Death by Academia: The Brutally Honest Job Posting

I stumbled across a web site claiming access to a plethora of "urban legends," one of which, and I recite below, is said to have been written by a cynical SEMO philosophy department chair in the 1990's.

In any case, regardless of the element of "truth" found in this "job posting," it provides a good laugh at minimum, and just perhaps, a break sorely needed from all the non-stop banter on the horrific happenings on Wall-Street.

-------

SOUTHEAST MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY
Cape Girardeau, Missouri 63701

Enclosed is an announcement of a tenure-track position in philosophy at the rank of assistant professor. We hope to fill this position rapidly; the target date for our final decision is June 13. We are more interested in looking at candidates with real teaching experience than in newly minted Ph.D's, who might have unrealistic expectations about the possibilities for academic growth at an institution such as ours. Southeast Missouri State University is a regional university which serves students in the southeast portion of the state including St. Louis. Our students tend to be poorly prepared for college level work, intellectually passive, interested primarily in partying, and culturally provincial in the extreme. We offer a major in philosophy. but do not usually have more than two students officially declared as majors at any given time.

There are a few good students, however, and we are proud to say that our current graduating major, William Knorpp, won the 1985 Analysis competition and will be undertaking graduate study in philosophy at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill next year. Mr. Knorpp's upper level work was mainly accomplished through independent tutorials; and prospective candidate must understand that there will be virtually no opportunity to teach upper-division seminars in philosophy. We also offer a religious studies minor; most of the students who declare this minor are shocked to learn that Moses might not have written the Pentateuch and regard higher criticism as secular humanist propaganda. The 12 hrs/semester teaching load is devoted mainly to general education courses at the freshman/sophomore level. In another five years, if the general education curriculum is revised as promised, there may be seminars which are to "capstone" the G.E. program.

The academic environment at SEMO is distinctly non-intellectual — somewhat like a Norman Rockwell painting — and the candidate cannot expect to attract students by offering courses that assume innate curiosity about ideas and books, or intellectual playfulness, or independence of moral and political thought. Nevertheless. in order to earn promotion and tenure it is necessary to be involved in curriculum development and to sustain an interest in research and publication. It has occurred to me that the best candidate would be someone who has held the Ph.D. for more than two years, has taught at a community college or a rural state institution, and who would like to continue in somewhat the same vein but at a slightly higher level.I will be interviewing at the Central Division Meetings in St. Louis. If you have any questions, you may call me at my office.

Philosophy of Accountancy

Friend: "I spent all my Christmas money on my boyfriend's Christmas present, a Wii. "

Me: "I hope you saved some of your bonus to earn interest until you're ready for the downpayment on your house."

Friend: "Don't worry, I did. I also saved 10% by opening a target card and then I paid it off at customer service that day."

Me: "How magninimous of you for spending that much on your man."

Friend: "I don't know what "magninimous" means. Let me dictionary.com it."

Me: "That's because I made it up. You're forgetting I also have a philosophy degree - it gives me that right."

Friend: "Not necessarily, I have an accounting degree so I can make things up too."



Boo. Yah. Truth is revealed.

What Really Went Down In The Matrix...

On Liberalism & Tolerance

In asserting a pluralism of existing viewpoints, it seems that unavoidable conflicting possibilities may arise without some sort of check and balance.

Consider this idea: Should the tolerant tolerate the intolerant? Better yet, if the idea of freedom is threatened for all on the basis of someone or some group’s “hard principles” (i.e., individuals that represent those who are intolerant or unwilling to compromise on some issue, whether it be politics, religion, morality, etc..etc..) shouldn’t those committed to freedom step in and defend this notion (to maintain liberty for all)? But wouldn’t this make the “freedom-fighters” intolerant in a sort of round-about way as well (i.e., that nothing less should be accepted than their notion of liberty)?

I am tending to lean on a pragmatist humanist response that the only way to prevent such atrocities would be through a type of persuasive “coercion” – that is, my viewpoint is that only through successful reasoning and argumentation will the most plausible conclusion be arrived at. One can rest assured, if this method is in place, a solid conclusion will be arrived at. Any other method inevitably leaves the possibility of authoritarianism, or otherwise unverifiable claims which are, I believe, grounded in nothing less than fear and insecurity.

“So step up, and argue” – nothing less should be tolerated. Getting everyone to this point, however, calls for an argument in its own right.

Methodological Individualism

Assert individualism as correct. That society is a mere label applied in social situations to account for an entity that has no rights in itself. Rather, the individuals carry the rights and responsibilities in their actions. They alone are the arbiters of their productive and worthwhile futures based on the choices they make. How then are members of the family unit treated? Are children treated as property until a certain age? Or are they immediately treated as individuals capable of their own decisions? Or does this only happen at a certain period (varying from individual from individual) when that person learns to think for him or herself?

If children are viewed as property until a certain age before they become rationally acting beings, wouldn’t abortion be permissible up until that point? How would libertarian justify this either way? If a pro-life advocate wanted to defend abortion, wouldn’t they merely say that they had self-ownership of her own body and that any violation of this would be aggression against her freedoms of self, assuming that the fetus within her is merely property until becoming a rational being in itself with the rights of self-ownership. If that is not the case and both beings are entities with self-ownership abilities how would one even attempt to make a case for or against abortion?

Public Space

Assume that one has the right to ownership of him or herself—that one’s thoughts, beliefs, and actions belong to oneself. Then, if one has ownership of his or her thoughts actions and beliefs, and the application of these things also consist in the labor of one’s thoughts and actions into a product that can be economically exchanged in the market. Further, that this created product is also owned by the person that acted to create it. If all things are construed in this way in the market, and products may be applied also to intangible things (i.e., as described in property law) such as land, how is it that there may be public space at all if we needed one? When would we ever venture outside of our property—wouldn’t we get bored if there weren’t things to enjoy publicly? Wouldn’t there be the possibility that we’d be confined to our own space and that there wouldn’t be any thing at all such as a public space (i.e., parks, unclaimed oceans, resources). But if we decided there were such things we needed as the maintenance of public space, who would take care of it?

On Non-Coercion

If anything within the scope of non-coercion is permissible, under what circumstances are social relations established and maintained? That is, what would motivate one to engage in a social contract? Or is it merely assumed (i.e., through competitive advantage) that one would benefit more through engaging in forms of exchange? Also, when a contract is broken wouldn’t this be considered a violation to the violated party’s liberty? How would the justice be served in a libertarian society (i.e., would it be confined to methods such as arbitration, or would there be other options available)?

State of Nature

Assume humans in a “state of nature” naturally commit bad acts because this would be the worst case scenario (i.e., violence runs rampant, forceful action, sexual violence, and theft are common). We then emerge from this “state of nature” with the knowledge that we have a right to self-ownership, and ownership of our labor or property (assume this is as we are today, although these values have become somewhat convoluted). And the “state” was eventually created in order to keep us from anarchy. However, in a “perfect libertarian” society, the state does not exist at all.

If the government or the “state” is problematic (even in the limited sense), how are we to prevent another state of anarchy? Shouldn’t we assume the worst case scenario that it’s possible this could happen? And, wouldn’t this also be awful if it happened? That is, how do we “know” that in a “perfect libertarian society” that human nature will assume a rational/cooperative stance (i.e., adhere to the axiom implied with non-aggression, and a rational belief in natural rights)?

A Brief Note on “Book Cannibalism”

Yes, I’m a believer. It is one thing to have something that needs to be read (i.e., something one desires to read for some end) but quite another to read it and do it well. By doing it “well” I mean taking the topic at hand and breaking it down into smaller, more easily analyzable pieces. Then, after those pieces are thoroughly considered, they may be put back together to form a whole which can be seen more precisely. It is only in this way that I think reading is done “well” since only thorough analysis to the greatest extent possible allows for both immediate understanding, but also better long-term retention of the material.

In a sense, one must get “down and dirty” with the text if any value is to be derived from it. For me, this means having a tangible text which I can annotate in the margins (and a good book is one with large margins and adequate spacing between lines!) with general comments, underline, cross-reference within the book itself, cross-reference to books by the same author, cross-reference to books of different but similar or conflicting authors, cross-reference to secondary sources, and sometimes even highlight or sticky-tab as a start. It is a place where I begin to argue on specific points, raise questions, and break down the author’s assumptions to find out where I agree and disagree on important areas. I’m also a visual learner, and thus for anything over say, 50 or so pages, I think it’s important to have this “tangible” ability to really get “down and dirty” with the text. I can’t even begin to describe the fears I placed in many student’s eyes in college after I gave a philosophy presentation in which they awkwardly confronted me afterwards saying that they “actually” began to understand the material because I had helped them to visualize the arguments and navigate around conceptual inconsistencies. If only they would take the time to do this for themselves, they would know.

Ahh…a curious state of affairs this is….. perhaps I need to go digest a recommendable book on the subject. That is, on the topic of reading about reading, or “Book Cannibalism.” Or maybe I’ll just continue reading the “prime” stuff. Whatever the case, I just wanted to make that point. And I'm glad I did...

On Class Struggle & Literature

I'm going to quote a bit of Hazlitt from a passage I particularly like - read the full article here.

I want to be careful I don't take anything out of context - so I'm just going to keep this in mind and comment more on it later. In the mean time I must say (especially to myself) : read and think about it.

~
It may be well at this point to ask just how much a culture is invalidated or suspect because it is a "class" culture. We are led to suppose, under extreme interpretations of the doctrine of economic determinism, that our economic status inevitably determines our opinions, that those opinions are mere rationalizations of our class status. Let us admit the element of truth in this; let us admit that our economic status influences the opinions of each of us, in various unconscious and subtle — and sometimes not so subtle — ways.
"Those who seek to dismiss practically all existing culture by the mere process of labeling it 'bourgeois' are not necessarily Marxists. They are simply new barbarians, celebrants of crudity and ignorance."

Is it impossible for the individual to surmount these limitations? Is it impossible for him, once he has recognized this prejudice, to guard against it as he guards against other prejudices? Is the limitation of class necessarily any more compelling than the limitation of country, of race, of age, of sex? Because Proust was a Frenchman, his writing is naturally colored by his French environment; it is different from what it would have been had he lived all his life in England. But does Proust's Frenchness diminish, to any extent worth talking of, his value to American readers?

Shakespeare, as a seventeenth-century writer, was naturally limited by the lack of knowledge and many of the prejudices of his age; his age colors his work. Does that mean that he is of little value to the twentieth-century reader? Because Dreiser is a man, does he lose his value for women readers? Does Willa Cather lose hers for men readers? The answers to these questions are so obvious that it seems almost childish to ask them. The great writer with great imaginative gifts may universalize himself. If not in a literal sense, then certainly in a functional sense, he can transcend the barriers of nationality, age, and sex. And certainly he can, in the same functional sense and to the same degree, transcend the barrier of class.

Shaken, Not Stirred...

Okay, y'all know my interest in Bond keeps a tight hold on me (it's uh.. magical, I dare say, yes indeed, magical) . This hold pertains most obviously to the magninimous attractiveness of his (whoops! almost a typo there) character and his cinematic-adventures in general. :)

Well, one of my professors and an incredible mentor (can I even say that for lack of a better word?) from college has co-written an excellent article in the popular philosophy series book James Bond and Philosophy entitled: "That Fatal Kiss: Bond, Ethics, and the Objectification of Women."

So check it out.

Needless to say, I can't describe my elation for consideration from a male viewpoint on this subject.

Bond, I knew you'd never fail me. *sigh*

On objectification, that is.

And guys, women need more stuff like this. It helps us think you are more than just banal, insensible brutes. ;-)

Defend your honor.

Thanks Bond. You made us think, even when we didn't want t.... (oops again!) ;-)

"Being-In-The-World"

Considering One Frustrated Media Student's Biblical Interpretation

In response to Jon & Nick:

I think the video made by this media student guy was intended to trump the argument that if Biblical writings are considered infallible truth from God, and all statements the Bible makes must be true, then it follows that nothing in reality can or should disagree/conflict with this truth. But it doesn’t make sense then that the meaning of a couple of very basic Biblical statements, “The fool has said in his heart there is no God. They are corrupt, their deeds are vile, and there is no one who does good,” would require intense contextualization or hermeneutical approaches to defend its own truth value. The burden of proof is not on the Atheists here but on the Christians for maintaining the authority of the Bible when claims such as this can easily be proven untrue. It’s a common misperception by Christians that “good” Atheists/Agnostics don’t exist, and by “good” I mean that they have a keen sense of moral agency while also having quite intensely defined political values and concerns as citizens. But this non-existence can be cited to the contrary – even to the affect that they are also quite happy in their position for living out their own personal and economically productive lives, and do not constantly view themselves in a perpetual state of “angst” or even "despair."

In my opinion and experience, the video does offer strengths in pointing out the existence of a serious minority of Atheists/Agnostics. In quantifying how many precisely and the percentage of Atheists as compared to Christians, I would simply hesitate when accepting any statistic as accurate or valid, although I think this guy has the general idea correct that there are more Christians than known Atheists. I’ve heard the idea over and over that many Atheists are very likely afraid to “come out” for fear of retaliation and thus the statistic may be inevitably skewed by not including those people. There are other reasons/criticisms on this as well that Nick and Jon addressed for which I agree, but I have intended to keep this post as brief and to the point as possible.

I do also agree with Jon & Nick in that I don’t see how he makes his conclusion any more compelling by equating good Atheist people as Atheist movie stars. It makes the video's conclusion on a whole, weak. Unless he meant to show that if things we enjoy (e.g., like movies) are good actions, then obviously we must know these are good Atheists and so good Atheists exist and the above Biblical statement cannot be true. But if “good” means being a moral person (which I think it should mean & the Christian God would have meant it to mean), then citing celebrities as good Atheists can’t be convincing since the sole fact that they were in a movie says nothing about their moral character as a person. But just because the video is unconvincing in this way doesn't mean there aren't any good Atheists out there, which is obviously not the case.

As Nick said, the video seems to portray both Atheists and Christians in worse-case extremist scenarios. Although the video was made by a disgusted Atheist and meant to address Christians, exceptions to the general rule of what defines Christian people and Atheist people must be taken into account. If in some circles the possibility exists that a person would be considered “such-and-such” then for this guy’s purpose he says let’s lump them together into this category (hence, the video interprets the Atheist designation as including Agnostics which is an entirely different position on many grounds & illustrates only the extreme right-wing Christian designation and further implies that these people are all un-intelligent idiots without a coherent response to such a Biblical claim). If it’s not considered that it’s possible “All Atheists are not bad” and “All Christians are not bad,” then I could see where conflict could easily erupt among people in both camps attempting to interpret the video. Strict dichotomies eliminate diversity in realistic thought, and in theory it’s easy to make this mistake when trying to gain traction with such a pluralistically complex issue. Ultimately, however, the video lacks the weight I think it was intended to have based on these limitations/omissions.

Naturalism Vs. Supernaturalism

The article presented in Wired’s current issue gives an interesting summary account by Gary Wolf, on the movement known as “New Atheism” surrounding most notably Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett.

Over cocktails, Sam Harris shows no reserve in promoting his “Religion of Reason,” Wolf writes. Even more, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins’s statements are ones which should be characterized as belligerent, and more generally with a predilection for pissing folks off with a “style of debate as maddening as it is reasonable.”

Even though my personal convictions lie parallel with many facets of “Atheism,” (more closely would probably be Agnosticism) I must say I respond with a growing disdain over many of the ideas Wolf brings to light.

Central to my disagreement, especially as Wolf has painted Dawkins, is the thread of intolerance for ideas contrary to his own – not merely disagreement, but intolerance. Dawkins (according to Wolf) advances the idea that it is not acceptable for those without religious belief to merely get on with life, as they see the religious endeavor mostly, if not altogether pointless. Instead, one should ceaselessly proselytize his or her beliefs with conversion as an end-goal, much as how the Christian canon mandates. According to Wolf, “evangelism is a moral imperative” for individuals like Dawkins.

I agree that the Dawkins as Wolf paints raises some valid points, especially as he discusses that children should be raised with a tone of instruction which encourages independence and free-thought—and not as property.

However, the “New Atheist” exhortation that the non-religious are morally inept without a tone of evangelism in their beliefs seems nothing more to me than an oxymoron stemming from a passion out of whack, or perhaps a desire to gain social momentum for an idea out of a fit of loneliness. In other words, to state that respectability of a system of beliefs is attained and justified only through militant means or with an “end-goal” in mind is absurd. I like to think instead that sensible discussion on civil grounds, that is, discussion “in and for itself” and not coercion – is well served, if not for any motivation other than to achieve a continuously greater understanding of that individual in particular, or the universe's possibilities in general. But belief through a forced "faith" can only disintegrate into nothingness unless reinforced through consistent manifest or otherwise tangible experiences.

I begin to think that Wolf may have exaggerated Dawkins’ views to a certain extent as he quotes Dawkins in a debate. In that debate, he says that,

“there's an infinite number of things that we can't disprove. You might say that because science can explain just about everything but not quite, it's wrong to say therefore we don't need God. It is also, I suppose, wrong to say we don't need the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, Thor, Wotan, Jupiter, or fairies at the bottom of the garden. There's an infinite number of things that some people at one time or another have believed in, and an infinite number of things that nobody has believed in. If there's not the slightest reason to believe in any of those things, why bother? The onus is on somebody who says, I want to believe in God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, or whatever it is. It is not up to us to disprove it."

My question to Wolf would be, “If the onus is on those with ‘bogus’ beliefs – then why has Wolf portrayed Dawkins with a penchant for establishing that his own onus exists on grounds that his own belief in Atheism is not also possibly bogus?”

Regardless of my skepticism in Wolf, he concludes well with the following:

“If we reject their polemics, if we continue to have respectful conversations even about things we find ridiculous, this doesn't necessarily mean we've lost our convictions or our sanity. It simply reflects our deepest, democratic values. Or, you might say, our bedrock faith: the faith that no matter how confident we are in our beliefs, there's always a chance we could turn out to be wrong.”

Re: “A lot of economic theory and a bit of common sense”

So there’s a convention…and then more conventions… and oh wait – more conventions. Let’s blindly keep following them because, well, they are conventional. Forget about intellectual freedom. Equality. You know, those basic rights. Not to mention the rational foundation on which we make choices. Nah.. it’s just how it always has been and so it should remain so. But wait, there was this thing recently called the Civil Rights Movement. What did that have to do with anything?

He doesn’t get into that. Instead, he wants to talk about “Career Women” with a capital “C.” Michael Noer is his name and he's the executive news editor for Forbes magazine.

In his much debated article originally published August 22^nd 2006 (a revised version and with co-response is linked under "Career Women" above), he gives a word of marriage advice to today’s modern man: “Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don't marry a woman with a career.”

What exactly does that mean? Well, he goes on to define his terms. “To be clear, we're not talking about a high school dropout minding a cash register. For our purposes, a ‘career girl’ has a university-level (or higher) education, works more than 35 hours a week outside the home and makes more than $30,000 a year.”

According to Noer, marriage is a “stressful” situation and [based solely on that idea] “professional” career women are more likely to suffer a greater chance of divorce, be more likely to cheat on their husbands, and have less kids. Marriage is merely an “exercise in economic labor specialization.” Even more to the point, he says “Women's work hours consistently increase divorce, whereas increases in men's work hours often have no statistical effect.”

Tell me Noer, why should women be stripped of making their own choices for what role they choose in a marriage? Better yet, why should they alone carry the burden for what makes a happy marriage? I suppose these notions struck the core of me when reading this, as when I was a child, frankly, I didn’t dream of sitting at home having a bunch of kids and playing house like that was my destiny in life. Instead, I saw having a happy family and a career. I guess it meant kind of like having an identity, or something to define me outside the home. To me that fundamental idea was, and still is important to me. Just how to carry that out from a female perspective [and that’s a complex subject for another day] is not at all what he gets into. In fact, the way I see it he’s got the whole situation backwards.

Conceptually the fundamental assumption he holds is that the status quo should be maintained since there simply is no way around the “traditional” fact that women typically have stayed home to raise a family and men have gone out to work. In other words, there is no alternative, since “statistically” working outside the home does not affect men in the same way as it does women. But much of his purported argument doesn’t even get off the ground because of the high flying assumptions he attempts to make rational.

In my opinion, any one of these ideas could be replaced with “either spouse” and the logic would work the same. Simply because a marriage [ahem… it’s intuitive here] involves two people and not one. So in sorting out the few specifics he actually gives for not marrying career women (i.e., don’t marry..b/c of increased cheating, divorce, less kids) he doesn’t even acknowledge or anticipate the potential weaknesses to his reasons or even recognize the exclusivity of his claims. I agree with his idea that marriage is indeed something you have to “work” at, and it’s hard work. But he must know this… every marriage is not the same in regard to "cookie-cutter" roles, but any marriage can be a happy one. And the rewards for that work are not only satisfying, but ten fold. Or, you know, even more than that. There simply is no limit. I'd like to know how many times he's been divorced. But let’s be realistic about his claims. Marriage is for a long time. So inevitably there are going to be an abundance of temptations to “cheat” on a spouse. But what he doesn’t even come close to saying is that in any role, traditional or not, either spouse is prone to these risks. But we all know that’s where the importance of love and commitment come into play; maintaining and meeting each other’s needs and desires. So in a stable marriage the issue of whatever either spouse is doing career-wise or not doesn’t make a bit of difference, as long as each spouse consistently makes a concerted effort to maintain the relationship. Likewise, then there will also be no need for divorce if these things are upheld, so his second reason is also thrown to the wind. Finally, the issue of being faced with having fewer kids brings up several points I’d like to contend with. In my experience with young newly married working women, I don’t know any of these working “career” women that don’t wish to have children of their own one day. While I agree it may be more difficult while the children are young to raise them while working, it doesn’t seem impossible, or even illogical to not be able to have both kids and a career. There are many ways to work around this, and companies are making it [albeit slowly] easier to happen. And to use this situation to the best advantage - if both spouses are working, why can’t that extra income be used to pay for private school for the kids, save for their kids college education, or chuck a hefty bit of money away for both spouses to have a comfortable retirement. I mean, if you have the extra income why not spoil your kids to the N-th degree? In my mind, this should be just as much an option as either spouse choosing to stay home with the kids. And realistically, all of these financial things would be more difficult to achieve with only one spouse working. And of course there are the reasons for the traditional role, mainly more time spent between parent and child, greater ease with breastfeeding, less daycare costs, housekeeping costs, etc. etc. In short, (and this has turned to be everything but that, hehe.) I think every couple should be afforded the option to have choices, and weighing the pros and cons are important in any marriage. The structure of each marriage is a function of the individuals themselves, including all the unique characteristics and factors that go along with that. And these are the reasons marriage is so exciting [Remember Noer?] Thus the answer to the equation simply cannot be churned out by a simple formula for all, and my comments have been aimed to show that this is precisely what Noer has intended to suggest.