Diana is right, I heard that paper was fabulous.  :)   Just to say, I'm
trying to avoid this conversation because I just can't with this stuff.
But since apparently my ears were ringing and I checked in, I figure I
should point out that I love philosophy because it is an intellectual
contact sport.  But I genuinely want to spit on people who mock.  Tease-
yes; shred- yes; obliterate- yes.  Mock?  No.  Just no.  Again....No.  It
may appear that I lack eloquence but honestly these conversations are a
non-starter with me and I don't feel compelled to entertain ridiculous
defenses of jerk behavior.

On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Meyers, Diana <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>   Hi All — In regard to the issue of mentoring that has come up, I can’t
> resist mentioning that Shay Welch, while still a grad student, published a
> *Hypatia *Musing, “‘Fit,’ Mentoring, and Commitment” (vol. 26, #4, fall
> 2011).  I recommend it!  Diana
>  **************************************
> Diana Tietjens Meyers
> Professor Emerita of Philosophy
> University of Connecticut, Storrs
> [log in to unmask]
> http://dianatietjensmeyers.wordpress.com/
>
>
>   From: Johnathan Flowers <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Johnathan Flowers <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Saturday, October 4, 2014 at 4:12 PM
> To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Good conduct in philosophy: in defence of mockery
>
>   Anne, I want to question this statement:
>
>  "I would enjoy seeing a professional paper on this, especially one that
> covers “mentoring,” “humor” and “getting it right”!  Indeed it could be a
> topic for Hypatia!  But, it could only be successfully accomplished, I
> believe, by those who have tenure, who have been on “both sides of the
> fence” as it occurs in many subtle and nuanced ways."
>
>  My thinking is that input from graduate students (and undergrads too) is
> necessary and even valuable, especially in light of the observation that
> mockery may flow downwards. At present, the discussion seems to be
> concerned with faculty mocking one another, a situation of near equals (and
> I am aware of the ways in which gender and race play into the dynamics of
> infra-faculty conversation), as opposed to faculty/graduate student
> relations or graduate student/graduate student relations.
>
>  I pose this question in light of the way in which mockery might
> contribute to the further marginalization of areas of thought and thinkers,
> as has been indicated by others in this thread. Imagine the effect that a
> faculty mocking a graduate student, particularly one focusing on an
> underrepresented space in philosophy, as they move forwards. Particularly
> if that student lacks an institutional support structure.
>
>  Further, the ways that graduate students duplicate the actions of the
> faculty can compound the effects of mockery especially if we take this to
> be a defacto practice in the field of philosophy. I am sure we all are
> aware of the conception of philosophy as an intellectual contact sport.
>
>  John Flowers
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 4, 2014, at 10:48 AM, Anne Waters <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>  Hope everyone is have an excellent week end!
>
>  I agree with Nancy and Helen,
>
>  I tend to think, at this historical time, that “mocking” is endemic to
> philosophy, and perhaps more so than other disciplines, both as we are the
> “capstone” discipline, and the arbiters of good reasoning practices.  The
> fallacy of  mockery, i.e. “if you can’t convince them, get their attention,
> or get them out of your program, or journal, simply mock!” is well known to
> philosophers, as we have all witnessed this in the profession, consciously
> or not.  I believe this fallacy falls under the category of “philosophy of
> humor.”  After all, we all know the Hypatia story of the soiled article.
>
> So I doubt any current faculty member has escaped the phenomenon, in
> either the receiving or giving.  And, philosophical psychology tells us,
> *it* travels downhill. It is a moral as well as political question
> whether it is a good thing for our, and other disciplines.  It has a
> purpose, which is to train, in a Skinner behaviorist manner, young
> individuals (especially graduate students and junior faculty, both young),
> to think as one wants them to, in order to duplicate (psychic reproduction)
> oneself in the profession (see Lou Outlaw’s work).  Just one example, you
> can observe (experience it for oneself or witness others) in departments
> when people discuss or “wonder” who “X’s” replacement will be (“surely not
> Y, as they …………..").  And it certainly plays out in job scenarios.  If you
> doubt this feminist philosophers can provide plenty stories, I’ve heard
> many.
>
>  Is mockery there?  Yes, the facts bear this out, whether collected as
> data or not.  Whether blatant at a conference, or in quiet when the person
> is not present, it serves personal purposes of arrogance and narcissistic
> tendencies, and political purposes of making junior faculty (and students)
> be “put in place” both psychologically and scholarly.  It sets a path of
> “correct thinking” eg. as in “they just didn’t get it right!” requiring no
> further explanation or insight, and sometimes without even understanding
> the scholar’s work that is mocked.  Senior scholars are frequently shown
> great respect in their mocking abilities.
>
>  The question i believe, is whether it serves a legitimate purpose?  And
> correlatively, whether that purpose is a desirable purpose in the
> philosophical profession?
>
>  I would enjoy seeing a professional paper on this, especially one that
> covers “mentoring,” “humor” and “getting it right”!  Indeed it could be a
> topic for Hypatia!  But, it could only be successfully accomplished, I
> believe, by those who have tenure, who have been on “both sides of the
> fence” as it occurs in many subtle and nuanced ways.
>
>  best 2 cents today,
> warm smile, :-)
> anne
>     Dr. Anne Waters, J.D., Ph.D.
> [log in to unmask]
>  http://foxgull.com/aswaters/default.html
>  http://philpapers.org/profile/61350
>  http://www.apaonline.org/members/
>
>  On Oct 4, 2014, at 10:20 AM, Potter,Nancy Lee Nyquist <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>   Dear all,
>
>  I have a difficult time understanding why there should be a place for
> mockery in philosophical discussions/debates, for two reasons. First, the
> OED synonyms for mockery are ‘ridicule, derision, contempt, and scorn.’ In
> my view, those attitudes don’t have a place in constructive exploration and
> critique of ideas; they serve to put down and humiliate the communicator.
> The spirit of philosophical *engagement, *which is what I assume we are
> striving for*, * is broken or at least damaged when the communicator’s
> ideas make her feel humiliated and scorned. But more importantly, the fact
> that we can find evidence of the use of mockery in philosophical debate is
> no defense of the moral appropriateness of it.
>
>  Respectfully,
>  Nancy
>
>   *From:* Feminist ethics and social theory [
> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf
> Of *helen lauer
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 04, 2014 12:45 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Good conduct in philosophy: in defence of mockery
>
>   Dear Thomas, Seth,
>
>   I'm sorry I'm a little confused by all this anxiety about mockery.
> With due respect--if I could find even ONE woman who hadn't been openly and
> blatantly mocked at least once in her training as a student or in her
> post-doctoral career in philosophy, I would be glad to offer a year's
> salary as a forfeit.
>
>   Helen Lauer
>   professor of philosophy
>   University of Ghana, Legon
>
>
>   On Saturday, October 4, 2014 3:20 AM, Thomas Smith <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
> There’s been some discussion lately of good conduct in (especially oral)
> philosophical debate. An emerging view is that we can consistently
> maintain high standards of critical, reasoned debate and polite,
> respectful standards of behaviour. I am not so sure. Bullying (especially
> of the weak by the strong) is intolerable. Mockery, however, for example
> of the absurdity or vacuity of another’s position, is an important
> rhetorical device that is central to our tradition. We fondly teach
> instances by e.g. Socrates, Hume, Russell and Anscombe. Mockery *can* be
> gentle and respectful, but it is never polite. Nad it may be hard
> (especially for the powerless and inexperienced, with few resources at
> their disposal) respectfully to mock. To conclude that we should not mock
> when we cannot do so respectfully, would be a mistake I think. Every
> conference hall contains a pampered Sophist, who may be doing their honest
>
> best, but who needs to “come off it”, and a whip-smart novice with thirty
> seconds with which to address them. They should not be meek, and may mock.
>
> Thomas Smith
> Philosophy
> University of Manchester
>
> Messages to the list are archived at
> http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/archives/philos-l.html
> <http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/archives/philos-l.html>and
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.region.europe.
>
> Current posts are also available via Facebook:
> https://www.facebook.com/PhilosL
>
> To sign off the list send a blank message to
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Discussions should be moved to chora: enrol via
> http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/archives/chora.html.
>   ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the FEAST-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <[log in to unmask]> or click the following
> link:https://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=FEAST-L&A=1
>
>
>   ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the FEAST-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <[log in to unmask]> or click the following
> link: https://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=FEAST-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the FEAST-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <[log in to unmask]> or click the following
> link: https://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=FEAST-L&A=1
>   ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the FEAST-L list: write to: mailto:
> [log in to unmask] or click the following link:
> https://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=FEAST-L&A=1
>



-- 
All my best,
Shay Welch
Assistant Professor of Philosophy
Spelman College

############################

To unsubscribe from the FEAST-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
https://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=FEAST-L&A=1