In addition, I’ve followed Maria Lugones in believing that playfulness is extremely important. I’ve written about that importance for morality but,
unfortunately, have never really mastered the art of playful reasoning. That would also be something to examine, as well as how it could or should figure in a philosophical education. Those who approach argument with a bit of playfulness can probably learn
to use humor, gently and constructively when appropriate, but also protectively when confronted by those who are deadly serious about destruction and harm with whatever means are necessary.
The more I write, the more important I think this subject is and the more I think it requires a great deal of serious examination. Maybe a bit of
playful examination as well!
Linda A. Bell
Emerita Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Women’s Studies Institute
Georgia State University
From: Feminist ethics and social theory [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Anne Waters
Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2014 1:48 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Good conduct in philosophy: in defence of mockery
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.
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]] 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 andhttp://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
############################
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
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