Comments on: Philosophers Talking About Themselves

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Thu, 08 Apr 2004 22:05:04 +0000

And that’s a good thing. Socially retarded people with pasty complexions and pencil necks who’ve read some books at least have something to talk about, in their pencil-necked way. Socially adept people – talk about other socially adept people and how badly they behave.

By: Lawrence L. White

Lawrence L. White — Thu, 08 Apr 2004 17:45:10 +0000

Are the men in philosophy more infantile than men in general? People in academics in general are more socially retarded than people in general. When all the other kids were in the street playing together they were inside reading books. “They” includes me.

By: isabel

isabel — Thu, 08 Apr 2004 17:02:42 +0000

“Alas McGinn also falls into the trap of insane and unjustified arrogance. He made some point about not discussing philosophy with other members of his department because they’re too stupid. His department being NYU, which is one of the world’s best.” He’s at Rutgers now…was he ever at NYU?

By: Karl Marx

Karl Marx — Thu, 08 Apr 2004 16:07:07 +0000

The main problem of feminism in philosophy is the infantile level of human development of many of the men who are in it. Are the men in philosophy more infantile than men in general? One of the problems with Martha Nussbaum is that she thinks of herself as so much more grown-up than those around her.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Thu, 08 Apr 2004 14:45:47 +0000

“Think of that movie (ten or so years ago?) about the two men who pick a woman” Neil Labute’s “In the Company of Men”

By: vivian

vivian — Thu, 08 Apr 2004 14:36:33 +0000

I think the key feature of ‘satanic’ is that cruelty and domination is practiced often, at random. The victim isn’t singling herself (himself too perhaps) out in any way, can do nothing to avoid the special destructiveness. Think of that movie (ten or so years ago?) about the two men who pick a woman at random, flirt with her, gain her confidence and then do horrible things, simply to have something to do. So this might not be as painful in any instance as the worst example of hatred, but hatred at least makes sense to the victim. The other sort, where you’re not even an object of hatred, but simply an opportunity, can be harder to get over. Different, not worse.

By: bryan

bryan — Thu, 08 Apr 2004 12:40:08 +0000

I’m not sure though which form of domination, that of hatred or that of satanic self-love, will lead to the worse pain for the sufferer under said domination.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Thu, 08 Apr 2004 11:52:00 +0000

“which I mean that they have an emptiness at their core that they fill with exercises in domination” Hating is relating. To exercise the will entirely for its own sake, to refuse to serve out of pride alone, is to place self-reference as an end in itself. The pleasure here in domination is not in hurting the other, for the other serves only as a mirror. Milton is good on the meaning of “Satanic”

By: jdsm

jdsm — Thu, 08 Apr 2004 10:43:55 +0000

Alas McGinn also falls into the trap of insane and unjustified arrogance. He made some point about not discussing philosophy with other members of his department because they’re too stupid. His department being NYU, which is one of the world’s best.

By: bryan

bryan — Thu, 08 Apr 2004 09:59:14 +0000

Actually I find the ‘Satanic’ one sort of interesting don’t you? I mean that it is represented as being the worst, and obviously has the worst label placed on it with a term such as Satanic, yet the description is somewhat vague and less damning than the others, it seems to me: “which I mean that they have an emptiness at their core that they fill with exercises in domination, which they market with a frequently dazzling charm. ” Is being empty at their core, whatever that means, really worse than hating oneself and others (given that we can understand what is meant by hating while being empty at the core must require some imagination to apprehend), is it worse to be dazzlingly charming than to call a woman a whore? And what is an exercise in domination, and how does it differ than the dominating aspects of these other problems? Looking again I suppose the ones with a fear of old age are probably better than the male Satanists, although it is rather hard to tell since that failing is exactly described, and the other is a figurative one on which any behavior could be hung when needed.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Thu, 08 Apr 2004 09:36:21 +0000

Another autobiography which is quite good is Colin McGinn’s The Making of a Philosopher.