Collective Nouns for Philosophers by Area of Specialization


murder of crows. A cackle of hyenas. A knot of toads. A confusion of philosophers? Or is it a fog of philosophers? Or…? There was some discussion of what we should call a collection of philosophers here several years ago.

What we didn’t cover were names of groups of philosophers by area of specialization. So…

What do we call a group of metaphysicians? Or political philosophers? Or Kant scholars? Or philosophers of science? Or epistemologists? Or…?

Your task is to pick a specialization in philosophy and provide a name for a group of philosophers working in that area. Accuracy and humor count in favor. Alliteration is optional. Go!

UPDATE: Names of groups of philosophers by position held are welcome, too.


guest
172 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Daniel Muñoz
3 months ago

A bundle of Humeans.Report

Jamie
Reply to  Daniel Muñoz
3 months ago

Not a “habit”?Report

Jen
Jen
Reply to  Jamie
3 months ago

Right! Bundles were not allowed through customs.Report

Plato's footnote
3 months ago

A (w)hole of philosophers of physics.Report

François Kammerer
3 months ago

A heap of logicians (esp. if they do vagueness)Report

Nathan Bauer
3 months ago

A manifold of Kantians?Report

JDF
JDF
Reply to  Nathan Bauer
3 months ago

Would go with ‘A Kingdom of Kantians’ myselfReport

Rollo Burgess
Reply to  JDF
3 months ago

I reckon a synthesis of kantiansReport

Jamie
Reply to  Nathan Bauer
3 months ago

A category?Report

Ramsey
Ramsey
Reply to  Nathan Bauer
1 month ago

a faculty of kantiansReport

Jeff Kasser
3 months ago

A term of nominalists.Report

David Wallace
Reply to  Jeff Kasser
3 months ago

Nominalist #1, and nominalist #2, and nominalist #3, and …Report

Lux Philos
3 months ago

A glut of dialetheistsReport

Name*
3 months ago

A single solipsistReport

Dan
Dan
3 months ago

A blip of presentistsReport

Sam Baron
Sam Baron
Reply to  Dan
3 months ago

A presence of presentists?Report

David Wallace
3 months ago

An entanglement of philosophers of quantum theory.Report

Jen
Jen
Reply to  David Wallace
3 months ago

A probabilistic wave…Report

Sam Baron
Sam Baron
3 months ago

a must of modal realistsReport

John Glenn
3 months ago

An angst of existentialists.Report

Jamie
Reply to  John Glenn
3 months ago

And perhaps an “angst’s length” of uncertainty for experimental philosophers?Report

Jen
Jen
3 months ago

A Form of PlatonistsReport

lrieppel
3 months ago

An argument of philosophers?

A judgement of aestheticians?

An archive of historians?Report

Animal Symbolicum
3 months ago

A bracket of Husserlians

A family resemblance of Wittgensteinians

A leap of Kierkegaardians

A satisfaction of model theoristsReport

Will
3 months ago

A Pocket of EpistemologistsReport

Mark Thakkar
3 months ago

A supposition of medievalists.Report

Roberto
3 months ago

A school of Thomists; a sleuth of epistemologists; a bloat of Heideggerians.Report

John Glenn
3 months ago

A suspension of skeptics.Report

Jen
Jen
Reply to  John Glenn
3 months ago

I thought they were know-nothings.Report

lrieppel
3 months ago

An infection of bioethicistsReport

Mark Thakkar
3 months ago

A growing block of no-futurists.Report

Ilkka Pättiniemi
3 months ago

A circle of positivists…Report

Clint Verdonschot
Clint Verdonschot
Reply to  Ilkka Pättiniemi
3 months ago

Same for hermeneuticiansReport

Ilkka Pättiniemi
Reply to  Clint Verdonschot
3 months ago

Indeed!Report

David Ebrey
3 months ago

An emanation of NeoplatonistsReport

A Philosopher
3 months ago

An incoherence of public reason liberalsReport

Mike
3 months ago

A wealth of HobbesiansReport

François Kammerer
3 months ago

a number of platonistsReport

Geoffrey Bagwell
3 months ago

An activity of Aristotelians

An irony of SocraticsReport

Ilmari Hirvonen
3 months ago

A nothing of nihilists.Report

Ilmari Hirvonen
3 months ago

An essence of metaphysicians.Report

Ilmari Hirvonen
3 months ago

A proof of logicians.Report

Bart
3 months ago

A closure of contextualistsReport

Justin
3 months ago

A box of evidential decision theorists.Report

Jamie
3 months ago

A non-empty set of mathematics philosophers

A body of philosophers of mind
(is that a problem?)

A multiple realization of funtionalists

A paradigm shift of Kuhnsians

No country for old continental philosophers

A mary of epiphenomenalists

A non-rigid designator of modal logicians

An emergence of linguists

A zombie apocalypse of physicalistsReport

Ilkka Pättiniemi
3 months ago

A futility of pragmatistsReport

Ilkka Pättiniemi
3 months ago

An operant of behavioristsReport

Jason Brennan
3 months ago

a forum of deliberative democrats
a wallet of libertarians
a level of egalitarians
a public of Rawlsians
a famine of MarxistsReport

Jamie
3 months ago

A mess of Marxists?Report

BOCKARIE KONDOWA
3 months ago

A bunch of ‘benthamists.’Report

David Bennett
3 months ago

A brute of Hobbesians
An ecotome of environmental philosophersReport

Alan White
3 months ago

A fluke of luck theorists.Report

David Bennett
3 months ago

A Recurrence of NietzscheansReport

Jen
Jen
3 months ago

An unintuitive consequence of utilitarians.Report

Hey Nonny Mouse
3 months ago

A murder of utilitarians.

A truce of Hobbesians.

A tangle of four-dimensionalists.

A herd of philosophers.Report

Jen
Jen
3 months ago

An absurdity of many-valued-logicians.Report

Jason Brennan
3 months ago

A klan of critical race theoristsReport

Dave Dixon
Dave Dixon
Reply to  Jason Brennan
3 months ago

Wait. Are you implying that critical race theorists are members of the KKK? Is “klan” a technical term? Sorry, I don’t follow.Report

Jason Brennan
Reply to  Dave Dixon
3 months ago

Critical race theory is pro-racism (despite calling itself anti-racist), so calling CRTs a “klan” is a way of properly mocking them for their badness.Report

Jen
Jen
Reply to  Jason Brennan
3 months ago

Regarding all of CRT as being pro-racism is as ridiculous as regarding all whites as being pro-racism.Report

Jason Brennan
Reply to  Jen
3 months ago

No, because CRT is a racist doctrine, while whether white people are pro-racist is contingent upon what the white people in question believe or do. Because CRT is essentially racist, if you endorse CRT, you are racist. You are bad and should feel bad about yourself.Report

Jen
Jen
Reply to  Jason Brennan
3 months ago

Calling it a “racist doctrine” or “essentially racist” doesn’t make it so. Whether individual theorists are pro-racism depends on what they believe or do. You haven’t identified an essential principle of CRT which would make obvious CRT’s pro-racism or its being essentially racist. If you identify one, I’ll agree with you that CRT is pro-racism.Report

Justin Kalef
Reply to  Jen
3 months ago

But we’ve tried this before. It goes like this:

A: “I love Critical Race Theory.”

B: “Wonderful! Since you praise it, you’ve clearly understood it.”

C: “I, however, disagree with Critical Race Theory. Here’s why…”

B: “You obviously don’t have any idea what Critical Race Theory is if you think that _that_ follows from it. This uninformed criticism sounds like nothing more than an incompetent ‘talking point’ concocted by the hacks at Fox News. Ugh.”

C: “All right. If I’ve got CRT wrong, could you please tell me the main tenets of CRT?”

B: “CRT is so complex that no summary can do it justice. Also, it’s not our job to rescue you from your ignorance, and it’s emotionally fatiguing for us to do so. Go read up on it.”

C: “Okay. Which book or article will you take to contain an authoritative statement of CRT?”

B: “CRT is a vast and diverse ocean of scholarship. But I’ll do you the favor of recommending this one book to get you started.”

C: “Okay. So if I read that book, and I then raise a criticism with CRT as articulated in that book, you won’t dismiss my criticism as merely an indication of my profound and shameful ignorance?”

B: “No, because every CRT scholar defines this amazing school of thought differently. It’s not even a school of thought, properly speaking, but a collection of… well, words fail me. You have to immerse yourself in it properly to know.”

And so on.

More succinctly:

e4u752ahntk51.jpg (1024×439) (redd.it)Report

Jen
Jen
Reply to  Justin Kalef
3 months ago

I don’t love CRT. Based on what I know of it, I regard it as misguided. I’m simply taking issue with the apparently ridiculous claim that CRT is pro-racism. So the claim that we’ve done this before is inaccurate.

Brennan can settle the issue simply: he can substantiate his claim by stating a principle that (1) can plausibly be attributed to CRT as essential and that (2) makes obvious its pro-racism. And until he does, his claim appears to be ridiculous. To do it, he can cite a paper he believes to be standardly endorsed by CRTs, one he takes to imply or explicitly appeal to the principle. It really should not be very difficult for him, since he is so confident that he is correct.Report

Prof L
Prof L
Reply to  Jen
3 months ago

It’s CRT’s unwillingness to admit that CRT is racist that makes CRT racist.

Did that work?Report

Last edited 3 months ago by Prof L
Jen
Jen
Reply to  Prof L
3 months ago

Are you claiming it is essential to CRT that if x is unwilling to admit its own racism, x is racist? If so, I’d be interested to know why.Report

Prof L
Prof L
Reply to  Jen
3 months ago

I’m not making any essentialist theoretical claims.

But the heartbeat of racism is denial, and the heartbeat of anti-racism is confession. When CRT says “I’m not racist” it is using the language that white supremacists use. Jim Crow segregationists said they weren’t racist, etc.. If CRT confesses its racism, that’s the first step to change.Report

Last edited 3 months ago by Prof L
Jen
Jen
Reply to  Prof L
3 months ago

What about the confession “I’m anti-racist in supporting such-and-such policy”? Doesn’t this rule out (and so deny) being racist in one’s support of the policy? If so, denial cannot be a reliable indicator of racism. Or are we racist in everything we do, including the anti-racist things we do? CRTs surely cannot sensibly accept that we are.

If we’re racist in everything we do, being racist is completely unavoidable and is not to be avoided. CRTs surely cannot sensibly accept that racism is not to be avoided.Report

Prof L
Prof L
Reply to  Jen
3 months ago

No! Saying one is anti-racist, and therefore not racist, is denial and racism.

See how this works?

I’m sorry. I’m not being serious. Just poking a little fun. I don’t actually think CRT is racist, at least not in a conventional sense. I do think that it’s dangerous nonsense.Report

Jen
Jen
Reply to  Prof L
3 months ago

I see (and suspected as much). And I understand the point: many who support CRT are willing to and sometimes do make ridiculous claims in defense of CRT. But the same can be said for nearly any theory, and to the extent that it’s possible, the theory should be evaluated separately from the nonsense claims supporters make.

I’m still left wondering whether (setting aside the inessential nonsense) there is anything to substantiate Brennan’s claim.Report

Justin Kalef
Reply to  Jen
3 months ago

I’m simply taking issue with the apparently ridiculous claim that CRT is pro-racism. So the claim that we’ve done this before is inaccurate.

I don’t see the logical connection between the premise and conclusion of that argument.

Brennan can settle the issue simply: he can substantiate his claim by stating a principle that (1) can plausibly be attributed to CRT as essential and that (2) makes obvious its pro-racism. And until he does, his claim appears to be ridiculous. To do it, he can cite a paper he believes to be standardly endorsed by CRTs, one he takes to imply or explicitly appeal to the principle. It really should not be very difficult for him, since he is so confident that he is correct.”

I don’t see how that’s meant to be a simple way of settling it. Following your enumerations:

(1) For any principle he states, it seems clear (for the reasons I already gave) that you or anyone else can arbitrarily claim that that principle doesn’t follow from _true_ CRT; and if this is disputed, you or others can make the response that anyone who really understands CRT would know the difference, etc.

(2) If Brennan shows that the passage he finds implies that members of one race should be treated differently than members of another race, or are in some way more culpable, etc. than members of another race, merely because of their race membership, then (following practices I’ve seen here and elsewhere many times) people can chide him for using an antiquated, unenlightened definition of ‘racism’ on the grounds that certain ideological schools of thought use the term ‘racism’ in new ways now.

Nothing simple about it! And we’ve seen these sorts of shenanigans often enough to expect them.Report

Jen
Jen
Reply to  Justin Kalef
3 months ago

Try harder to see the connection. I neither endorse nor love CRT, so I’m not like those people to which you allude in your comment. If the disagreement to which you allude in your comment is between one who endorses and one who opposes CRT, then what we’re doing here is different if I do not endorse CRT. Since I don’t endorse it…

Further, the issue I’m raising is this: Brennan’s claim is apparently ridiculous if he fails to substantiate it. It is simple to settle the issue because to settle it, Brennan can simply substantiate his claim.Report

Last edited 3 months ago by Jen
Jen
Jen
Reply to  Jason Brennan
3 months ago

Since Brennan is apparently incapable of substantiating his claim, perhaps one of his minions will do it for him.Report

Prof L
Prof L
Reply to  Jen
3 months ago

The claim that CRT is racist is not original to Brennan (if indeed he’s serious). If you are genuinely curious, you can look at the work of John McWhorter, who argues for this in various ways and has a book forthcoming on the topic.Report

Jen
Jen
Reply to  Prof L
3 months ago

I’m not interested in the topic of CRT itself. I’m interested in people substantiating their claims so that nonsense in public fora can be rooted out wherever it exists.Report

UK Grad
UK Grad
Reply to  Jason Brennan
3 months ago

Quite apart from whether it is true that CRT is pro-racist, I take issue with this comment since it is (either intentionally or unintentionally) inflammatory. This thread is clearly intended as fun and light-hearted, but comparing some philosophers to members of the KKK is neither. I think this is true even if opponents to CRT believe the comparison is funny – for such opponents should be able to realise that the comparison is probably *not* funny to critical race theorists themselves. This creates an unwelcome atmosphere, which seems contrary to the aims of Daily Nous.

I therefore would like Jason to ask to remove his comment. Note that this is not out of the desire to ‘censor’ his comment, nor because the comment is ‘politically incorrect’ (a dubious notion). I am even happy to admit that in some circumstances, shocking comparisons might be appropriate (after all, many on the left have compared Trump and his supporters to fascists/nazists). But it seems clear to me that the comments to this particular thread are not the appropriate place for comments like this, and might spoil the enjoyment of readers. Again, this is true even for someone who is as critical as CRT as Jason is. For example, I am quite critical of CRT, but I was dismayed to find Jason’s comment in a thread which was otherwise a very fun read. Sometimes, I would just like a place in which we could avoid these discussions, and I think all of us – me, Jason, everyone who commented on Jason’s original post – are responsible to create such an atmosphere.Report

Justin Kalef
Reply to  UK Grad
3 months ago

I can certainly see the merits of a space where people can have fun together without getting into divisive political conversations, jokes, etc.

The key to resolving the issue must be fairness, though. Either there should be a rule in certain places, maybe certain threads, that nothing with controversial sociopolitical implications may be said, or else the rule should be that people should just let such things go. What wouldn’t be acceptable is a rule that stops the action in one direction but not the other, so that one side is expected to sit there and take a beating from the other side.Report

Jen
Jen
Reply to  Justin Kalef
3 months ago

Most people are mediocrity whose attitudes are shaped by the claims of perceived authorities. The rule of letting things go would too easily allow perceived authorities to influence the majority. This is especially problematic when the perceived authority spouts nonsense.Report

UK Grad
UK Grad
Reply to  Justin Kalef
3 months ago

Justin,

(1) I in fact am in favour of the first rule you describe: in certain threads nothing with controversial sociopolitical implications should be said. I am even quite willing to say that in threads such as these, most people will understand that such a rule is implicitly in place.
(2) I am not sure why you think that in the status quo, without an explicit rule, one side “takes a beating” from the other side. If Jason hadn’t made his original comment, no one would have taken any beating, right? As far as I can see, there are no jokes ‘from the other side’ here, which criticise the types of views held by anti-CRT folks.
(3) Put all that aside: the fact is that there are no explicit rules in place, and I think we still all have the responsibility to acknowledge that fact and acknowledge the way in which people are likely to respond. And given the lack of rules, I think it was reasonable for Jason to expect his comment to generate a discussion of the sort above; and it was also reasonable to expect that for many people, such discussions turn the comments section here into a less pleasant space. Again, note that I am not claiming that Jason should take into account the way critical race theorists feel about his comments – I am just talking about the way people who are quite neutral about the whole issue feel, but who are otherwise keen to enjoy the puns and jokes in this thread. I don’t see how the lack of any explicit rules negates any of these facts, so I stand by my claim that Jason would do us all a service by removing his initial comment.Report

Justin Kalef
Reply to  Justin Kalef
3 months ago

Yes, UK Grad, it’s true that *in this thread*, nothing was said before that provoked Jason into making the joke he did. Had he not made it, such a discussion would never have arisen *in this thread*.

But comments that assume the truth of the identitarian/social justice left (for want of a better phrase) are well-nigh-ubiquitous in philosophy now.

I used to accept far more of the identitarian/social justice left ideology than I do now. When I did, I might not have noticed how pervasive and relentless these sorts of comments are any more than you seem to now. They are no more visible to the devotees than water is to a fish. But step back and count them up — just the obvious ones — and you’ll see how many they are. You can’t escape them anymore except by isolating yourself from general conversation with philosophers and other academics. And they are almost invariably one-sided. You can’t speak up against all of them, and most of us choose to say something about very few of them. When these things are mentioned, hardly anyone seems to care. Many seem to presume now that to be a good person is to be a committed partisan on that side of these issues, and insert such discussions everywhere, so any moral complaint about this just comes across as incoherent to them.

There clearly is no rule in effect that asks us all to refrain from sociopolitically loaded comments in philosophical spaces that aren’t specifically connected with those topics. Or, if there is, that rule is constantly broken by those with the sociopolitical views that dominate in academia.

But if someone proposes such a general rule, and people agree to it, and we see violations by the dominant side recognized and called out, I’ll join you in calling for both sides to refrain.

I’ll leave it at that for this thread. Take care.Report

Jen
Jen
Reply to  Justin Kalef
3 months ago

Surely, one can find comments that, as you say, “assume the truth of the identitarian/social justice left ideology.” But how many? I’d bet your count is too high, for you mistakenly counted my initial comments to Brennan as such. Apparently, you have trouble “seeing how many they are.” Perhaps you and the “devotees” to which you refer have other things in common.Report

Jen
Jen
Reply to  UK Grad
3 months ago

I vote not to remove Brennan’s comment so that people can see Brennan for what he is, someone who spouts claims that he is unwilling or unable to substantiate.Report

Preston Stovall
Preston Stovall
Reply to  Jen
3 months ago

Hi Jen. I also vote that we not remove Brennan’s suggestion that a klan of critical race theorists is properly so-called. It’s a political joke. And I hope we keep the thread in place so that people can see the kind of reception given here to a political joke expressing a widespread evaluation about the merits of CRT as a social and political phenomenon.

And if anyone is under the impression that this evaluation isn’t widespread, or based on a good faith effort to understand what the movement is up to, I encourage them to read more widely. I’ve lived in Europe for the last three years, but for the last month and a half I’ve been back in southwestern Montana. It’s not a representative sample of the whole country, of course, but there are views here that are representative of a certain segment of the population across the U.S. And criticism of CRT on the basis of its (putative) racism is not uncommon. Here’s just the most recent exposition that comes to mind:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2021/07/06/critical-race-theory-schools-racism-origins-classroom/7635551002/

Please note, I say all of this without any prejudice one way or the other as to what CRT is “really” about, or what racism “really” is. But it’s pretty silly, it seems to me, to suggest that Brennan owes something to a pseudonymous gadfly in a blog thread devoted to quips about common nouns for philosophical specializations. I hope that, in the calm reflection of one’s study, the claim that “people can see Brennan for what he is” on the basis of what he’s said here will be scoffed away at the turn of the page. So let’s agree to keep this thread in place!Report

Jen
Jen
Reply to  Preston Stovall
3 months ago

I am sure that “gadfly” is apt. And I don’t mind if certain people are annoyed by me.

I agree, the suggestion that Brennan owes me something is silly. But no one has made that suggestion. If anything, he owes it to himself to safeguard his credibility.

Something else silly is your (mis)understanding of the situation. Brennan made the “suggestion” (that CRT is pro-racism) in explaining why “calling CRTs a ‘klan’ is a way of properly mocking them for their badness.” The suggestion was not the joke, but was part of the explanation for why his prior comment was a joke. It is silly to think he wasn’t claiming CRT to be pro-racism.Report

Preston Stovall
Preston Stovall
Reply to  Jen
3 months ago

Of course that’s what he’s claiming, Jen. That’s the joke. And while it’s thoughtful of you to consider what Brennan owes to himself, he’s suffered no loss of credibility for making that joke. But you’re deflecting at any rate, as no one else has appointed herself the judge of what he owes anyone.Report

Jen
Jen
Reply to  Preston Stovall
3 months ago

I don’t understand. But all that matters is that, if he made the apparently ridiculous claim but is unwilling or unable to substantiate it, he apparently holds a ridiculous belief and thus loses credibility.

I have no clue why you say I’m deflecting.Report

Preston Stovall
Preston Stovall
Reply to  Jen
3 months ago

“But all that matters is that, if he made the apparently ridiculous claim but is unwilling or unable to substantiate it, he apparently holds a ridiculous belief and thus loses credibility.”

Hi Jen. I don’t mean to rub it in, and I apologize if I’ve come across as abrasive. But Jason made a joke, one that articulates a widespread evaluation of CRT. Talk of substantiation, or of credibility, misses the point. It’s like heckling a stand up comedian on the basis of a gripe about politics. One of the signals marks of good comedy is that trenchant political commentary is brought off while everyone laughs about it. This is why the court jester was given leeway in poking fun at the rest of the court, and it’s why The Fool is the first trump in the tarot. There is cosmic wisdom in comedy, and I am happy to keep this thread in place for what it shows about a certain kind of response that is common in academic circles.

Anyway, it’s always a bad sign when a joke needs an explanation.Report

Jen
Jen
Reply to  Preston Stovall
3 months ago

Yes, academics often have quirky interests. I care more about truth and credibility than the proprietary of political commentary within a joke. If that makes me appear foolish to some, I’m OK with that.Report

Preston Stovall
Preston Stovall
Reply to  Jen
3 months ago

You don’t appear foolish, at least not to me. You just missed the joke. I suppose that’s a form of foolishness, but it wasn’t what I was talking about when I spoke of The Fool.Report

Jen
Jen
Reply to  Preston Stovall
3 months ago

I understood the joke, but I was more interested in something else. And I didn’t just let it go. Regarded as foolish or not, I’d do it again.Report

Preston Stovall
Preston Stovall
Reply to  Jen
3 months ago

Sure thing Jen. Either way, I hope Justin let’s stand your claim that “people can see Brennan for what he is” by what he said here. More especially, I hope he preserves the call to remove Jason’s comment, grounded in a narrative about an “unwelcome atmosphere” (*blanch*) and an “unpleasant space” (*wretch*), offered by UK Grad. From where I sit, that nicely illustrates a phenomenon some quarters of the Anglophone academy need to more effectively come to terms with. And on one’s understanding of a joke, I will side with E.B White:

“Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. You understand it better but the frog dies in the process.”Report

Preston Stovall
Preston Stovall
Reply to  Jen
3 months ago

I mean, of course he was claiming that CRT is pro-racist. That’s the joke in calling a group of CRT philosophers a klan!Report

Jen
Jen
Reply to  Preston Stovall
3 months ago

I think I understand now. The claim is required for the joke. But in making the claim, Brennan reveals that he holds a ridiculous belief and thus loses credibility unless he substantiates the claim. And whether many also hold the ridiculous belief is irrelevant; many will see him for what he is, even if those who hold the belief remain confident of his credibility.Report

Last edited 3 months ago by Jen
Prof L
Prof L
Reply to  Jen
3 months ago

I hope you’ll go around to all the other comments on this thread with the same gusto—“you say a “murder” of utilitarians! This is because you think utilitarians endorse murder. Substantiate your claim, or risk appearing foolish! Otherwise you are just spouting nonsense.” Norms of discourse are at stake! We can’t have people expressing undefended beliefs on this joke thread!

… of course, that might be a little silly and time-consuming …Report

Jen
Jen
Reply to  Prof L
3 months ago
Last edited 3 months ago by Jen
Jen
Jen
Reply to  Prof L
3 months ago

Oh I see. The fact that it was Brennan, someone who elsewhere mistreated others online, gave me a further reason respond. So I wouldn’t go at other fools in the same way.Report

Last edited 3 months ago by Jen
Preston Stovall
Preston Stovall
Reply to  Jen
3 months ago

Jen writes:

I think I understand now. The claim is required for the joke. But in making the claim, Brennan reveals that he holds a ridiculous belief and thus loses credibility unless he substantiates the claim. And whether many also hold the ridiculous belief is irrelevant; many will see him for what he is, even if those who hold the belief remain confident of his credibility.

But this comes back to what I said at the start Jen:

“And if anyone is under the impression that this evaluation isn’t widespread, or based on a good faith effort to understand what the movement is up to, I encourage them to read more widely. I’ve lived in Europe for the last three years, but for the last month and a half I’ve been back in southwestern Montana. It’s not a representative sample of the whole country, of course, but there are views here that are representative of a certain segment of the population across the U.S. And criticism of CRT on the basis of its (putative) racism is not uncommon. Here’s just the most recent exposition that comes to mind:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2021/07/06/critical-race-theory-schools-racism-origins-classroom/7635551002/

“Please note, I say all of this without any prejudice one way or the other as to what CRT is “really” about, or what racism “really” is. But it’s pretty silly, it seems to me, to suggest that Brennan owes something to a pseudonymous gadfly in a blog thread devoted to quips about common nouns for philosophical specializations. I hope that, in the calm reflection of one’s study, the claim that “people can see Brennan for what he is” on the basis of what he’s said here will be scoffed away at the turn of the page. So let’s agree to keep this thread in place!”

It really seems to me like this comes around to some combination of not appreciating the joke (whether or not you originally understood it), and not being familiar with the political position implicitly behind it. I put it to you that this kind of response, in a public forum devoted to quips about common nouns for philosophical specializations, is not very helpful at all. The fact that you’ve branded yourself as an advocate for policing others’ “credibility”, and are castigating those who don’t meet your standards, isn’t helping the situation. But it is a good indication of the kind of thing that led me to call for this thread to remain in place. My hope is that there are enough people with ears to hear who are listening.Report

Jen
Jen
Reply to  Preston Stovall
3 months ago

I would’ve checked out the usatoday thing. But I have no subscription. So I have nothing to say about it.

I’m not very familiar with the political position implicitly behind the joke. Probably because I usually try to avoid foolish people, whatever their political position.

Can you be direct? What about my response are you criticizing? What is so troubling about what I’ve done? Is it that I’m creating division? Is it that my response indicates a failure to care sufficiently about what typical people care about? Is it that my response indicates a lack of concern for the interests of those on the right? What is it?Report

Preston Stovall
Preston Stovall
Reply to  Jen
3 months ago

I think I’ve been pretty direct, Jen. Here’s something I said yesterday, for instance.

“Hi Jen. I don’t mean to rub it in, and I apologize if I’ve come across as abrasive. But Jason made a joke, one that articulates a widespread evaluation of CRT. Talk of substantiation, or of credibility, misses the point. It’s like heckling a stand up comedian on the basis of a gripe about politics. ”

Honestly, you’ve copped to coming around to understanding things after the fact a couple of times already. Maybe it’s worth taking a day or so to think over the exchange instead of replying right away.Report

Jen
Jen
Reply to  Preston Stovall
3 months ago

But that’s inaccurate. I haven’t missed the point. I’ve understood and appreciated the joke. I simply care about something else. For that reason, I then made a separate point. Apparently, this is very difficult for you to understand. Once you’ve understood it, you can stop because you’ll have recognized your mistake. Yet, you continue.Report

Jen
Jen
Reply to  Preston Stovall
3 months ago

You’re still not being direct when you use an analogy: “It’s like heckling a stand up comedian on the basis of a gripe about politics.”Report

Preston Stovall
Preston Stovall
Reply to  Jen
3 months ago

Well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drunk.Report

Preston Stovall
Preston Stovall
Reply to  Preston Stovall
3 months ago

*drink, not drunkReport

Jen
Jen
Reply to  Preston Stovall
3 months ago

Right, especially when you obscure the water once you get the horse there. Since you can’t bring yourself to reveal the water (your point) to the horse (me). I’ll do it for you.

This is your point: given the context of this conversation, a forum for delighting in humor and light-hearted banter, any response to a joke other than appreciating it or delighting in its humor is to miss the point of the joke. From this, it follows that my response of questioning a premise of the joke was to miss the point of the joke.

But you are incorrect: even in this context, one can question the premise of a joke without missing the point of the joke. This is what happened in my case.

Perhaps now you can finally recognize your inadequacy.Report

Preston Stovall
Preston Stovall
Reply to  Jen
3 months ago

Thanks Jen, I’m confident we can come to some understanding. What about this analogy do you find in need of elucidation?

“It’s like heckling a stand up comedian on the basis of a gripe about politics.”

Also, would you consider posting under your actual name? I suspect it would lead to fewer remarks about others’ inadequacies, and their lack of credibility (in your eyes).Report

Jen
Jen
Reply to  Preston Stovall
3 months ago

The unclarity is a result of the many differences between the actual situation and the situation you use in your analogy. First, my response didn’t occur in a comedy club, where most stand-comedians perform, but a forum for philosophers and would-be philosophers. Since there are different norms in different contexts, this is relevant to the propriety of my response.

Second, my response was not in response to a stand-up comedian’s joke, but a philosopher’s joke. The standards for the beliefs of comedians are different from those of a philosoper. This is relevant to the propriety of my response, as philosophers are expected to hold sensible beliefs even if comedians aren’t.

Third, my response wasn’t a heckle, as heckles typically occur as interruptions to a comedian’s set, but the questioning of a joke’s premise after the joke had been made and explained. This difference is relevant to the propriety of my response, as it’s not improper to question a philosopher’s premise even if it is improper to question a comedian’s premise during the set.

Fourth, the response wasn’t a gripe about politics, but a complaint about the apparent ridiculousness of calling a theory “pro-racism” when its main purpose is to clarify the relationship between racism and laws/government in order to make progress toward the elimination of racism and its effects. This difference is relevant to the propriety of my response, for a mere gripe about politics is a result of a minor disagreement whereas my complaint is not.

There are likely more, but these four will suffice to make my point.

These differences have the result that the analogy obscures your point. They make it difficult for highly imaginative people to know what features of the actual situation are relevant to your point and your criticism. This is true even if they know why heckling a comedian over a political gripe is improper, or why heckling sometimes misses the point.

Now that I’ve substantiated my claim, I’ll stop responding to you about my questioning of the joke’s premise.Report

Preston Stovall
Preston Stovall
Reply to  Jen
3 months ago

Thanks Jen, this is helpful. I suppose we disagree about the standards of propriety that determine a joke-teller’s epistemic duties vis a vis the complaints of a listener in this forum, and the duties we owe one another as philosophers in public spaces outside our professional work. I just went for a walk, however, and on further reflection I suspect this conversation, as a public affair taking place in this thread, has reached diminishing returns. Plus, I’m out of town for a wedding for the weekend, so I won’t be able to keep up the back and forth.

But I’d be happy to carry on the conversation via email, if you want. I work a bit in analogical reasoning, for instance, and I’d be happy to debate the merits of our two assessments of some of the analogies I’ve given. I agree with Hegel and Peirce that the analogical inference is central to conceptual change qua progress, and I think people like Paul Bartha and Mary Hesse have done much to plumb the analogical foundations of scientific theory construction in the last half century. I also have some rough-hewn thoughts about CRT I’d be happy to share with you. Or, we could debate the merits of the comedic performance as an aesthetic expression with ethical implications. I’ve done that kind of thing with folks at this board before, and some of it has turned into published work. You can reach me via my website, if you’re interested. Otherwise, take care.Report

Jen
Jen
Reply to  Preston Stovall
3 months ago

I won’t use my real name until I’ve secured tenure at a top R1. But using my real name will not diminish my inclination and willingness to remark about credibility or inadequacy. The inclination occurs in response to the behavior of (and often mistreatment by) others toward myself or others. My remarks concerning your inadequacy are the result of the condescending, patronizing, or mocking tone you’ve taken with me despite your inferiority:

“But it’s pretty silly, it seems to me, to suggest that Brennan owes something to a pseudonymous gadfly in a blog thread devoted to quips about common nouns for philosophical specializations.”

“But you’re deflecting at any rate, as no one else has appointed herself the judge of what he owes anyone.”

“I hope that, in the calm reflection of one’s study, the claim that “people can see Brennan for what he is” on the basis of what he’s said here will be scoffed away at the turn of the page. So let’s agree to keep this thread in place!”Report

Preston Stovall
Preston Stovall
Reply to  Jen
3 months ago

I’m sorry you feel that way Jen! But the offer stands.Report

Jen
Jen
Reply to  Preston Stovall
3 months ago

I already told you that I usually try to avoid foolish people.Report

Justin Kalef
Reply to  Jen
3 months ago

I’m on the side of allowing people to post things pseudonymously, especially in social environments (like our own) in which there is strong pressure to accept a certain set of views on pain of being regarded as a moral monster. The reason is that pseudonymous posts may then be one of the few chances we might have to hear important alternative views and objections.

That does, however, make for unbalanced exchanges between those who hide behind masks and those who appear under their true names, especially when someone on the side of the socially marginalized views (in that social group) is brave enough to use his or her true name and someone who espouses locally dominant views is masked.

I think a good general rule in all cases, but especially this type, is that a pseudonymous contributor should never attack the character or intelligence of a known person.Report

Jen
Jen
Reply to  Justin Kalef
3 months ago

I agree with everything you wrote, except what you wrote about the rule. Let me explain why.

I think some good general rules in all cases are:

1. A contributor is to never be overly confident.

2. A contributor is never to be imagination-lacking.

3. A contributor is never to be unduly condescending.

4. A contributor is never to be foolish.

Unfortunately, these rules are broken by the majority of people who contrbute here in conversations about divisive topics, whatever their political affiliation. (David Wallace is a notable exception.) This leads me to propose an additional rule:

5. A contributor who violates any of the above rules is to be called out for it.

Since compliance with this rule might result in reprisal if using a real name, pseudonymous compliance must be allowed. This conflicts with and trumps the rule you propose.Report

Justin Kalef
Reply to  Jen
3 months ago

I agree, Jen, that there are good grounds for calling out comments that are inaccurate, unfair, condescending, etc. (if by ‘calling out’ you just mean identifying the comments as having those bad qualities and making clear why you think they do).

But I don’t see why you also need to call out the *people* who make the comments, especially when you are using a pseudonym that makes it impossible for others to do to you the damage you may do to them by calling them (not their comments) out. That goes beyond improving the conversation and into something else.

Your comment didn’t say that Preston Stovall said something foolish. If you had thought it had, you could have said so. But your comment went further and ‘called him out’ as a foolish person. I just don’t see why that’s called for. He didn’t seem to me to say anything foolish, but being a ‘foolish person’ is much more than that. I don’t see how our discourse would be worsened by avoiding character assassination.Report

Jen
Jen
Reply to  Justin Kalef
3 months ago

You misunderstood. (And importantly for the point I’ll go on to make, your comment did not misunderstand.) You say you agree “that there are good grounds for calling out comments that are inaccurate, unfair, condescending, etc.” This betrays your mistake.

I didn’t propose calling out *comments*; I proposed calling out contributors. And not for their comments, but for their being foolish, for their being overly confident, etc. I did so because the person can be the proper object of criticism. By exposure to their contributions, we can learn that contributors themselves are foolish, overly confident, etc., and not merely that their comments are. After a contributor (say) repeatedly misunderstands clear and direct prose, and those misunderstandings are conveyed by the person’s contributions, we can learn that the person is foolish, not merely that his comments are. Or (to your point regarding Stovall) when a contributor takes a condescending tone toward someone who has failed to understand his point due to his own repeated failures to clearly and directly express the point, we can learn that he is foolish, not merely that his comments are. So, a person can be the proper object of criticism because of his comments, even if none of his comments is.

Perhaps you can now understand why calling a person out for being foolish might be called for even if “[h]e didn’t seem to say anything foolish” or make a foolish comment. For it is clear that the foolishness might be properly attributed to the person, not to any particular comment(s). It might be that the person’s comments aren’t themselves foolish, but that he himself is because of his condescending treatment of another.

The conversation might be improved by call out such things because it can influence contributors’ behaviors. Calling them out can reduce the propensity of some to comment without due forethought. It can also fuel a desire to write clearly and directly, as well as a desire to reason carefully. Finally, it can reduce the likelihood that people will be overly confident in commenting, and that people will be unduly condescending.Report

Jen
Jen
Reply to  Jen
3 months ago

I should have added that calling people out like this will likely make people better aware of their need for intellectual humility.Report

Jen
Jen
Reply to  Justin Kalef
3 months ago

I’m tempted to take your silence as concession. Have you understood yet? Or is this merely temporary silence as a result of an attempt to be more careful when trying to understand clear and direct prose?Report

Jen
Jen
Reply to  Justin Kalef
3 months ago

By the way, “character assassination” is not highly apt for characterizing what’s going on when in accord with my proposal, someone is called out for (say) being foolish. For it seems to characterize the one doing the calling out as the main source of the negative outcome (as the “assassin”), when it is in fact the one called out who is the main source. If someone is foolish and called out for it, he and his foolishness are the main sources of the outcome, not the one who called him out. So perhaps “character suicide” is more apt since it seems to chatacterize the foolish person as the main source.

“Character suicide” also might be better for your purposes if you are one of those people tempted to disparage others for using “harm” and “abuse” in ways you deem to be inapt. For if your are, you might not want to be engaged in behavior like theirs.Report

Last edited 3 months ago by Jen
Preston Stovall
Preston Stovall
Reply to  Justin Kalef
3 months ago

Thanks, Justin. I appreciate the effort. I used to be more worried about people’s perceptions when I shared a view, but I’ve gotten over it as I’ve learned to speak up on these things, for the most part. So I’m comfortable with what I’ve said here, how I’ve said it, and the attitudes I’ve expressed in saying it. And I trust in the ability of readers to sort the wheat from the chaff in the conversation, or determine just where there’s need for more intellectual humility. If we all chose to remain pseudonymous until we had, as Jen says of herself, “secure[d] tenure at a top R1”, there’d be much less interesting conversation taking place in venues like this. 

Still, thanks for chiming in. I suspect the public spaces in the profession would be healthier if more level-headed people were pushing back on the rather fanatical pronouncements given voice in some quarters. And my sense is that personal invective doesn’t gets much uptake in the profession. 

All the same, it’s disappointing to see condemnatory admonishments like those directed at Brennan above. And the call to remove Brennan’s comment, on account of it’s contribution toward an “unwelcome atmosphere” and an “unpleasant space”, strikes me as almost satirical. If I hadn’t seen so much of it, I’d worry about a case of Poe’s Law. 

Anyway, I suspect a person would find that concerns of the sort Jen’s articulated in defense of her decision to remain pseudonymous tend to fade when one begins speaking in one’s own name. And those worries fade, in part, because one is adopting a self-regarding mode of cognition in which what one says is filtered through, as it were, an active perception of oneself from the standpoint of one’s interlocutors, knowing that they will recognize you. 

I think it’s something close to the essence of the human being qua rational animal that one’s good-faith effort to cultivate that kind of stance, as a public performance, does wonders for helping us better express what we feel, think, and intend (the transition from the singular to the plural first-person pronoun was intentional). It’s something like a natural collective habitus, or a capacity we readily acquire (as individuals living in communities we identify with) in the course of normal human development.  And by modelling this stance in the public sphere, we both develop our own fallible capacity for it, and help others recognize and pick it up more readily. 

But that stakes out commitments in the metaphysics of rationality, personal agency, and human nature, while this is a board devoted to quipping on common nouns for different philosophical positions, so I’ll leave it there. Take care!Report

Justin Kalef
Reply to  Preston Stovall
3 months ago

Thanks, Preston. Likewise.

Jen, my silence in response to your comments wasn’t a concession to your points: I just didn’t check in here for a few days.

I think the comments I’ve already made in this thread make my position and reasons clear. I don’t think there’s anything more to address.

Also, I have to say, my interest in engaging people in conversation drops considerably when they speak as though the only way one could disagree with them would be to fail to “understand” them. Until some other time, then.Report

Jen
Jen
Reply to  Justin Kalef
3 months ago

“Also, I have to say, my interest in engaging people in conversation drops considerably when they speak as though the only way one could disagree with them would be to fail to ‘understand’ them.”

I suppose you think I’ve done this. Is it because I wrote this?

“Perhaps you can now understand why calling a person out for being foolish might be called for even if ‘[h]e didn’t seem to say anything foolish’ or make a foolish comment.”

I hope not. I wrote it in response to what you wrote:

“But I don’t see why you also need to call out the *people* who make the comments, especially when you are using a pseudonym that makes it impossible for others to do to you the damage you may do to them by calling them (not their comments) out…I just don’t see why that’s called for. [Stovall] didn’t seem to me to say anything foolish, but being a ‘foolish person’ is much more than that.”

I take it that as many do, you used “see” to mean “understand.” So I haven’t here written “as though the only way one could disagree with [me] would be to fail to ‘understand’ [me].”Report

Jen
Jen
Reply to  Justin Kalef
3 months ago

Or is it because I wrote this?

“You misunderstood. (And importantly for the point I’ll go on to make, your comment did not misunderstand.) You say you agree ‘that there are good grounds for calling out comments that are inaccurate, unfair, condescending, etc.’ This betrays your mistake.”

I hope not. I wrote in response to this:

“I agree, Jen, that there are good grounds for calling out comments that are inaccurate, unfair, condescending, etc. (if by ‘calling out’ you just mean identifying the comments as having those bad qualities and making clear why you think they do).”

And this was your response to my point that contributors are to be called out for violations of these rules:

“1. A contributor is to never be overly confident.

2. A contributor is never to be imagination-lacking.

3. A contributor is never to be unduly condescending.

4. A contributor is never to be foolish.”

These are obviously rules about contributors being such and such, not about their comments being such and such. I repeat, you misunderstood.Report

Justin Kalef
Reply to  Jen
2 months ago

Enough, Jen.

What you said was: “I’m tempted to take your silence as concession. Have you understood yet? Or is this merely temporary silence as a result of an attempt to be more careful when trying to understand clear and direct prose?

Let’s look at what’s going on there.

Look at that sentence: “Have you understood yet?” It commits the complex question fallacy. If the answer is ‘yes’, then it follows that you are right and I have now understood the truth of what you say. If the answer is ‘no’, then it follow that you are right but I have failed to understand the truth of what you say.

What about the possibility that you are just wrong? Your question leaves no room for that possibility. It seems that you are not even allowing for the possibility of error. In your mind, you are clearly correct, and the only question is whether I am capable of understanding the truth you possess or not. It doesn’t seem to dawn on you that you might be the one who lacks understanding. A worthy interlocutor would acknowledge the possibility that the other person understands but disagrees.

Then you wonder whether your supposedly wise responses have led me to become enlightened to the point where I have decided to “be more careful when trying to understand clear and correct prose.”

This is remarkably condescending. You are not some master at whose feet I have chosen to study. In your own mind, no doubt, your prose is not only clear, but *correct*. This is a cheap move that any arrogant, narcissistic or bullying person can play, with the same results: just take for granted that you are right and the other side is wrong. Once again, it shows a failure to take seriously the possibility that other people can both understand you and reasonably disagree with you.

Let me say this again: I do not find what you said to be correct or plausible. I have given my reasons for some of it. Your behavior in this exchange, including in the passage I just discussed, makes it seem much less likely to me that you are the sort of person it would be profitable to have a conversation with.

You are of course free to think that everything you said is clearly correct and that only a lack of enlightenment can account for my not being persuaded by you. I, and other readers here, may reach our own conclusions. Whatever those conclusions are, I don’t intend to contribute more to this discussion.

No doubt, given how you have acted so far, you will be inclined at this point to add yet another comment making clear how dense I am, and how little I am capable of understanding. Rather than respond to such a thing, I will be inclined to leave this for you in advance: I suggest that you refrain from writing such a thing, since many no doubt are getting a stronger and stronger impression that you, and not I, are intellectually immodest having a hard time understanding things you disagree with.

But why should you care? You’re not here under your own name, and these narcissistic moves don’t have the usual reputational costs. And that, really, underscores the problem.

Enough.Report

Jen
Jen
Reply to  Justin Kalef
2 months ago

You write: “Look at that sentence: “Have you understood yet?” It commits the complex question fallacy. If the answer is ‘yes’, then it follows that you are right and I have now understood the truth of what you say. If the answer is ‘no’, then it follow that you are right but I have failed to understand the truth of what you say.”

Apparently, as you interpret the question, I am asking whether you understand *the truth* or the truth of what I say. But why? Why not interpret it as my asking whether you understand my comment or words? This latter interpretation is quite natural. More importantly, it makes most sense in context because I asked the question in response to your failure to reply to a comment in which (1) I said that you misunderstood what I had written, and (2) I attempted to help you understand what you seemed not to understand: why calling a person out for being foolish might be called for even if “[h]e didn’t seem to say anything foolish” or make a foolish comment. In this context, the principle of charity requires this latter interpretation.

The latter interpretation undermines your grounds for characterizing me as someone who has failed “to take seriously the possibility that other people can both understand [me] and reasonably disagree with [me].” It also undermines the grounds for your insinuation that I am an “arrogant, narcissistic or bullying person.”

I have been condescending. I am content with this, however, because I haven’t been *unduly* condescending. And I am not at all inclined to believe or worry that people of my caliber are getting the impression that I am intellectually immodest or having difficulty understanding things with which I disagree. Clear-thinking, unbiased observers can and will recognize the truth of the matter, I’d bet. And using my name would not bring with it any uneasiness about my behavior here.Report

Last edited 2 months ago by Jen
Jen
Jen
Reply to  Justin Kalef
2 months ago

Assuming you’ve understood my comments up to this point, I will now return to your argument. It’s this.

1. Calling out contributors using their own names (not merely their comments) sometimes damages their reputation.

2. If it does such damage, it should not be done.

3. Therefore, calling out contributors who use their own names should not be done.

The second premise is not plausible. The contributors who are to be called out in accord with my proposed rule have violated rules against being overly confident, unduly condescending, foolish, etc. It follows that they are overly confident, unduly condescending, foolish, etc. The reputational costs to such people are reductions in their prospects for jobs, conference invitations, networking opportunities, etc. So calling out contributors in accord with my proposal reduces the likelihood that people who are overly confident, unduly condescending, foolish, etc. will occupy positions conferring influence over students and the philosophical community. Overall, this is a good outcome, not one to avoid.

Additionally, calling out such people will have a positive influence on the conversations in fora like this one. Calling them out will fuel a desire to reason carefully, write clearly and directly, exercise intellectual humility, etc. As a result, conversations in these fora will be better than they currently are. This is a further good outcome of calling out contributors (not their comments).

The conclusion to be reached, therefore, is that if calling out contributors using their own names (not their comments) sometimes damages their reputation, then it should be done. Your second premise is implausible.Report

Jen
Jen
Reply to  Jen
2 months ago

Kalef has had “enough” and decided against contributing here. Perhaps someone else can defend his argument for him. What about one of you who has agreed with Kalef enough to like his comments?Report

Christopher Hitchcock
Reply to  Jason Brennan
3 months ago

A congress of philosophers

(They can’t get anything done without without breaking into factions according to ideology.)Report

Michel
3 months ago

An institution of aestheticians.Report

Geoffrey Bagwell
3 months ago

A chuckle of atomistsReport

Jisoo
3 months ago

A clad of philosophers of biologyReport

Umayr
3 months ago

A sloth of Epicureans
An obstinacy of Stoics
A knot of Nyayas
A flash of PhenomenologistsReport

Michel
3 months ago

A statue of libertarians?Report

Jamie
3 months ago

A fragment of Heraclitus professors teach a constant stream of Heraclitean students, but never the same one twice.Report

Vipul Vivek
3 months ago

A naïvete of Naiyayikas
An indulgence of Carvakas
A risk of decision theorists
An anomaly of historians of scienceReport

Last edited 3 months ago by Vipul Vivek
David Faraci
3 months ago

A rawls of political philosophersReport

Jamie
3 months ago

An attache of buddhistsReport

Marco
3 months ago

A casuality of HumeansReport

Kenneth Silver
3 months ago

A group of social ontologistsReport

Mark Rabnett
3 months ago

An aporia of critical theorists
A priori of Kantians
A negation of Hegelians
A mist of metaphysiciansReport

Michael R
3 months ago

A treatment of medical ethicistsReport

Qua Foro
3 months ago

Maybe-a-dingo-ate-you- baby of Zen BuddhistsReport

Richard Greene
3 months ago

A slice of perdurantists.Report

Christopher Hitchcock
3 months ago

A contingent of modal logicians
A union of set theorists
A-series of philosophers of time
A mass of Newtonians
(Alternately, a force of Newtonians)
An aggregate of Buddhists
A circle of Cartesians
A trinity of theologians
A class of Marxists
A symposium of PlatonistsReport

Michel
Reply to  Christopher Hitchcock
3 months ago

The A-series is brilliant!

Perhaps we could add a B-team of four-dimensionalists?Report

Christopher Hitchcock
3 months ago

A web of Quineans
An object that is wholly grounded in individual metaphysiciansReport

Alan White
3 months ago

A grist of Millians.Report

John Glenn
3 months ago

A couple of dualists.Report

John Glenn
3 months ago

A pack of Cynics.Report

Zofia
3 months ago

Family-state of Confucians
Dao of Daoists

I-don’t-know-ask-your-mom of FreudiansReport

John Glenn
3 months ago

A den of DennettistsReport

Observer
3 months ago

A clique of philosophers.Report

Jen
Jen
Reply to  Observer
3 months ago

This term might be countenanced, but only by uninitiated observers.Report

Francesco
3 months ago

A handful (or two) of Moorean commonsense realists.
A barbecue of Hume-contemporary metaphysicians.
A list of objective list theorists of value/well-being.Report

Barry Sharpe
3 months ago

A babble of philosophers
A unity of Platonists
A poesy of Heideggerians
A natality of Arendtians
A flea fart of SocraticsReport

Swet
3 months ago

A blank/void/vacuum of nihilists
A nebula of metaphysicians
A skulk of utilitarians
An abyss of NietzscheansReport

E R
E R
3 months ago

A value of axiologists; a polis of political philosophers; a method of Socratics; a dialectic of Platonists; a category of Aristotelians; a cell of Boethians; a city of Augustinians; a tome of Thomists; a lock of LockeansReport

Shane M. Wilkins
3 months ago

A ‘grounding’ of metaphysicians.Report

E R
E R
3 months ago

A sprout of Russellians. Call it “Russell’s Sprout.”Report

Laura
3 months ago

A vat of philosophers of mindReport

jerry dworkin
3 months ago

An empty set of Utilitarians. There is no greatest number!
A paradox of deontologists.
A non-working class of Marxists.
A complex of Kammists.Report

preston
3 months ago

A LOT of Fodorians.Report

William Greenberg
3 months ago

A recrudescence of dialetheistsReport

anderson brown
3 months ago

A Property of MetaphysiciansReport

anderson brown
3 months ago

A Set of NominalistsReport

Mark Herman
3 months ago

A Whole of MereologistsReport

ajkreider
3 months ago

A prison of FoucauldiansReport

Christopher Hitchcock
Reply to  ajkreider
3 months ago

And a panopticon of BenthamitesReport

Alan White
3 months ago

A plentitude of Parmenideans.Report

Christopher Hitchcock
3 months ago

A number of PythagoreansReport

Francisco Espejo
3 months ago

A family of forms (talking about wittgensteinians)Report

Tanya L
3 months ago

A dialectic of Hegelians.
A revolution of Firestonians.
A transcendence of Beauvoirians.
An entwinement of Merleau-Pontians.
A form of Levinasians.
A dimension of Marcusians.Report