It's been a while since I've posted but to echo your last point, I read an illuminating series of Essays from Jacques Ranciere early this year..."Hatred of Democracy" in which he is attacking the centrist and neoliberal bougiose intellectuals in France and I found it uncanny how easily the same criticisms could be applied to the Democratic party and "Well Meaning" Liberals in the U.S.

For argument's sake...

I do hold the position that all people are of equal moral worth (a la Kant). I would love to hear why you believe the contrary.

Because, as the vulgar meme states, change Muslim to Jew or Islam to Judaism and see if your rhetoric seems nazi-ish... It's pretty telling in some cases

Moreover the fact that Cartesian doubt founders on its own petard and is only "saved" by a ludicrous "proof" for god's existence. Descartes is a great entry point to philosophy, but woe to those that sit there...

Merleau-Ponty's Philosophy of Nature Ted Toadvine

:-d :-d :-d

Nor can I understand comparing a toad like Trump to Alexander the Great, Marcus Aurelius, Martin Luther King Jr. nor Gandhi... I guess that makes us even?

>:O >:O >:O >:O >:O

That does not follow at all Agustino. Geniuses, or those so considered, are only so considered after their demise. You cannot possibly estimate a persons worth until after they are gone... That is why it is almost impossible to point out the geniuses of today or the very recent past. Moreover, the dark ages suffer very much to the lack of scholarship and lack or records that attend such a period, though the Muslim world did do a damn sight well...

Instead of focusing on the rhetoric, focus on the issue. Everything else is a distraction.

jests aside, you have mentioned supposed hypocrisy, aloofness, and elitism and I am genuinely curious why you believe that to be so.

The irony being that Brassier owes much of his current popularity in no small part due to pop culture and the Internet. I feel though in part, you greatly dislike the humanities. And that is a topic I find far more interesting

To be honest, good philosophy outside of academia is literary. With few exceptions, non-academics will never be published in academic journals. That does not mean that those rare individuals are without voice. Literature, journalism and essays are strong ways to influence the conversation from the outside.

I tend to look at writers like Camus, Kafka, Asimov or Orwell. Many also contributed to news journals and wrote more personal essays. Technically I would classify These people alongside Hume, who was known as an Historian, rather than philosopher in his day.

As for the bar, abstract though this may be, would come back to novelty of insight and rigor in argumentation. Compare Georges Bataille and Sam Harris. One is quite obviously philosophy, the other, controversial to say the least.

Vitriol aside, I do think that Brassier has a point. When speaking of the hard sciences, usually in hushed tones, people would never really expect that a complete amateur, with little to no formal training would be accepted by the scientific community, especially not in the modern sense of today. However, when it comes to the humanities, people assume it is simply just people using fancy words and bullshitting each other. Therefore, any unsubstantiated, or unthought opinion is as good as any other.

Let's just use PF and TPF as examples. Most of what is passed for philosophy on these boards is half-cooked. Some semblance of argument is put forward and then the name calling and arrogant tones begin. I would assume that many here are not formally academically trained in philosophy? Philosophy and Humanities majors are "usually" trained to make and defend their points rigorously, to take things to their logical conclusions and to be open to contradictory information. The average human does not do this.

Sure, Hume, Spinoza, Schopenhauer were not part of the academic club, (which is untrue because Schopenhauer tried to become a professor, and Hume worked directly with the staff of Oxford and Edinburgh universities whilst writing his Histories) but they were also exceptionally well educated. They really weren't just some amateurs. Does this mean that philosophy, or any academic pursuit is only meaningful if pursued inside of the academy? No, certainly not, but the bar for those outside of the academy and its rules are set higher, partly because the work created is so poor. Instead of getting angry and calling names, look to yourself and exceed the standards. Should make you a better thinker and writer. My two cents from both inside and outside of academia...

Well, I know that I haven't had much interaction with you here or back at the old place, but I have always felt that the topics that you developed were born of a genuine interest in the matter at hand. I understand the frustration, which is why I tend to lurk more than respond, but i do hope that you won't let petty squabbles stop you from continuing to learn or to post, even if only once in a great while.

You said it...

I am not Pneumenon, I was merely speculating on what he may mean by the Hofstdter's disease comment. Personally, I do find his work mostly pop. sci. Its a good read, and I have learned from it but it isn't as technical as I would like it to be. The same goes for Pinker, in my opinion and for some of Dennett's work as well. Informative, but light on real explicit content. Just my two cents...

Simple, Hofstadter is a good writer but all of his work seems to be pop. sci. kind of work. It's accessible but usually very shallow. Like most of Pinker's popular work.

completely made my afternoon

Capital in the 21st Century- Pikkety