that numerous faculty members at multiple institutions, including highly distinguished scholars, share her commitment to free expression might well give her the courage to hold her own in a hostile environment.
Philosophical argument cannot proceed when the smart thing to do is to keep your head down and avoid making waves. Prof. Callard ought to have signed the petition.
166
@Stephen N Fair point, however any petition only has a goal in mind, not a discussion, or a reflection on the true nature of existence. In the case of extreme viewpoints being vetted, the University Trustees would be inclined to more open if not for both protests and more importantly, law suits. In your example, the question then is should extreme viewpoints be expressed without limit? We already know the answer via Germany laws on hate speech, the answer is no. If, as Marshall McLuhan expressed, the medium is the message, limiting the social media "bull horn" used by so many with extreme views today would follow as a correlation. I have always admired the Canadian tradition, at least in Vancouver, of having a public space where people can express their viewpoints (as opposed to the hollow echo chamber of social media). They get their 15 minutes, often on television, then move on. A much saner form of public expression than most.
7
@Stephen N. Thanks for your thoughtful comment. After reading the petition itself, I was struck by how uncontroversial and benign it is. The signatories urge that philosophical discussions of sex and gender should proceed with respect and that philosophers with different viewpoints be permitted to flesh them out and present them for counterargument, without being professionally exiled. The petition appears to protect a dialectic and does not extend its reach to hate speech.
6
@MimJohnson unfortunately, the situation is much more complicated. The petition is intentionally drawn up to appear benign. But the *reason* for the petition is that several philosophers with a record of explicitly transphobic comments are making waves, and one was recently invited to give a talk on gender identity at a major philosophical conference. Her views--like those of several of her colleagues--are philosophically unsophisticated and outdated. They are not making major contributions to our understanding of gender; rather, they're pretending to make such contributions in order to hide explicit transphobia behind intellectual freedom protections.
4
Unless one is solely defined by their job, and I don’t believe they are, then that person is first and foremost a citizen. Philosophers have just as much a right as anyone else to act like a citizen.
119
@Matt Should Supreme Court Justices also sign petitions? Or is that the only job excluded from your assessment?
I think it's interesting, and compelling, that Ms. Callard implicitly argues that public figures have roles to play in society, and that restrictiveness with respect to those roles might benefit society as a whole.
5
I take the lesson as something a bit different. Don't sign the petition unless you plan to get involved in making the argument as to why you signed it. If you're not willing to spend the time and energy making this argument, don't take the lazy way out by simply signing something that isn't worth it for you to argue. If you won't put your time and energy where your signature is, keep quiet. The rich might argue that one should put their money where their mouth is, but money is fungible. If it's worth signing a petition, it should be worth mounting the argument about why you support it.
93
If you're in a room with 100 climate scientists, do you give equal credibility to the 98 that accept climate change or the 2 that deny it? Ditto with doctors and vaccines. Biologists and the theory of evolution. Etc.
As someone who drives with a Question Authority bumper sticker, I should probably embrace the author's conclusion. But instead I find myself wondering if a public that can't be bothered to get informed on basic issues should be given yet more intellectual license to live in a world of alternative facts.
132
@Michael
A petition is the poor man's only defense against "Citizen's United".
18
@Michael Did the car come with the sticker? Your willingness to challenge authority (or accept others that do) sounds rather limited. Sounds to me that the only authority you wish to challenge is of those you personally disagree with. In other words, does your sticker mean "challenge ALL authority" or simply "challenge THEIR authority"? Sounds to me that you mean the latter. In which case do you recognize that this is a rather undemocratic stance? One that is in fact shared by fascists the world over to undermine the civic participation of disparate groups.
7
@Andrew
There's a big difference between questioning authority and questioning reality. My issue is solely with the latter -- the climate deniers, anti-vaxxers, etc.
Climate scientists, medical researchers, and those in other fields don't have the luxury of a philosopher. Expertise matters. Recognizing this hardly makes them "fascist."
14
I teach at a small liberal arts college, where our philosophy "department" consists of exactly one tenure-track faculty member. I take the opposite view--unless philosophers deftly and assertively show how their arguments can effect political and social change, most departments will become extinct. Philosophers should be arguing, registering voters, and signing petitions.
183
@Feste No, No, No!! First can we please distinguish a philosopher from a philosophy professor? They are simply not the same. Philosophy professors should be teaching the history of thought, training people how to think, how to question, and how to parse out an build argument.
This is critical for the long term health of our societies, of our planet. It is from doing this that we have such things as the scientific method, geometry, the concept of universal human rights.
History is not over and the evidence is everywhere that there is more work to be done by both philosophers and philosophy professors.
Leave the petitions to the believers, the advocates. There is room for a few crusty people to stand to the side and observe.
15
@Andrew
"Philosophy professors should be teaching the history of thought."
Really? That will raise eyebrows for the vast majority of academic philosophers who are analytic and do not teach the history of philosophy.
9
@The Lorax I am pointing out that there is a distinction between a philosopher and a philosophy professor. One can be a philosopher without also being a professor.
Professor is the title we give to someone that holds a specific job, a job that will inevitably involve survey courses that delineate how Aristotle built on Plato or Nietzsche built on Schopenhauer, ie; the history of thought.
If you have academic philosophy friends that get to live on mountain tops without having to teach undergraduate survey courses, well, I beg their forgiveness.
7
I refuse to sign this petition opposing the silencing of others' arguments because I believe that only through free exchange of ideas that truth can be found.
Someone needs the basic logic refresher course.
6
This piece presents two separate issues:
1) The author does not support deplatforming.
2) She disagrees with using petitions, for some convoluted reason that appears to confuse persuading the signatories with persuading the recipients.
Never mind that fact that we live in a democracy, and the right to petition is enshrined in the First Amendment.
Deplatforming sounds like another way to enforce political correctness. I would sign a petition against it, just to try to make it stop.
I expect philosophers to state their ideas clearly and succinctly. When they fail to do so, I consign them to the ranks of academic philosophers who are prone to overly convoluted descriptions of simple concepts.
6
Context, Professor Callard. We live in an environment wherein big money, very big money, is able to drown out voices that they disagree with by funding PR campaigns, media outlets, think tanks, and yes, academic departments, that align with big money's agenda. A petition is one of the few low-cost methods available by which the out-dollared voices can catch people's attention through a message that says "Hey, there is this other point of view held by quite a number of informed and knowledgeable people but you don't hear it because billionaires disapprove!"
4
I suppose she also refuses to participate in opinion polls. In a nation of 325 million, only polls and petitions can raise the average voice to a level in which it can be heard.
3
That's absurd reasoning. People signing a counter-petition would be "removing their philosopher hats" because others *already* are taking the exact same tactic outside of philosophical argument to limit philosophical argument, and that tactic realistically cannot be cannot be countered by philosophizing itself, because the decision will not be decided based on some provable symbolic logic, but based on the irreducible values of the majority. It's like saying that you must philosophize with someone from the audience at a philosophical debate who steps on the podium and starts duct-taping one of the speakers. Now, not everything *does* deserve every platform. But realistically, which things do or don't get a platform aren't be decided purely by philosophical debate anyway. The de-platformers already realize this, which is why they first issued their own petition (linked in the article). Whatever else, they, at least, appear to have the realism to implicitly admit that even as applied to administrative decisions over their own profession, philosophy has its limits.
7
I don't understand and I have never understood
why the columns in the Philosopher's corner - The Stone -
have to be so long and the essays so convoluted.
If I remember my Plato correctly at one point
in the Republic Socrates says:
Must we argue endlessly what we clearly grasp to be
right and what is wrong ?
Three paragraphs would have sufficed.
That Philosophers are now "deplatforming"
is very, very sad. I would have thought they would
have, of anyone, stood up to the PC and SJW crowd
that seeks to limit all thoughts and words that do not
agree with their agenda.
I wish I could sign that petition with my version of
a "John Hancock".
"1984" has arrived 35 years late, but now that it is here,
whom among us will be taken to Room 101
and made to willingly and eagerly agree that 2 + 2 = 5 ?
16
Thank you to the NYT for publishing this wonderful, thought-provoking piece. The point is very simple: If you reject appeals to authority or popularity as a logical fallacy, then you yourself should not make arguments by appealing to authority or popularity.
There are still compelling reasons to sometimes sign petitions. Petitions can be a way of communicating information about public sentiment to people who are responsible for addressing public sentiment. And, on issues where the public lacks expertise and experience to evaluate arguments, there is no alternative to appeals to authority.
However, I am grateful to read a piece which has made me reconsider my views.
6
This is exactly why elites are considered to be out of touch with the "average" person. Ms. Callard makes some good points when it comes to "doing" philosophy, but there are times when simplifying something to it's most basic level helps the average person. Philosophers will work in the halls of some college or university parsing the minutia or theory while outside those halls nothing much changes in the day to day existence of the person in the street.
I love philosophy by the way...
5
Extending this argument would lead us to say that philosophers shouldn't vote, or that they should be excused from jury duty. They should certainly not be expected to merely lend their names to the support of any idea with which they agree if the argument doesn't proceed from their own sanctified egos. The author chose a particularly trenchant example by refusing to support an argument opposing the stifling of unpopular positions within her own discipline while never giving a hint on her own position. A better title for this would have been: "Why Philosophers Shouldn't Write Op-eds."
19
@michaeltide
You are committing a logical fallacy by suggesting that signing a petition is the same as voting - it is not and the good Professor explains why it is not.
Part deux - She doesn't 'refuse to support it' - she refuses to sign a petition supporting it - once again - they are two fundamentally different things.
parte Tres - Neither is writing an Op-Ed.
1
@SteveRR, Thank you for the reply. I do not think it is a logical fallacy to extend the argument that by withholding oneself from a petition, which is not an academic exercise but a political one, to other political processes. It may seem absurd (intended) but it is not illogical.
Refusing to support it and refusing to sign a petition (refusing to) support it may be fundamentally different things, but they fall into the category of distictions without a (real) difference.
Sorry, but your last point is unclear.
1
@michaeltide
Thanks for the reply back Michael
In reverse order from your reply
Writing an Op Ed is not the same as signing a petition is the third logical fallacy.
I understand your claims but they are not philosophically sound and this is a philosophical argument that the author is presenting - in philosophy there are no "distinctions without differences" - otherwise they would not be distinctions.
Take the base case - Socrates as presented in Plato. Plato is not claiming Socrates has no personal opinions when he is conducting an elenchus - he merely submerges it while he is questioning his various targets. For the exact same reason as Prof Callard would not sign a petition - Socrates would not sign a petition - he would want to change your mind by argument and by you realizing your error - not by overwhelming you with peers who think this or that.
This piece seems to be overgeneralizing from a petty intra-academic political dispute. How would the author think about the reports of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Or any argument with an author list attached to it, for that matter? Are these not forms of “public statements?” We need subject-experts involved in our public discussions of political questions. They should certainly encourage citizens to engage with their arguments, with support from the media. But Prof. Callard would seem to want them all to sit on their hands the moment their ideas might have political consequences.
4
An interesting delemma.
This kind of imperative argument, that is directly asking others to do something, is not helpful. It would be better to simply ask another to consider doing something, but then leave it at that.
People are not computers. They're not supposed to be programmed.
I am a professional screenwriter and member of the WGA (Writer's Guild of America). I recently signed a petition criticizing the Guild Leadership for forcing all members with agents to fire them in April over a financial dispute.
Many of the 300 writers (out of 15,000) who signed are very rich and well-known, though I am not. We are all potentially at risk of being retaliated against by the Guild or fellow WGA members. There is an argument that our public dissent could be grounds for expulsion from the Guild.
What Ms. Callard fails to understand is that this was not an intellectual exercise, but a statement of political protest. No letter could ever precisely describe the exact thoughts of 300 opinionated, divergent writers. But we shared a common sentiment that this action would destroy careers for the most vulnerable writers. Philosophy that leads to no real action is useless, as Socrates himself well understood before taking his own life.
11
@Sparky
She is not arguing that screenwriters should not sign petitions - hence the title of the article.
1
"The petition aims to effect persuasion with respect to what appears in the first part not only by way of any argument contained therein but also by way of the number and respectability of the people who figure in the second part."
People sign petitions because they want to persuade somebody in authority to do something, and they believe that if enough people sign, the authorities will see all the signatures and do as they request. To that end, they add their names to the "weight of numbers and respectability".
The notion that the petition itself persuades the people who sign it is nonsense. The person requesting their signature only has to convince them that signing this petition will advance a common goal.
"There is something aggressive about the way in which voices gain strength and volume by being joined together. "
It's called democracy, and that's why the right to petition is enshrined in the First Amendment.
This column is typical of the overly complicated, overthought arguments that academic philosophers are prone to make. It isn't as complicated as you think.
11
@mlbex It's not just overly complicated and overthought - it's ignorant. Being disturbed by "the way in which voices gain strength and volume by being joined together" ignores the context of power differences between individuals. One could be just as, if not more, disturbed by the existence of individuals whose unilateral decisions and points of view weigh more than those of the large groups signing petitions.
Ignoring specific context is a well-established tradition in academic analysis (e.g. physicists mapping forces "in a vacuum"), but here it is a mistake. Petitions only exist in the first place as a reaction against power differentials. To ignore that is to completely misunderstand their purpose.
5
@Ryan: You're probably right. I flirted with that notion when I mentioned the democracy and the First Amendment. I struggled to understand what it was saying, to the point where I couldn't say with any confidence whether it was ignorant or not.
Shakespeare dealt with the conundrum you raise in Hamlet:
To sign or not to sign that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous policies,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them.
12
@Jay Orchard
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy . . ."
3
The professor overestimates the ability of philosophy to define itself. Science can give great insight into why people feel the need to philosophize and then believe themselves qualified to share their thoughts in an academic and hermetically sealed environment.
2
@aaron
You are significantly overestimating the abilities of 'science' and likewise significantly underestimating the abilities of philosophy.
2
I'm going to disagree in part here, with the author's thesis. She asserts that there is never a time to sign a petition. I would say that this depends on what the petition is about. Silencing academics in their venues of professional thought? I would hope to sign a petition opposing that. The problem comes, I think, with the majority of petitions, in which one might largely, but not completely, agree with a position. In a survey recently (which I tend to answer because as a scholar, I sometimes ask others to respond to surveys) someone asked me if I was for "reform of the electoral college," and of the two possible responses, I could only say I was closer to one than the other. Had that been a petition, I might have been sorely tempted to sign it, but I shouldn't, at least as a scholar. Petitions grind under nuance. Perhaps this philosopher-author is concerned that any petition is necessarily vague and overreaching. But I would say that there are some things, like the censorship of academic thought, that I can comfortably say should never be censored.
4
Ms Callard, I feel, is disingenuous. I believe she hides a simple desire to avoid becoming entangled in a a difficult contentious issue under the guise of not wanting to cross an untenable separation of argument and persuasion which in reality has never existed throughout the history of Philosophy. To maintain a petition, regardless of the number of signatories, is not an argument because it commingles persuasion is itself an argument, which holds very little, if any, water. Any worthy philosopher will always place the highest priority on making her arguments, whether as a signatory to a petition or an author of a journal article, persuasive, as Ms. Callard attempted to do in her essay; I contend unsuccessfully.
12
Petitions and open letters have a very distinguished history in academic life that this piece ignores. Albert Einstein famously and very courageously stood up against the German government during the First World War; in recent many Turkish intellectuals lost their jobs and some were imprisoned as a result of signing statements in favour of democracy. I myself have had invitations to other countries canceled because of petitions I have signed, which shows that at the very least there are people who notice. I think this is a very well-intentioned piece but it is also splitting hairs in a way that does not benefit a discipline that, among other problems. includes many people who have worked hard in recent decades to silence bright women like this writer.
8
@kate Hear, hear.
The author has never lived in an authoritarian regime in which petitions were often the first form of protest politics against tyranny and a signal of awakening public opinion. She may discover that a lack of resistance to censorship now may prevent her from engaging in her philosophical discussion at a later point, when the informal ideological PC police targets her. So it would be reasonable to voice opposition before philosophy itself becomes another playground for the emotional infants of new campus Maoism.
7
The practice of philosophy, in our society limited to experts, holds a key to the survival and health of our republic. We would do well to take a cue from France, where philosophy is a required subject for high school graduation, and is linked to the use of the essay exam, which asks one to think, not know.
There is an idea of reason and discussion without which democracy dies. And indeed, American society is far more liberal than democratic. It is sophistical, because Sophism reduces thought to opinion, and that means it ceases to function as thought.
A democracy where "the people" rule but based only on the expression of will rather than reason will become a totalitarian tyranny, a lie sustained by demagogues, or both.
Our democracy is based on shows of superior force reflecting will, as determined and numerous, the numbers representing force. Petitions are like demonstrations in this respect, and so is voting.
Appeals to authority on the one hand, ad hominem attacks on the other: It is as if argument has been replaced by advertising spots. There is little sign that reason has value in our culture, yet taste and capacity for it are universal. Opposed to it is a culture of management, which includes therapies and "spiritualities," and needs, via administration. The political is reduced to the personal, or to wants. Authoritarianisms grow in soils of truths of importance; they are ever moralistic. Reason is, like beauty, impersonal.
2
"we all think we know more than we actually do and overgeneralize from the one time our aunt had that problem. Doctors have to hold themselves to higher standards, lest they do real harm when people follow their recklessly given advice"
My own experience with doctors is that my aunt was always onto something. Medical opinion constantly shifts. Often influenced by propaganda from big pharma or insurance companies or opportunities to make more money. Certainly not always. Still a couple of years ago I've saw a brochures at a doctor's office suggesting some optional treatment. The doctor tried to push it on me. I asked why. He admitted the benefits were marginal and the danger of some painful not life threatening complication was more than pssible. If I read an article in the Times about a new direction in medicine almost invariably if I go to a doctor they quote it right back to me.
I personally have no problem with philosophers signing petitions. I actually do have a problem that only "experts" are asked to sign those petitions. Or that their affiliations are posted after their names as if the institutions they are part of give added urgency and significance to their opinions. Even that wouldn't be so bad if others who don't have "credentials" are also listed and equally highlighted. It isn't pleasant when the stratification of the dominant culture is constantly reproduced in the resitence to it.
6
I have another, I'd say, philosophically-linked, problem with petitions. By their nature, they offer one simple, even simplistic view of what could be a complex issue. Therefore, they can leave a lot out.
The choice, then, assuming basic agreement with the overall cause, and the main argument for it usually provided on top, is if you perceive the value of expressing yourself, and adding another number to the total is worth the possible over-simplicity. It may or may not be.
(I have similar mixed feelings about participating in social protests.)
Petitions and classroom discussions (at their best) have different purposes, but both can be valuable in their ways. One doesn't preclude the other.
Three other options for Prof. Callard to consider: 1) Put this very issue under the classroom microscope and see what the students say. Invite a staffer from an organization that uses petitions to participate. 2) Ignore the number of or reputations of the previous signors. Focus on the cause and supporting statement. Or, (3) more radically, take a little more time, and to the surprise of the person urging you to sign, write in a little note: "Signing, but the issue is deeper than this," or something to that effect.
P.S. The point critical of common sense is very good and needs to be heard more in our complex times.
4
Isn’t this argument just setting up one false dilemma?
Why should I think the philosopher’s two options are either sign the petition OR offer argument? Rather, it seems to be the case that the philosopher can—and should!—do both. In fact, signing the petition might be a way for a philosopher (and non-philosopher) to affirm their commitment to some philosophical conclusion, one that they can or already have offered support for elsewhere. I’m confused as to why a professional philosopher is convinced that signing such a petition precludes one’s supporting the involved stance via argumentation elsewhere—that seems obviously true, and that these are just simply different arenas (i.e. petitions and philosophy articles).
I also think it’s troubling that the author seems to assume or imply that the creators of this petition hold the obviously correct position when it comes to deplatforming... as a member of the philosophical profession, I can attest to the many ways in which philosophy is a non-inclusive place to work, and the many ways in which numerous philosophers are militantly anti-trans. I have seen transgender philosophers exit the profession for related reasons. Maybe philosophers should focus on discussing the deplatforming issue, rather than the validity of transgender identities...
4
@Kaleb T A very insightful and humane response
1
You could do both. I've heard scientists state that it is their job to pursue and report on the essence of what is observed, but that it is not "their business" to get involved in the politics of the findings. A scientist could dispassionately publish research on rich mineral deposits in the Yellowstone caldera, and then:
1) Do all she could to promote the development of the resource because of her beliefs in its importance to national security
or
2) Publicly state that the oil/metal/mineral would come out of the earth over her dead body
or something else (including nothing) that reflected her beliefs.
We are intensely in the world in more than one way.
6
So the Dean of the Philosophy Department never expresses opinions or enforces consensus -- 'cause he's a philosopher? Marianne Williamson will be taught next semester?
If philosophers, as scholars, teachers and college administrators, can't collectively oppose "deplatforming", how do they justify their profession -- and their salaries?
9
Professor Callard's argument makes a great deal of sense as long as an environment that tolerates free enquiry exists. If that environment is sufficiently threatened, then the very right to engage in philosophy is at risk, and the philosopher won't protect it by addressing herself only to other philosophers. To take no action at all in the face of a sufficiently extreme threat is to be like the mathematician of the old joke who wakes up to a small fire in her hotel room, does a quick calculation of the amount of water needed to put it out, and goes back to sleep with the satisfaction of knowing that a solution to the problem exists. Of course, Professor Callard and other philosophers must decide for themselves whether or not they belief that such a threat exists now, and if so, why.
9
@Stephen Merritt: Theocracy is the biggest threat to love of knowledge today.
About one of your points I beg to differ. Practitioners of I'd suggest all disciplines do indeed ask the question "what in fact is my discipline, what is it for, what does it do, what has it done and what in the future will it do." No self-respecting professional can behave otherwise, whether you're an art historian or a mathematician or an astronomical radiologist. Sure, philosophy gets the prize -- navel gazing about the navelness of the navel and whether in fact a navel even exists -- but there are are plenty of other places where fundamental introspection about one's art and craft always have and always will flourish. I'd submit a good plumber does the same, wonders at the history of plumbing (fascinating) and over a pipe wrench and under a sink considers just what plumbing actually is and what might its place be in the big scheme of all things.
7
—Science doesn’t ask, “What is science?”—
The scientists, social and natural, I know are deeply engaged in this question. Especially now that science has been demoted to an opinion among many by our president. I wish this philosopher would get out of the Phil-silo more.
1
The real question is how to get people to a state of mind to sign any petition.
2
Your initial premise is wrong - or at best incomplete. A petition is not an attempt to persuade by argument; it is an attempt to convince those in power that a substantial number of people support a particular cause. It is thus a precursor to democratic action, such as placing an item on a ballot. In cases where voting is not at issue (such as a plea for clemency), a petition attempts to show that there is much public support for the desired action. The danger of petitions lies in their frequent need to oversimplify complex situations or arguments. But that's not a reason to reject all petitions; it's a reason for the would-be signer to think carefully first.
36
Petitions are competitive numbers games, typically won by the faction that can pay the most signature solicitors. US politicians answer only to their own most profligate donors anyway.
1
What do signed petitions give us reason to do? It seems that Callard’s answer is that petitions give us reason to believe that what the petition calls for is right. Callard rightly asserts that this would be a bad reason, as it rests on an appeal to authority.
However, it doesn’t seem to me that this is what petitions do (or at the very least how philosophers ought to treat petitions).
First, popular petitions give us reason to think carefully about the views they express - if enough of my peers share a view about what is to be done within the discipline, then I have reason to take a serious look at the view and critically evaluate it as a philosopher (when I might not have had reason to evaluate it otherwise).
Second, popular petitions provide a democratic reason for action even in the absence of philosophical agreement. The people in authority for whom the petitions are written receive the petition not in their capacity as a philosopher but in their capacity as the journal editor, conference organizer, etc. And, the fact that a good number of people participating in journals, conferences, etc. are petitioning for a certain action to be taken puts pressure on those in authority to respond in some way.
Since being prompted to think about or respond to a petition isn’t the same as believing it on the authority of those who have signed it, it doesn’t seem that petitions necessarily run afoul of any of the philosophical faults that Callard claims they inherently have.
7
Professor Callard is stating her own opinion rather than Philosophizing. The Philosophers who signed the petition are stating their opinions. None are acting as Philosophers. They are acting like voters.
14
Are we, and philosophers in particular, ought to avoid public political activity until “we” have taught everybody else what “we” consider the necessary facts, habits of rational analysis, and relevant socio-economic circumstances that make for “we” consider an informed decision? And if philosophers are constrained to avoid signing petitions and the like, should — must — they refrain from voting. Are petitions and elections to be controlled only by the least qualified to do so?
Or do we all — philosophers included — engage in the life of which we are inescapably a part and do the best we can with the knowledge and values by which we govern our lives?
4
Professor Callard presents an interesting and compelling argument. I would love to read a response from one of the philosopher petition-signers.
3
Should professional philosophers (those within the educational system) sign petitions or stand independent, on own merit?
I don't see why they wouldn't sign petitions for the simple reason they are already compromised as to integrity, that becoming a professional philosopher today is not something to be particularly proud of, it's not like we're looking at a high standard of excellence or anything.
In fact the entire course of professional philosophizing seems a process determined to rub out the independent mind, to enforce group thinking: From the left it appears the ideal is to have philosophy a group endeavor like a sports team, but there must be equal representation among players and no superstar players not to mention superstar players who would unbalance the ideal of equal representation, and from the right it's the usual political, economic (libertarian), religion thinking we have heard for decades.
In fact professional philosophy today does not even come up to group standards of excellence let alone strive to recognize exceptional individuals. Any number of groups from Navy Seals to professional sports teams to music groups demand more of the individual and group.
The entire field of the humanities seems compromised to me, of low standard of excellence in first place. Better to fail at something truly difficult than to be proud of many of the degrees offered in the educational system these days. If I could go back and do school again it would be hard science.
2
@Daniel12: As a physicist and atheist, I have always found the admission of non-factual reasoning to philosophy a dead end.
1
minor point: a petition is not an intellectual argument, it's a demonstration of "the popular will." it's documentation of an opinion widely held. it's proof that such a number of people want the governmental or institutional authorities to make a certain decision around a certain issue.
"persuade by argument" means to argue, dispute, counter. signing a petition means agreeing -- "i agree with all these other people about this issue." a petition is a statement of fact; it's a misperception to believe the petition is an intellectual argument.
still, it is amusing, entertaining in a small way to see such intellectual rigor invested in arguing a false premise and a misperception ... especially because the alt-right speakers are still banned from your campus, in part because you didn't sign the petition against deplatforming.
12
@drollere
To be fair, the University of Chicago is not exactly a bastion of left wing radicals. The Committee for Social Thought, the Pres coming out and saying there will not be safe spaces or stupid trigger warnings at U of C.
@drollere: I'd like to see a petition contest over what an "establishment of religion" is.
“Onions!’ says Strepsiades, in Aristophanes’ The Clouds, when told that Socrates and his students are studying “the things below the earth.” (In other words, all the way down.) Long ago I learned ancient Greek and Latin to read ancient philosophers, German to read modern ones. And the things that certain of them led me to understand are with me every moment, as much as the air I breathe, of immeasurable importance to my inner life. Now, though, may be the time for “Onions!” in our outward lives, including our decisions about signing petitions. Trump and his project of global destruction will not be taken down by reasoning. Onions!
11
If that's all there is to philosophy, you can have it.
My students live in the real world and I'll do what I can t make it better for them.
10
This all is predicated upon the dubious prposition that anyone rally cares any longer what academic philosophers think about anything.
11
"a philosopher is a priest in disguise"...shaking a finger...shame shame....
3
@andy
Who is Nietsche? for $500, Alex.
Talk is cheap.
3
Let's talk Aristotle, then.
Aristotle said that there is only one "sex" - and it is "male".
"Women" are simply "deformed males".
I seriously doubt that the New York Times will be happy with me if I present his "proofs", so I will not. I will simply say, "Google Aristotle's 'deformed male", capiche?
Now, there was a reason why A. defined women so, and it was because only the "perfect male" could be included in the Law. By being "deformed" women (and slaves) could be excluded from the Law.
Oh, happy days!, said Thomas Aquinas. There will be no females being equal in MY Catholic Church!
Gosh, we like that, too, said the Founding Fathers.
And that's why, 2,500 years after Aristotle's death, the women of the United States are still not included in the Constitution, are not "equal" - including you, Dearie - and, likely never will be.
But they sure are taxed the same, aren't they?
As for when "ensoulment" occurs, philosophy, religions and Laws, all have a hundred different ideas of when THAT happens.
And, then there is the definition of "Equal", according to Plato: It is, "to the great much will be given, to the lesser's it will be less, all according to their nature"..... and "nature" was defined by sex.
We know that pithy explanation as, "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer."
It is now 5:28 AM and this was a real eye-opener.
I am so relieved that you were never my philosophy teacher.
Now I shall go have my coffee.
Pax tibi.
31
@rosa Aristotle was a sexist. Plato was not. Check your sources.
1
@Edward
Plato was as big a sexist as Aristotle.
Plato: Men would have 1 job for life: Women had 3.
1) Normal work; 2) continuous pregnancy; 3) the "rape-reward for the Silvers when they come off the field - and they may not refuse", moreover," if they have any complaints let them take them to the Oracle". Men got written laws - women got whatever the Oracle felt like.
And perhaps you missed that "rigged breeding lottery"? More, they were forbidden to choose their own partners: They were to be "passed around in the Brotherhood of like believers", but not the men.
Plato was a super-sized sexist! In fact, the Catholic Church used his model of a "Republic" as the template for their monastic system.
Sources?
Plato's "Republic", "Laws";
Morag Buchan, "Women In Plato's Political Theory";
and, B.Clark, "Misogyny In The Western Philosophical Tradition". Start there...
Just curious, but are you aware that Plato's "Republic" was a religious cult, yes? That's why the ancient world didn't beat a path to his Academy.
He was certainly no Cleisthenes, the Father of Democracy!
4
@rosa
Sorry, that's "Clack", not "Clark".
And the Source for the Aristotle reference is that rarely-read, "Generation of Animals".
Also, forgot to mention that "wandering womb" matter that Republican Senators have brought up before. The "wandering womb" is when the womb 'wanders' around within the woman's body, thereby escaping rapes., never getting pregnant. "Nature has it's way of escaping....." Republican Senators have sagely advised us.
Was it Steve King? Well, someone.....
Anyway, I hope this all helps you out, Edward.
My only explanation for not providing my sources was that it was 5:30 in the morning and I hadn't yet had my coffee.
My bad!
5
“persuade by argument, not by wielding influence...
Ms. Callard is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Chicago.” Then why list your credentials? Why publish in selective venues? The venue is argument from authority — of editors and reviewers. The authority serves not to quash debate but to draw attention.
61
@Ilya Shlyakhter Excellent observations!
1
An absolutely wrong and obviously sophistical perspective.
Philosophers are first and foremost citizens, they represent perhaps a clearer voice that can pierce through the social and moral morass that the country has been mired into. And yes, they should be welcomed to sign petitions and jump into the public arena, penetrate into the mass-media.
An arena otherwise infected by and exclusive to sports channels, MMA, kardashians, andy cohens, and of course, televangelists.
25
Claiming that philosophers who sign petitions are violating their duties as philosophers to persuade by argument is like claiming that religious leaders who sign petitions are making improper religious arguments. Philosophers are allowed to take off their philosopher hats. That's how use a hat - you put it on and you take it off.
12
Although an argument can and does exist independent of its author, we do note, especially over time, the expertise and wisdom of the authors and their thoughts and values. They earn the right to be "influencers" and as such their signature on a petition or statement can and should be part of the larger gestalt of proper argument.
4
There is a place for expert petitions in informing the public on some important issues. Most citizens, even intelligent ones, have not read the Mueller Report in its entirety and cannot sort through the legal issues of whether Trump obstructed justice and would be prosecuted if not the President. For that reason, the fact that 800 former federal prosecutors signed a letter stating that his actions would “result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice" were he not President is important public information.
27
To the contrary, “petitions,” “open letters” or “public statements” are not really “distinguished by the fact that after stating and arguing for a position, [they list] the names of people who endorse the position.” Opinion pieces signed by philosophers in the NYT or, for that matter, academic publications do the same.
Associate Professor Callard from the University of Chicago focuses here on the implicit argumentum ad populum in petitions signed by many people, arguing that it detracts from the real argument supporting the position endorsed by the petitioners and thus “compromise[s] core values of intellectual inquiry.” Then again, signing one’s name to an argument with affiliation and credentials creates an implicit argumentum ad verecundiam, inviting those of us who are intellectually uninquisitive to accept the conclusion based on the author’s authority rather than the reasons given to support it. Taking a principled stand on the former but not the latter is nonsensical.
4
Philosophy: to ask.
Science, medicine and math (all branches of inquiry founded by philosophers): to know.
Logic: to reason.
Rhetoric: to persuade.
Politics: to act.
Different categories. Different activities.
Somewhere in this article, something important was either being obscured or was lost. Why was the article written?
How many philosophers believe it’s their JOB to sign petitions? Their DUTY (in the sense of moral obligation)? Or is the author troubled by what some philosophers are doing in their spare time? What is the issue here? Is the problem that philosophers are signing petitions for fun? Or to acquire power and influence? Is this a dangerous trend or a centuries-old error? What are the stakes—both for the philosopher and for society?
If you don’t believe in signing petitions, and you want the reader’s full understanding, it might be more persuasive to give the reason using fewer words and concepts. Otherwise you lack the persuasive power that comes from clarity.
The Times has committed to printing a diversity of opinions. This is a good thing. So thank you to the paper and to the author.
Problem is, we’ve now heard from a philosopher, but we don’t have a clear understanding of what issues today’s philosophers are facing.
I just slogged through a book of philosophy “for the non specialist.” A grueling read. It confirmed my lifelong preference for much shorter articles by philosophers. And this piece was no exception, interesting as it was
2
@Suzanne Stroh
Recommend The Stone Reader. It's there, succinctly edited and purposefully provocative...
Dr. Callard,
As much as we wish it weren't so, our Philosophers are now found solely in academia, if they are to be found at all.
We must go all the way back to the academic Cal Coolidge to find a "thinker" president, and he didn't so fare well.
One can't "pesuade by argument" any longer, since there are now no greed-upon minor premises. Therefore, there can be no vailid major conclusions....save this one, of course :)
If Socrates were to return, he'd ask for another hemlock cocktail. It's all, as Alice would report the Queen to say, a Wonderland of impossible things to be done.
The only "rip" anyone gives any longer is their own. Syllogisms are only for the "sylly" few among us.
1
@Lake. woebegoner
Really, it's always been thus.
I agree with the writer: philosophers should remain in their cozy ivory towers, like Descartes, sitting in his warm rented room during a cold winter in Holland, doing a tabula rasa and writing Le Discours de la Méthode. If you forget what you have been told about the Great Man and read this famous little opus, full of absurdity and faulty logic, you can see the value of philosophy.
@Claude Vidal Descartes is well worth more time and consideration than you would give him.
@Claude Vidal
Seriously. Descartes' ideas had zero influence on the course of modernity. That whole mastering and controlling nature thing especially did nothing to influence scientific investigation.
Even better, those dolts Hobbes, Locke, and Montesquieu. Everyone knows philosophy has no impact on anything. Certainly not the Constitution of the United States.
Let’s extend this to voting, specifically academic votes of no confidence in a Dean, Provost, or President.
Would the philosopher abstain? Arguing that the reason is more important than the action?!
That permits evil to triumph — a non voter casts a vote indirectly. Indeed, in by-laws situations, it can be equivalent to casting a No vote.
As to petitions, thank goodness more than a thousand former prosecutors, Republicans and Democratic, signed a statement saying that Trump's actions as described in the Mueller report warranted charges of obstruction of justice. That brought clarity to the matter, few of us are lawyers or have the time to read the report in its entirety.
It also, more to the point of the column, renewed attention on the examples —i.e., signing a petition and achieving a critical mass can ensure that the *reasons* for signing get publicity and are taken seriously, something this philosopher advocates!
So, sign the petition and do not hide inaction behind a facade of hoping for critical inquiry — and public debate — that may never come if you don’t sign!
5
Fifth paragraph is missing a set of parentheses. I have corrected it here: As a philosopher, I want my influence to be philosophical, which is to say, I want to bring people to believe only what they, by their own lights, can see to be justified; I don’t want them to believe something because (I am one of the) many people (WHO) think it.
3
Firstly there are plenty of documents rich in philosophy with many co-signers e.g. the Declaration of Independence. Also this petition is about ill practices in your profession. You need not be a philosopher all the time and you should take into account your other responsibilities as a professional.
In the end you had a choice to back the cause in the for of the petition or by writing an essay in support. Instead you write a essay about why petitions are bad for philosophy. It’s clear to see your priorities.
2
Hannah Arendt wrote that "the sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil." It would seem that Prof. Callard would have philosophers spend their careers/lives deciding....And in the meantime.....
23
I’ll add to your quote about evil that most evil is done by those who are trying to do good.
1
Too bad Callard wasn't around in 1776 to explain to the Founders that petitioning the government for a redress of grievances is philosophically dishonest. In fact, why bother to show any decent respect for the opinions of mankind by explaining in public, with signatures, why separation with Britain was warranted?
No, all in all, Adams, Jefferson, and the lot of them would have been much better off writing a deep thinkpiece on abstract liberty for the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society or somesuch outlet. It's hard to think true thoughts amidst the stench of the hoi polloi. The only honest way to bring Enlightenment philosophy to the world was via an academic article with a readership of three.
Too bad the Founders were too dense to understand how to make philosophy relevant in the world. If only they'd had the benefit of Agnes Callard's wisdom back then! :---
"Um, Dr. Franklin, it seems to me that it's philosophically dishonest to say that we'll either hang together or hang separately, as you're conflating two distinct meanings of the lexical item 'to hang,' and we all know how distasteful puns are to the true philosopher.
"I mean, surely Dr. Franklin will recall Plato's injunction against laughter in The Republic, no? And did Dr. Franklin *really* say this or was he just self-fashioning through rhetorical performance, a process I critically explore in my recent, hopefully tenure-inducing book in my tagline and available now where all good books are sold."
18
@Doug Tarnopol
My best laugh all day for sure. Thanks for the witty response.
2
C’mon - this article is simply your own widely transmitted version of a petition.
10
It sounds like the notion of common sense can be as destructive for the philosophical sphere as it is for the political: "Common Sense: A Political History" (https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674284166).
It is far from clear why so much faith is placed in "common sense." It is clear that the concept can impede in numerous spheres.
1
Philosophers don't need to sign petitions because they are the most homogeneous group in America. We already know what they believe. Does the author have any colleagues who:
--have voted Republican in the past 20 years?
--oppose affirmative action?
--own an AR-15?
--believe that homosexuality is wrong?
--can calculate the net present value of a rental property?
Point, set, match.
3
@Troglotia DuBoeuf
You obviously have not looked into the Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago.
Are there conservative philosophers? Oh yes. Yes there are. Very good ones.
Two thumbs up!
2
Once again another meh article by someone who argues that the perfect is more important than the good enough. Pay attention, philosopher. Your world is co-opted by moneyed influences who thumb the scales. All we get is wars and hate and the best you can do is argue for intellectual purity? Bah.
39
Georges Sorel might not agree.
You are to be congratulated Me. Collard! If I could, I’d take your class!
3
How about we cancel “cancel culture” and deplatform the “deplatformists”. Funny, in Orwell’s dystopian vision it’s Big Brother who imposes regimentation, surveillance, and though control on everyone (think the Khmer Rouge and present-day Communist China). Now everyone is Big Brother in the name of—get this doublespeak—liberal values. These days, Orwellian is just another word for everyday life.
2
I think some of the comments misconstrue what the author is writing about it. She is not promoting the elimination of petitions altogether. She is making the case that (academic) philosophers should not sign petitions. I think she makes a reasonable case within the framework of how she defines the role of philosophers in society.
Implied, perhaps, in her op-ed, is that we have become pretty poor at thinking about and arguing, in any depth, about differences of opinion/truth. Impersonal, hastily written and inflamed discourse on social media, self-reinforcing discussions within echo chambers, withdrawal as a result of perceived intellectual victimization and insult - the list is long as to why we simply cannot, are unequipped, to argue about issues/truth.
Philosophers can both do this for us and show us how to do it. Yes, the discourse can be frustratingly abstruse and we might disagree, but there is logic therein. "As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another."
Anyway, she's at least partly right about petitions. If I had a petition to block the closing of my local public library, I'm pretty sure it would carry more weight if President Obama signed it than if my next door neighbor (who is not President Obama, by the way) did. But that has nothing to do with why.
2
I think this note overstates the role arguments, rather than listening to expert consensus, should play in people’s beliefs. Should everyone be neutral on climate change until they’ve read the underlying studies? Also, regarding “Much of the job of the philosophical expert...”, I have no idea what a “philosophical expert” is, beyond being an expert in what other philosophers have said.
2
Since philosophers are (mostly) citizens as well as philosophers, why shouldn't they do other things citizens do, like write letters to the editor or go to city council meetings to complain about potholes? After all, potholes can damage the tires of philosophers and grocery clerks alike.
Next question: should philosophers vote? Or is voting an illegitimate attempt to wield influence?
13
Ya I think Callard dropped the ball on this one. Climbing the Mount for clarity distances one from the chorus of thoughts/ ideas which lead to it . IMHO
This is a ridiculous argument. Petitions move people who hold power to make different decisions, so of course they are useful. As for persuading people, that is legitimate too. It is very likely, though not certain, that if many people believe something there may be something to it. But the fact that many people do believe something does not preclude anyone from thinking through the issue themselves. Has philosophy become so empty that this is all a professional philosopher can think of to write about?
9
I don't know about philosophers, this story is a bit too esoteric for me but as a citizen I am always hesitant to sign one.
The few I have signed in the past turned out to be wrong. When younger I signed a petition for a death sentence re a killer and eventually became an abolitionist. I signed a petition against my landlord once and it turned out the tenants were wrong.
Bottom line if you are gonna sign something, make sure without a reasonable doubt it is right and just not just convenient for the time, to please somebody or done on a whim.
2
n objection to most philosophy today is that it is divorced from what we do. That is suggested in this parable:
A sultan once awoke in the middle of the night and summoned his wizard,
“Wizard,” he said. “My sleep is troubled. Tell me. What is holding up the earth?”
“Majesty.” replied the wizard, “the earth rests on the back of a giant elephant.”
“But what is holding up the elephant?”
The wizard said, “The elephant stands on the back of a giant wizard. And you can stop right there, Majesty. It’s turtles all the way down.”
The great temptation for scholars is to examine for their own intoxicating sake “turtles all the way down.” Philosophical radicals once put copulating dogs in the midst of astonished professors at the American Philosophical Association convention to show how far removed they are from the rhythms of life. Most philosophy today has more to do with solving equations than working through classic questions of knowledge and ethics, such as: What should we value? What is true? What can be known? What exists? How should life be lived?
2
@Philip. Exactly the first image I had: turtles all the way down. I hope academic philosophy, an insular, hermetically sealed dead end of its own making, currently has at least a few bright folk interested in pulling those introspective thumbs from out the group sphincter and connecting up with science, law, politics, medicine, and the other human adventures this author so disses as not basic.
It’s not as if our universities need a roster of priests just for completeness: somebody has to pay salaries and give them rooms.
2
The ivory-tower, navel-gazing attitude of this article is exactly why I did not go into academia, despite its many allures. The author argues against signing any petition -- even one that represents a position she agrees with and, what is worse, even one that might accomplish some good -- because it does not represent the right way to change things for the better. The self-defeating purism of that position is frightening. It is also amoral in its valuing of a logical schema over a practical good.
Our democracy is burning. The Times should not devote space to an argument that water should not be thrown on the fire unless it comes in the correctly-shaped bucket.
27
You speak of an academic posture more than of philosophy. Philosophy is an activity the philosopher writes or orates because the world exists, not because philosophy does. There is nothing inherent in the philosopher to disqualify their arguments; after all Russell spent a heady sexy summer with Eliot’s wife while the poet wrote Waste Land and Wittgenstein believed his homosexuality came from his Jewish blood. Spinoza did not leave his room in Amsterdam for seven years. Great thinkers and great artists are still more idiosyncratic than those neither thinking often nor well. Petitions are political writs that now and again lead to revolution. Remember why Marx despised philosophers — they thought they could understand the world without changing it.
3
I know how this will sound, but...
I do not argue much today because most people cannot. They are illogical, overly emotional, and thus unreasonable. They meet facts with opinion; they challenge argument with "well, that's what YOU think" and believe that is retort.
I don't argue much today because in the USA, many are simply ignorant and cannot see beyond their selfishness, their fears, and pushing the pedal in their cages again and again and again to consume, to find convenience, and to be rich so they can do nothing.
(Trump should be evidence enough of that, but I digress.)
1
If philosophers are becoming “deplatformed” because of their perceived views, the only way to philosophically inquire into their substance is to actually hear them — which is impossible if they have been wrongly (or prematurely) deplatformed. Thus, perhaps there actually does need to be a petition to end deplatforming in order to preserve inquiry. I am also curious that if a petition with a clear position statement is distasteful grandstanding pandering to the non-philosophical masses, how is a NYT Op-Ed less so?
1
There's something admirable about the urge to avoid settling arguments by political action rather than by careful discussion. But in the case of the petition Callard refused to sign, she was being asked to declare her allegiance to rational discussion, against people who want to censor some ideas. She does this by writing for the NYT rather than by signing the petition.
She gives the impression that she feels guilty for not signing and so wants to make up for it with this writing. It would have been more admirable if she had actually come out against deplatforming.
1
Human beings are one of three closely related surviving African primate apes-bonobos and chimpanzees.
Bonobo culture and society is a peaceful sex-driven matriarchy. While chimpanzee culture and society is a violent sex and violence driven patriarchy. Humans are clearly more chimpanzee than bonobo.
Humans beings are driven by their biological DNA genetic evolutionary fit 300.000 years of African origin to crave fat. salt, sugar, habitat, water, sex and kin by any means necessary including conflict and cooperation.
That is the human truth behind, beneath, inside and over every philosopher and philosophy.
3
Even if homo sapiens sapiens were deemed 96% chimp and bonobo, our job is to maximize the power of the frontal cortex and language center of our brain, and to learn from the experience of other humans -- not to relax into the supposition that we have no control over anything and are just floating through life. This hard work is what thinking philosophically is all about.
1
@Blackmamba. Exactly.The more we learn about primates, the workings of evolution, biology and science in general, the better picture we have of ourselves. The assumption that humans are fundamentally different is just tribal prejudice; like the notions necessary to support hundreds of religions, justify war, or connect unproven absolutes to all aspects of our behavior.
People, although we may be able to end it all, are not the be-all and end-all. Our little overheating planet is not the center of the universe, nor is it distinguishable from trillions of others we are just now understanding to be there.
Elizabeths comment, below, is absolutely standard wishful justification for human behavior, but it is not supported by any of the history we know about. For sure, academic philosophy isn’t helping us understand ourselves.
3
If physicists signed a petition opposing the mistreatment of other physicists no one would confuse the signatures on the petition as scientific statements. Philosophers are people. Philosophers opposing what they perceive to be the mistreatment of other philosophers are not making statements of philosophy. They are making statements as people.
8
I'm reminded of my time decades ago as an undergrad philosophy major, when I was writing a paper on Descartes (fortunately by now forgetting what aspect of his work). Reading extensively, understanding minimally, writing expansively, grasping for an A, which I received -- surely because the prof, who I loved, took pity on my ignorance but admired my ability to write long sentences with proper punctuation.
This anti-petition piece is argued far more logically than was my Cartesian chaos. But to me it's not more real-world applicable. And almost seems anti-democratic. Agreed that a list of names neither affirms nor denies the veracity of any position. But it often conveys the strength of opinion, ideally one thoughtfully considered. And sometimes it's the only way to "collect" a view of a portion of society's mindset about an issue.
"I think, therefore I sign."
Well I did sign a petition in support of doing something about economic inequality. I believe it was a petition from Noah Smith's blog, supported by Professor Krugman, while working on my degree.
I am not impressed with our education and healthcare systems, after supporting the Democratic party for over two terms. I think we need to discuss topics. e.g., euthanasia, etc., etc.
A counter example? So much for the Declaration of Independence (1776)!? Now we get to argue whether a "declaration" is an "open statement" or "public assertion." The UChicago has a reputation for listening to unpopular, out of favor, unattractive, and controversial points of view. Maybe that is what this article is trying to say, albeit with the required logical gymnastics.
I like the essay very much. There is something odd about philosophers using their professional status and numbers to promote a particular view, rather than just arguing for that view as the truth, to anyone who is willing to consider the arguments. But Socrates too was willing to flatter and pressure others into listening, within limits. I’m not giving up my power to award higher grades to those who show they have been listening. Purity in philosophy is not obviously right.
The signatures just tell me the argument is worth my time to read. Tons of arguments are made, one can’t read them all. But one signed by many good argument-makers is likely not frivolous. The signatures aren’t saying you must accept this because we do; it’s a given that an argument addressed to philosophers will be dissected on the merits.
1
One of the key traits I've found with reading the words of Philosophers is the need to re-read every sentence and paragraph a few times to gather the full meaning. This was worth the effort.
Pure argument on the merits is fine when interminable disagreement and, even in the ultimate and ideal case, the proliferation of multiple competing positions is acceptable. Sometimes, though, we aren't morally permitted to 'be philosophical'. If harm is being done to people, we may have an obligation to stop the harm first (or alongside) trying to intellectually persuade those doing it. And I take it that the petitioners thought that they were confronted with a case like that.
I get it: policing expression is especially problematic for a philosophical community. Rather than forbidding some thought-expression entirely, I would suggest an 'opt-in' solution, wherein someone who finds such speech threatening can decline to enter the 'unsafe space', and those who want to can enter. Failing to provide any forum for engaged discussion of gender issues would also de-platform advocates for gender inclusion.
4
I read this and reminded of Monty Python’s Philosophers Football Match: Greeks versus Germans.
Much contemplation, very little movement, one flash of insight. Tedious and self-congratulatory. Fraught with impunity and the absence of existential risk.
Philosophers spend too much time in the ‘Cave’. Come into the sunlight. Take a stand. Now more than ever we need intellectually rigorous leadership.
29
Ms. Callard takes it that the objective of a petition is to persuade solely on the basis of the number and authority of its signatories. But it has another objective: to convince the reader at least to explore the issue -- to be inquisitive and investigate the issue at hand. There are too many issues of too great complexity for any of us to become knowledgeable about them all. A petition serves as a kind of plea to the reader in how she should could allocate her precious resource of time in intellectual investigation: "This is important to people whom you respect and care about. Look into it further. Take some time to understand the issue. And if you agree too, add your name to implore others to investigate and inquire." In this way, and with the right wording, a petition can align with the ends of intellectual curiosity and inquiry championed by Ms. Callard.
15
Only a philosopher would not call this a "dirty fight"! I mean that in a humorous and very respectful sense.
I love this essay because, even if it is meant to discuss "aggressive" politics in a field that is perfectly capable of not having to resort to petitions--especially when asking for actual sanctioning--it speaks to the our current media problems of propaganda and hysterics -- in a world that likes to tweet and "go viral" to discuss with and influence large masses of people.
I do wonder if the petitions you speak of relate to a current Philosophy department policy or problem or if they were directed at the entire field? How would the petitions be published or acknowledged and therefore gain traction? Is it a free speech issue or a possible legal issue? Does it need to be resolved? I don't think being more specific would be beside the point...
Writing this essay as a New York Times op-ed might also be seen as "aggressive" to your peers in that you are unlikely to have a rebuttal in the Times. Where would a healthy debate take place--at a conference, in journals, on campus, books, etc.? In other words how and where would you carry out the forum?
Your writing in the Times isn't "aggressive" to me--I appreciate all of the sentiments in your piece. I study information science and always want to hear about how information is disseminated and how it affects us.
Let us hear from you again.
2
"One thing that is distinctive about philosophy is that unlike other disciplines, it is philosophical all the way down."
Sigh. This statement exemplifies the problem with philosophy; that is, why except for "vocational" philosophy, this pursuit goes nowhere.
Fundamental philosophy addresses questions but instead of giving answers just leads to "deeper" questions.
Consider the question, is there a God? The correct response is: what is meant by "is" and what is meant by "there"? "Is" implies a universal time which is contrary to relativity, etc.
So, you can start the process trying to define "is" and then define the terms in its definition and keep going "all the way down."
But this is not a bottomless pit. It leads you somewhere, that being what is called mathematics.
There are no absolute truths. The most that can be said about any conjecture is that it is or is not consistent with a given set of axioms, those axioms being assumed truths. Postulating a set of sufficient, consistent axioms and deriving "truths" from them is mathematics.
But that is not the end of the story. A profound discovery by mathematicians has been that for any given set of axioms, there is an infinity of conjectures that can never be proven to be true or false. (See "the Limits of Reason", Scientific American, March 2006).
It’s been my experience that few philosophers understand the limits to reason and that their "decent down" in pursuit of truths is a waste of time
2
@Leonard Miller
Plenty of philosophers understand and are concerned with the limits of reason. There's even this really famous book called the Critique of Pure Reason wherein Kant attempts to set out the limits of reason. In short, philosophers have been and continue to be concerned with the limits of reasons and trying to understand what can be answered since the Enlightenment.
To be blunt, you're ignorant.
3
@The Lorax
You've verified my point. Despite since the Enlightenment trying to understand what can and cannot be answered, philosophers have not come to any closure. That sort of suggests the futility of their efforts.
There is a reason that they will never get closure. For a given set of axioms, not only are there conjectures that can never be proven true or false, also (a) it is not possible to determine which conjectures are unprovable and, (b) it is not possible to determine another set of axioms that would prove some unprovable conjecture.
It is a remarkable achievement that reason has been used to reveal that reason has limits. But the important point is that this finding has been arrived at through a "mathematical" approach rather than from the musings of Kant and countless other endless philosophers.
@Leonard Miller
You're making a point about first principles that Aristotle articulated in his Metaphyics. You cannot demonstrate first principles, but only make demonstrations from them.
I'll say it again: philosophers are not and have never been ignorant of the problem you raise.
And, by the way, mathematics uses rules of logic to arrive at its conclusions just as philosophy does. It is just that mathematics uses rules of logic to analyze quantitative being to the exclusion of other categories of being.
You want to give credit, then give it to logic, not mathematics.
1
Ms. Callard argument can also be extended to show why we won't get anything done on major issues like Gun Control.
Many Democrats and "educated" progressives will sign petitions. They will "like" a post or a "meme". They will come up with a clever new "hashtag" and "tweet" it. They will definitely "protest" and may even "occupy".
Meanwhile, the supporters of the Vichy GOP will go to the polls and VOTE the party line for ALL of their candidates, even in those "boring" state elections Democrats and "educated" progressives sit out.
Democrats and "educated" progressives have always been drawn to the grand, empty gestures as opposed to the small meaningful yet boring ones like voting.
3
Wow, an article in The Stone that is clearly and succinctly written and sensibly and forcibly argued.
I happen to agree with Professor Callard. Where can I sign up?
6
And what other forms of hoi pollloi-ish political engagement and activity should philosophers disdain -- marching? striking? unionizing? voting?
Is this, then, why we require a philosopher king?
10
@SN
Insofar as one is a citizen, march, vote.
Insofar as one is a union member, strike.
Insofar as one is a philosopher, argue.
It is an argument based on function (as is the argument for philosopher rulers in the Republic); to do anything other than argue is to cease to function as a philosopher. That is Callard's concern. The human who happens to philosophize has other roles. The concern is that by signing a petition as a prof of philosophy and hat is discipline specific is concerning for philosophy. That's my takeaway.
1
Signing a petition signals agreement with a position or goal. Like voting, it is based on belief in majority rule. It's not clear if Professor Callard is arguing against representative government or suggesting that philosophers shouldn't participate in democracy, but her argument against signing petitions implies that expressing support for a particular platform or policy somehow robs the voter of intellectual autonomy. At the same time, it suggests that intellectual debate is the special province of philosophers, as if historians or nurses or other types of workers are not equipped or inclined to engage in intellectual exchange.
Since the real aim of this essay seems to be to convince philosophy professors not to take political positions within their departments, rather than to assert that philosophers shouldn't participate in the democratic process, it would've been much more persuasive if it had focused on petitions circulated among university faculty, rather than pretending to apply to petitions in general.
10
@Susanekg
Believing in democracy doesn't mean that everything should be put up for a vote. That's why we protect unpopular speech, for example. And that's the point of representative government. We vote for our representatives but they're supposed to consider the merits of the issue, not just count the number of supporters. In this case the writer is saying that academics shouldn't be based on majority rule.
@Max Yes, my point exactly--let's not generalize from university politics to democracy in general or imagine that philosophers have a monopoly over intellectual debate.
1
I admire your views. Thanks for sharing them. In last twenty years, I refused to sign two, the most significant, petitions in my student days that tagged me as non-team player for life. I was concerned about the politicisation of the matter and undue hashing of the opposite party by creating mass momentum. I relied solely on my judgement but in retrospection lack of supportive evidence made me wonder sometimes. This is the first article I am reading that lifted quite a bit of weight.
5
Highly problematic piece. Petitions are not at odds with philosophical ideals. First, petitions often give people whose voices might not otherwise be heard, perhaps because of their position in society (or in their profession), an opportunity to assert an argument publicly; it can be a way of making discourse more inclusive. Second, when it comes to democratic legitimacy, the numbers count.
36
It seems a simple category error has been made. Petitions are not philosophical but political acts, and the argument made here is as unreasonable as demanding that philosophers not vote, for all the matters is the correctness of the choice of candidate, not the number of supporters.
When an administration decides whether to offer or a deny a platform, we hope they are moved in part by their duties to intellectual inquiry, but we may be certain that they are also tallying the numbers likely to be enraged by each course of action, and it is in this political and practical decision that a petition aims to affect the calculus.
20
@GKJ
Isn't Callard's argument based on function?
The conclusion seems to me to be not that a human who happens to be a philosopher should not sign a petition, but that insofar as one is acting as a philosopher, one should not sign petitions. The function of a philosopher is to establish positions by rational argumentation, not to petition. That's what I took away. When the admin starts doing nasty things, I suspect one might say that one signs a petition not as a philosopher, but as a faculty member of an institution? Maybe that's a distinction without a difference, but I'm not so sure.
5
Frightening.
The medicine Callard proposes is worse than the malady: She wants to impose a Code of Professional Conduct for Philosophers, in other words, to impose on philosophers a codified set of rules on how to philosophize.
Three observations:
1) First of all, the equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath ("Do No Harm") for philosophers ought to be, IMHO, a Socratic Oath ("Know Thyself"). Both Greek, both pithy.
2) To take Callard's analogy of "medical malpractice" to "philosophical malpractice" to its logical conclusion, we need to begin with what "malpractice" means.
"Medical malpractice" is a claim against a medical professional for failing to exercise the degree of care and skill that a similarly situated professional of the same medical specialty would provide under the circumstances.
In other words, by definition, malpractice is a practice that deviates from the norm, i.e., from some numerical and authoritative standard.
Exactly what Collard finds objectionable in a petition, which appeals to the same thing: number and authority.
3) Ergo, to sue a philosopher for malpractice under Callard's Code, all one has to do is to show that a colleague of hers at the University of Chicago (say, a Continental philosopher in her department in the throes of deconstructionism) didn't philosophize according to the norms of Anglo-Saxon analytic philosophy which is standard practice in her department. Tenure withdrawn. Dunce cap on the offender.
18
The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.- Karl Marx
38
@johneklund Ah, a pithy quote by Marx that excites the idealistic hearts of children. Other than tens of millions dead and shattered cultures what could go wrong?
2
@Andrew, The "tens of millions dead and shattered cultures" (also known as the history of the world) is not so much the result of pithy quotes exciting the idealistic hearts of children as the failure to fully comprehend the ideas that underlie the aphorisms. (See also your earlier argument re. bumper stickers.) It can also be laid at the feet of those whose arrogance dismisses idealism as childish.
3
@michaeltide The aphorism is hardly complex. Do we agree that the meaning is that, according to Marx, philosophers who have attempted to understand the world have missed the point which he then clearly establishes as "changing history"?
He is clearly dismissing attempts at understanding and encouraging action. Do we agree so far? So, not pausing to wonder if we understand, lets act anyways. And you think my question "what could go wrong" is somehow arrogant?
Well, I think the horrid track record of those who have attempted to build Marxists states shows that they understood this aphorism all too well. And what you call "also known as the history of the world" I call genocide and criminal mass murder by people who followed the advice of this aphorism.
Had the leaders who, following Marx, had spent more time attempting to understand and less time changing, the world would be a better place.
What makes one a child is not idealism. Its not knowing the history, the documented outcomes of the advice contained in pithy aphorisms.
Professor Agnes Callard makes several arguments for refusing to join petitions in principle, but does not advance a workable alternative.
A professor or philosopher can advance an opinion as an individual and may gain a platform that reaches others above the noise others make, but many others lack a position to make arguments that reach those with power over their fates.
With billions of people and opinions to hear, we have made principled decisions about whose opinions are worth attending and whose are part of the noise. In most societies, wealth and donations can buy access (witness the power of oligarchs and billionaire donors).
In some, leadership in an organization with numerous members can provide access. You can see this with the NRA leadership’s influence over Trump et al. You can also see it in the power of unions, and Trump’s efforts to decertify the union of immigration judges.
You can see the hardships people face without such unions, facing widespread gun violence without federal help, or working in warehouses without meaningful bathroom breaks or humane working conditions (AC), for example. Workers and people that stand as individuals in these conflicts lose their jobs, sometimes they lose more than that.
Petitions are not perfect. A handwritten letter or in-person visit can move some politicians. But a petition raises a common concern above the noise. They can also offer personal comments. That’s like a reasoned vote. Philosophers should vote, right?
19
@NotanExpert: Her whole piece is an excuse for why she personally doesn't care enough about the world to get involved in it. But I'm sure she will exercise all the freedoms that other people fought and died for. She is nothing more than an intellectual leech.
In a current case a small group of - I'll call them "culture cops" - decided it would be best to destroy a mural painted in a San Fransisco school 82 years ago. They deemed the work offensive, racist and worthy only of complete destruction. A view not shared by others. In fact most of the students in the school do not want to see the work destroyed. It would seem to me a petition advocating that the work not be destroyed, if signed by hundreds of students, would be of value. Why should a committee decide what can and cannot exists as art? Shouldn't the wishes of those who see the mural every day count? But this is complex. Democracy is messy. I do see the value of a reasoned argument over mere numbers of disbelievers. I also resist the fashion of signing petitions to thwart the exchange of ideas at universities, which comes in the form of blocking certain speakers. We are better when we can talk openly rather than silencing those we disagree with.
14
This appears to me as one shaky argument piled upon the next one. A petition is often not meant as a means to "persuade" anyone to agree with what it states, but as a spur to action to people with the power to carry it out. And even if philosophers carry their professional abilities and attitude into their personal lives, that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with their joining others to publicly express themselves. And finally, it can at times be so very important to spur those with power to change things that all other considerations fall by the wayside.
37
Imagine a society in which everyone was a philosopher, but which was controlled by a tyrannical, but rule-bound dictatorship. Suppose the dictatorship decreed a law that was obviously wrong to the overwhelming majority. For instance, the law could excuse murder when done by the regime. Would it be wrong to circulate and publish a petition, on the grounds that members of the society were philosophers? I would say, clearly not. That a petition is not merely an argument does not absolve philosophers from practical action on behalf of causes they believe to be morally right. Belief in free speech, and the importance of reasoned argument are also moral commitments, which should not be defended on a priori grounds simply by fetishizing the professional status of a philosopher. Some have training and derive income from it, but in essence every human is a philosopher, and their duties as such cannot be presumed always and everywhere to supersede their duties as citizens.
52
@Shaun Cutts
"For instance, the law could excuse murder when done by the regime."
Irony, right?
1
Thanks Prof. Collard. I have a question about the harm a pop sensation does by signing onto a philosophical position. He or she is not any better than any layman and worse than any philosopher, but people tend to listen and act on their ‘wisdom,’ which is far more dangerous. Most philosophers are not well known and the damage they may cause is limited. It may even help a layman to summarize his enquiry or to start an in-depth enquiry instead of re-inventing the wheel.
So in sum, I disagree.
5
"There is no greater threat to intellectual culture than the thought that when it really counts, when it actually matters to us, we philosophers give up on doing philosophy. If we don’t believe in what we’re doing, no one else will either."
Non-tenured faculty members, whether philosophers or from any other field should not sign petitions. Faculty members who are not full professors should not sign petitions. The academic world is petty and signing the wrong thing can come back to haunt. Only sign when you don't have anything to lose anymore.
I should like to point, though, Prof. Callard, that if you (academic) philosophers would stop doing philosophy for any reason, probably nobody else would notice or care.
20
A beautiful essay on the value of intellectual inquiry for its own sake. In our hyper-polarized environment this was a breath of bracing fresh air.
23
@Michael R, Bertrand Russell wept.
1
Thank you, Professor Callard, for addressing the reason that there is validity in asking "why." I guarantee that the intellectually inquisitive are in the minority - I would say because it is harder to seek a rational answer than simply accept a fact but I find the seeking of reason is an organic necessity for me, rather than a mere volitional exercise.
2
Callard's arguments here, of course, are philosophical in structure, as befits a philosopher, and the argument itself, so it has the virtue of being internally consistent.
The problem with that, though, is that being internally consistent is not a concern of a lot of the people who would be involved in the counterarguments, or in the signing of petitions. Internal consistency is a concern of many, if not most, philosophical positions, but it would be erroneous to assume that those who do not value that would be persuaded by arguments that find it important in the first place; philosophers tend to follow rules of argument that are of less concern in other realms, in which number of "experts" (ethos) or emotional appeal (pathos) may well outstrip logical consistency (logos) in their competitive persuasive power, due to the characteristics of the audience.
In essence, it may well be a logical argument that one needs to know one's audience, and adopt appropriate methods of persuasion for it, even if those methods are not logical.
11
And Plato did have something to say about needing to adopt other means of persuasion when addressing non-philosophers.