SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the journal-of-stupid-ideas-no-one-wants-to-take-responsibility-for dept.
The Journal of Controversial Ideas is already, well, controversial. Here's a founder's defense.
News broke last week that philosophers Jeff McMahan, Peter Singer, and Francesca Minerva are planning to start a publication called the Journal of Controversial Ideas, an interdisciplinary academic outlet where scholars will be allowed to present arguments and findings pseudonymously, without fear of damaging their reputation.
Almost immediately, the journal was cast as another volley in the wars over free speech and political correctness on college campuses. Critics mocked it as an attempt by white, privileged academics (while Minerva is a postdoc, Singer and McMahan are both among the most prominent applied ethicists in philosophy) to smuggle reactionary and bigoted views that academics would not feel comfortable airing under their own names. Not helping matters was McMahan's declaration to a reporter that he would be open to publishing an article defending eugenics, if its arguments were of sufficient quality.
"Essentially, it is a safe space, one where authors do not have to deal with feedback or criticism from those at the sharp end of their 'controversial' ideas," Nesrine Malik warned of the journal in a Guardian column. "It is publishing without the responsibility that comes along with that."
(Score: 4, Insightful) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday November 24 2018, @05:15AM (2 children)
Ayn Rand wanted her Objectivist "Philosophy" to be accepted as a viable philosophy, but the actual community of philosophers have never accepted it because they don't regard Rand's arguments as effective.
Real philosophers will happily accept any philosophy at all if the arguments for it are weighty enough. I once took an Ethics class at UC Santa Cruz. I hoped that I might learn the answers to all the Great Questions. What I actually did learn was how to make hair-splitting arguments.
Those hair-splitting arguments are what professional philosophers spend most of their time doing, for example in that Ethics class I was introduced to the term "Minimally-Sufficient Samaritan", being someone who has an opportunity to save a life; whether they are ethically required to do so depends entirely upon whether saving that life could arguably Minimally-Sufficient in light of what it might cost that Samaritan to do so.
Had Rand - or any of Rand's adherents - ever argued effectively in support of Objectivism, it would have been happily accepted by the philosophic community that they could devote the next three thousand years to arguing with each other about it.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 24 2018, @04:41PM (1 child)
So, the wife is a philosopher? She's always battling split ends.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 24 2018, @07:05PM
my kingdom for +½ Laffy Taffy funny