Category: Blogging

Dunmovin and a Blogger’s Final Post

Dunmovin is a California ghost town, now little more than a wide spot in the road on U. S. 395, one of my favorite highways.  I have driven past it many a time, but never stopped to explore, not that there is much there to explore.  But I thought of it today, did a search and found an interesting post, dated 15 September 2008, The Ghost Town of Dunmovin, California.

After reading the post, I brought up the current page of the Harry Helms Blog and was both surprised and saddened to find that the relatively young Mr. Helms is losing his battle with cancer.  Here is his farewell post. May we all accept our deaths with as much peace and equanimity.

Reasons to Blog

Different bloggers, different reasons.  I see this weblog as

From the Mail Pouch: Of Comments and Liberal Bias

A regular reader writes:

First, I've been enjoying your blog greatly since you disabled comments. Thank you for daring to do that. (I say dare because nowadays comments are all the rage, and are used as traffic boosters – usually to the detriment of a site.)

I knew my traffic would take a nose dive were I to disallow comments, but I don't blog for mere traffic.  Back in January and February, when I was discussing the ideas of Ayn Rand with comments allowed, there were days when my page view count was up around 2000.  Right now I am averaging about 670 page views per day.  The high numbers in January and February were in part due to the subject matter: Rand's ideas fascinate  adolescents of all ages.  But the quality of comments was so bad that it gave me yet another  reason to shut them off.

Second, a question. I know you're a philosophy professor who openly identifies as conservative. Is it your experience that universities are typically liberal-biased? As in, they intend to promote liberal views, indoctrinate students into liberal ideas, etc.

That is indeed my experience, but, quite apart from my experience, it is a fact that cannot be denied.  Conservatives are in the minority especially in the humanities and social sciences.  For example,  in the 2004 election, one survey showed that 87.6% of the social sciences professors queried voted for Kerry, while only 6.2% voted for Bush.  In the humanities, the numbers were 83.7% for Kerry and 15% for Bush.  

Third – assuming your answer to the previous is yes, even a qualified yes – do you think there is any moral difficulty with sending a child, particularly one who isn't intellectually prepared to defend him/herself from such indoctrination, to a university?

Curious of your views as a (seemingly rare) conservative philosopher.

Two quick points.  First, not all colleges and universities exhibit the same degree of liberal bias, and of course there are a few schools with the opposite bias.  So whether there is a moral problem or not will depend on where you send your child.  Second, much depends on the subject in which the student intends to major.  There is little or no liberal bias in the schools of business, engineering, and medicine.  Mathematics, computer science, physics and chemistry are also not amenable to ideological deformation.  (Of course, this won't prevent a liberal professor of these subjects  from airing his political and social views in the classroom.) But with the life sciences ideology begins to find a foothold.  (Would a Dawkins-type biology professor be able to keep his mouth shut about religion or be objective about global warming or race and IQ questions?)  When we get to the social sciences and humanities, however, we enter leftist-occupied territory.

Slow Thoughts in a Fast Medium

There is a bit of a paradox in my project, the blogging of philosophy. Sauntering along life's byways, cooling his heels at the margins of society, the philosopher bids us slow down! Whither the headlong mad rush? Quo vadis? Take thought, he suggests, take heed. Socrates knew how to stand stock still in the scene of strife and consult with his daimon. Wittgenstein, denounced in these pages as a Cave philosopher, yet had the good sense to recommend as salutation among philosophers, "Take your time!" (Der Gruß der Philosophen untereinander sollte sein: Laß dir Zeit! Vermischte Bemerkungen.) And in a place unknown to me, Franz Brentano, once a Catholic priest and no stranger to the contemplative disciplines, observes that "He who hurries is not proceeding on a scientific basis." (Wer eilt, bewegt sich nicht auf dem Boden der Wissenschaft.)

So in the belly of the blogospheric beast I too do my bit to slow things down.

‘Blog’ and ‘Blog Post’

I note that there are still people who confuse 'blog' with 'blog post.'  'Blog' is elliptical for 'weblog.'   They are interchangeable terms.  Presumably, no one will refer to weblog entry as a weblog.  It makes as little sense to refer to a blog entry as a blog.   

A blog is composed of blog posts.  It is not itself a blog post, nor is a blog post a blog.  Roughly, a blog is to its posts as a book to its chapters.  Since you wouldn't refer to a chapter of a book  as a book, you shouldn't refer to a post on a blog as a blog.

Every weblog is a website, but not every website is a weblog. A weblog is a regularly updated website consisting mainly of relatively short entries called 'posts' which are arranged in reverse chronological order.  That's the essence of it.  Hyperlinkage and comments I would not build into the definition, nor would I require daily updating. You are free to differ.  I admit, though, that comments — assuming you can attract people capable of making good ones — and hyperlinks add considerably to a blog's interest.  As a general rule, if you are quoting from a source that is available online, you ought to link to it.

On Reverence

In The Weblog Handbook (Perseus Publishing 2002), Rebecca Blood writes:

If you asked me what the weblog community needs, I would answer, stronger ties among webloggers from various clusters, more independent thinkers, and more irreverence. Much, much more irreverence. Everyone seems to take themselves so seriously. (p. 164)

This passage demonstrates a pretty thorough misunderstanding of the concept of reverence. Blood appears to be confusing reverence with self-importance. Reverence, however, is more like the opposite of self-importance. Reverence is an attitude of honor, respect, devotion, deference toward a sufficiently lofty object distinct from one’s surface self. What Kant calls the moral law is an appropriate object of reverence. Like the starry skies above me, the moral law within me stands apart from, and superordinate to, my lower self. The divine, and anything or anyone sufficiently close to the divine, are also appropriate objects of reverence.

The truth is an appropriate object of reverence. A necessary condition of being a good journalist, for example, is reverence for the truth. A good journalist aims to establish the facts. Facts, by definition, are what they are regardless of what anyone believes them to be or desires them to be. The reverence appropriate to the competent and honest journalist has nothing to do with self-importance.

Allow Comments or Not?

This U. K. reader prefers no comments:

I 'm pleased that your blog no longer publishes readers' comments. Since this has been the case, I read it more assiduously. I usually find something in your daily observations and ruminations from which I can profit. When you used to allow even very well informed people to comment on what you had to say, my concentration withered and I was "turned off" by esoteric discussions of technical problems that interest professional philosophers. 

I think all serious bloggers should follow your example and exclude not only the vacuous and insolent wreckers who infest blogs, but also the erudite correspondents who can transform such as Maverick Philosopher into a kind of country club for intellectuals. 

 This U. S. reader prefers comments:

First of all, your blog is much more instructive than most of my formal education. Thank you for that.
 
However, recently you linked to your post on use and mention, and I followed the link and read the discussion.  Here is what I notice.  The educational value of any of your posts is exponentially compounded when there is a dialectic that follows.  The reason this is so is that when I can see someone who disagrees with you I can then see what positions they are forced to take in the dialectic.  Also because it highlights the distinction between good reasons and bad reasons for holding a position based on your responses. 

Continue reading “Allow Comments or Not?”

Philosoblog Update

Philosoblog's Jim Ryan offers a couple of delightful socialized medicine parody posts.  One. The Other.  Bear in mind that they are parodies.  There is a lot of good material in Jim's archives, so please do poke around. I have only one bad thing to say about Jim: he is a damned materialist about the mind!

If You Are Finding Things a Bit Dry Around Here . . .

. . . head over to What's Wrong With the World.  Feser on Leiter on Feser.  Feser et al. on Tiller.

Some bloggers warn their readers that 'blogging will be light.'  I should warn my readers that 'blogging will be dry and technical for the foreseeable future' as I work  my way through the recent free will literature.

I've never met a philosophical problem that didn't turn my crank.  How could anyone be bored in a world so riddled with philosophical difficulties?  There are no boring topics; there are only bored people.

World’s Oldest Blogger Logs Off for Good

Maria Amelia Lopez, thought to be the world's oldest blogger, has died at the age of 97.  More here.  Her entry into the 'sphere occurred at a young 95 and appears to have given her a new lease on life.

I was reflecting just this morning on how enriching the World Wide Web has been for so many.  Without it, I would never have met Peter Lupu, the noble Philoponus, or Michael Valle, to mention just three who live within striking distance.

We should honor those whose intelligence and creativity and hard work have made it possible.  Tim Berners-Lee for example.  But how many have heard of him?  Instead, we hear ad nauseam about worthless nonentities whose empty celebrity is their only claim to fame.  Pick your favorite Hollywood airheads and Washington, D.C. politicos.  How about Nancy Pelosi?  She is both an airhead and a politico.

Five Years of Blogging

Actually, my 'blogiversary' was yesterday.  My inaugural post appeared on 4 May 2004.  My mind drifts back to some of my earliest acquaintances in the blogosphere. I am happy to see that most of them are still at it.  Here is a partial list:  Keith Burgess-Jackson; Gates of Vienna; Mangan's; Bill's Comments; Laudator Temporis Acti.

The erudite Dr. Michael Gilleland of Laudator Temporis Acti credits me with getting him going:

I started this blog just over three years ago, on May 10, 2004. Bill Vallicella, the Maverick Philosopher, was my inspiration. When I look back at my posts for that first day, I see some themes which I have revisited over the years: Luddism, scatology, and solitude.

Like Mike, I am drawn to the callipygian, but have no interest in the scatological as such.  I suppose every man has his wobble.  One might argue that a blog that does not display a bit of a man's wobble is no blog at all.  What we scribble here is loose and chatty and a little confessional.  Ecce homo! warts and all. One debates with oneself as to the proper proportion of the personal to the impersonal.  Mike strikes a nice balance.  But I note yet another excursus into the scatological in his recent post, An Effect of Fear, which he introduces with a quotation from Pseudo-Aristotle.

And now to all and sundry: Blog on!

On Comments

There are different blogging styles.  Some of my friends in the blogosphere allow all manner of trash to be dumped into their Comment Boxes sight unseen.  At the other end of the spectrum, one of my oldest blogging acquaintances, Keith Burgess-Jackson, allows only prescreened comments to appear.  My approach is a bit less draconian but still rather choosy.  At present my configuration is 'wide open' but I delete the substandard and block the offender.  Why should I tolerate rubbish?  If a man's home is his castle, his blog is his cybercastle.  And just as I don't allow any riff raff through my physical door, I don't allow any through my cyberdoor.

Your first comment is your letter of introduction.  On the basis of that I decide whether you are worth interacting with.  I am not interested in increasing my traffic as I get enough.  And I don't want a lot of comments.  I want a few good comments from people who are sincere and intelligent and basically agree with me on fundamentals.  Fruitful discussion and fruitful disagreement is possible only on the basis of broad agreement.  All the rest is polemics — and philosophy is not polemics.

Let's say you are a PoMo idiot who denies the existence of truth.  What then could be the point of any discussion?  To get closer to (nonexistent) truth?  You say it's all power at bottom?  Then I will exercise my blocking power with respect to you and your idiocy.  Or perhaps you are a stupid leftist who thinks that 'religion is the problem' while making an exception for radical Islam.  Then you are not only stupid but contemptible and cowardly to boot. Discussion is not what you need; you need therapy.  Or perhaps you are an eliminativist in the philosophy of mind: you deny the existence of beliefs and desires.  Then I believe you are beneath refutation and I desire that you go away.  Or maybe you a sophistical qualia-denier like Daniel Dennett.  Pinch yourself and then report back.  Or adopt the 'intentional stance' with respect to yourself and self-ascribe some intelligent thoughts.