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]] 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 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] or click the following link: https://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=FEAST-L&A=1