What’s Wrong with the World

I can't help thinking that Leiter also hasn't read the counterpetition itself very carefully, or very recently. He quotes the point one signer made about there being only 23 job ads recently in JFP and then implies that this is making a point on behalf of the counterpetition that the counterpetition itself doesn't make. But it does. It says,

Removing ads from these institutions from JFP would do a disservice to APA members by making it more difficult for them to learn about available jobs for which they might want to apply. It would also harm the profession by making it more difficult for institutions to find good philosophers.

The point about the paucity of recent job ads in JFP and the number (23) merely brings this point down to specific statistics, all of which indicates the ideologically driven recklessness demonstrated by anyone who would try to get the Christian schools penalized by having their ads pulled or who would even advocate this as one legitimate course of action to "purify" JFP.

In person, Brian is a thoroughly charming & entertaining character - not to mention an endlessly amusing mine of rude & embarrassing anecdotes about his colleagues.

And I've heard that he's very generous & helpful to his friends in the profession - which certainly comports with my own experience.

He's also a rock-solid Nietzsche scholar - at least, to the extent that's possible in someone who, when I knew him, spoke not a word of German and couldn't tell *Tristan & Isolde* from *Carmen* to save his life...

(When I asked what music he preferred, he answered: "Iron Maiden.")

If only I could go back to those days - the days when Brian seemed fun & harmless - and forget his disgusting & gratuitous attacks on Frank Beckwith & Ed Feser & Bill Vallicella, all three of whom are at least his intellectual equal - and twice the gentleman that he is.

If only.

When I asked what music he preferred, he answered: "Iron Maiden."

Alas, yes.

It seems like he thinks that endlessly repeating the words "bigot" and "bigotry" actually constitutes some form of argument/refutation. I've seen more spine (and more intellectual honesty) in teenagers.

I think there are some reasons Brian Leiter’s derogatory descriptions and name calling are not going to produce the type of results he might be going for. First, there are sophisticated arguments that go against particular views he holds. Second, there are many very, very intelligent philosophers that oppose particular views he holds. If the above factors were not there, his name calling approach might work better for him.

Leiter's pettiness is astounding. Case and point: his entirely unprovoked rip on Budziszewski in the post linked above.

If one brilliant intellectual tries to make another brilliant intellectual (that holds different views) look like nothing, intellectual erasing has occurred. Intellectual erasing should be a new term:-)

I want to be more specific about by comment above. When I wrote about intellectual erasing, I was referring to derogatory descriptions and name calling that some seem to use in an attempt to make people that hold different views look like nothing.

When I asked what music he preferred, he answered: "Iron Maiden."

KindertotenLeiter? [bass drum hi-hat]

Leiter's name calling to me are indicative of an hysterical mode increasingly evident in our society, name calling of the most vicious sort and totally unconnected to the hapless target.
A CNN host described recently described the '08 Republican convention as similar to the Nazi's, no one asked how.
Where politics grows in influence, spreads it poison, increasingly takes on a quasi-religious nature of it's own, and cultivates unquestioning devotion, it follows both historically and practically that intolerance and bitterness are it's by-product. We move to a one-true- faith culture.
I believe it will get worse before it gets better, as a matter of fact, forget it getting better.

I don’t know Kyle. If Leiter is able to so easily identify a scholarly 'nothing', it might be because he is intimately acquainted with a pure example, but doesn’t fully know it. Lets not be too hasty about cutting off language that might lead to self knowledge.

I reckon the great Prof. David Bentley Hart can put him on the right track.

Christ and Nothing
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=533

If not Prof. Hart, then Clive James who I read recently and who came to mind as soon as I read your post. I found this quote.

“Working by a sure instinct for bogus language, a non-philosopher like George Orwell could call Sartre’s political writings a heap of beans, but there were few professional thinkers anywhere who found it advisable to dismiss Sartre’s air of intelligence: there was too great a risk of being called unintelligent themselves. Effectivement—to resurrect a French word that was worked to death at the time—Sartre was called profound because he sounded as if he was either that or nothing, and few cared to say that they thought him nothing.”

And it occurred to me, after my cursory reading of Leiter’s blog, that the comments were really shallow, that they didn’t really understand Christianity and went straight for pronouncements that were tinged with arrogance; almost as if they were the Elders, Scribes and Pharisees of the APA. They seem a bit craven too.

Clive James reminded me that Sartre was a fervent communist to the end, denying or belittling the atrocities committed by Stalin, Mao, and their lesser imitators. And that reminded me in turn of Brian Lieter who, as we know, was or still is a bit of a fan of those guys.

And the connections kept coming. Sartre had a penchant for fleeing reality:

“[Sartre] might have known that he was debarred by nature from telling the truth for long about anything that mattered, because telling the truth was something that ordinary men did, and his urge to be extraordinary was, for him, more of a motive force than merely to see the world as it was.”

Don’t Leiter et al demonstrate something similar? I don’t have to list all that’s happening in the economy. The knowledge industry doesn’t seem immune. Harvard University has, I read, lost $USD 11b, international students will be staying home indefinitely. Even students at home will struggle to afford or even desire (as Dr Feser wrote in his TCS article) the ideological training the petitioners offer, as an education.

Yet we learn that while all this is going on B.L is slavishly sifting through ISP addresses! On a day our Mass readings were Jonah 3:1-10 and Lk 11: 29-32, no less.

During a calamity of Biblical proportions the decision was “I know! Lets start a petition”. And one that seeks to strike another blow for the culture of death (promulgated by them), which precipitated the crisis in the first place. *shrug*

This all seems like a flight from reality to me, the kind that Clive James was saying was typical of a nothing who thought himself something.

This is all very sad because there is ample evidence that things are going pretty pear shaped for the cultural revolution.

Mary Eberstadt: The Vindication of Humanae Vitae http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6262
(The sexual revolution has devastated families.)

Clive James and David B. Hart’s ‘nothings’, who look in this context a lot like our friends over there maybe don’t even fully grasp the following principle written by CS Lewis nearly over forty years ago.

“As long as Christians have children and non-Christians do not, one need have no anxiety for the next century. Those who worship the Life-Force [sex] do not do much about transmitting it: those whose hopes are all based on the terrestrial future do not entrust much to it. If these processes continue, the final issue can hardly be in doubt.”

Or maybe they do which is why they have to promote strange ideas about sex to students and culture in general in order to leave a legacy they don’t have – children. Children either contracepted or killed in the womb, or not conceived because of their aesthetic choice for homosexual sex.

The process CS talks about is happening a lot faster than he imagined. Phillip Longman: The Empty Cradle http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FI08Aa01.html:
(Monotheism gives an evolutionary advantage against modernity). And I read recently the inventor of the pill went public about the horror he believes he has wrought.

This is all very sad. Though they think it’s the end of Christianity or something, (which maybe emboldened some of the ring leaders I don’t know), but its really just the end of them.

I think Drs Feser and Beckwith know all this and are nailing their colours to the mast before the winds of fashion really start to blow heavily against regnant liberalism. Students and policy makers will know where to go. And where not to go (they’ll have a list of names).

So its good that we can be allowed to call scholars ‘nothings’ it might even be apt sometimes. I suspect Brian Lieter might be a bit worried of being one himself otherwise why be so quick to give others that epithet?

As far as being called names by Brian Lieter from my brief experience Kyle I’d take it as a mark of success and nail it proudly up that mast along with my Christian colours. Dr Feser made great sport of Lieter in that 2004 article with all his ad hominems.

So I think we should pause before we disbar people from calling scholars ‘nothings’ afterall what would be left then to say about Brian and his pals?

Kyle,

I'm not sure about criticising Leiter for calling scholars 'nothing'. Lets not be too hasty about cutting off language that might lead to his self knowledge.

I reckon the great Prof. David Bentley Hart can put Leiter on track.

Christ and Nothing
(http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=533)

If not Prof. Hart, then Clive James who came to mind when I read your post.

Working by a sure instinct for bogus language, a non-philosopher like George Orwell could call Sartre’s political writings a heap of beans, but there were few professional thinkers anywhere who found it advisable to dismiss Sartre’s air of intelligence: there was too great a risk of being called unintelligent themselves. Effectivement — to resurrect a French word that was worked to death at the time—Sartre was called profound because he sounded as if he was either that or nothing, and few cared to say that they thought him nothing.

After a cursory reading of Leiter’s blog, with their arrogant pronouncements it seemed like they were behaving like stake holders, latter day Elders, Scribes and Pharisees. Craven.

Clive James reminds that Sartre was a fervent communist to the end, denying or belittling the atrocities committed by Stalin, Mao, and their lesser imitators. And that reminded me in turn of Brian Lieter who, as we know, was or still is a bit of a fan of those guys.

And the connections kept coming. Sartre had a penchant for fleeing reality:

[Sartre] might have known that he was debarred by nature from telling the truth for long about anything that mattered, because telling the truth was something that ordinary men did, and his urge to be extraordinary was, for him, more of a motive force than merely to see the world as it was.

Don’t Leiter et al demonstrate something similar? I don’t have to list all that’s happening in the economy. The knowledge industry doesn’t seem immune. Harvard University has, I read, lost $USD 11b, international students will be staying home indefinitely. Even students at home will struggle to afford or even desire (as Dr Feser wrote in his TCS article) the ideological training the petitioners offer, as an education.

Yet we learn that while all this is going on B.L is slavishly sifting through ISP addresses! On a day our Mass readings were Jonah 3:1-10 and Lk 11: 29-32, no less.

During a calamity of Biblical proportions the decision was “I know! Lets start a petition”. And one that seeks to strike another blow for the culture of death (promulgated by them), which precipitated the crisis in the first place. *shrug*

This all seems like a flight from reality to me, the kind that Clive James was saying was typical of a nothing who thought himself something.

Its very sad because there is ample empirical evidence of the exhaustion and horrific consequences of the cultural revolution. The ever intelligent Mary Eberstadt:

The Vindication of Humanae Vitae

(http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6262) .I can't remember how to do the tiny url.

Clive James and David B. Hart’s ‘nothings’, who look in this context like our friends over there maybe don’t even fully grasp this principle written by CS Lewis over forty years ago.

As long as Christians have children and non-Christians do not, one need have no anxiety for the next century. Those who worship the Life-Force [sex] do not do much about transmitting it: those whose hopes are all based on the terrestrial future do not entrust much to it. If these processes continue, the final issue can hardly be in doubt.

Or maybe they do, which would be why they have to aggressively promote strange ideas about sex to students and in the culture in general - thats their legacy. Rather than produce their own children, they pervert other people's. Their own children they either contracept or kill in the womb, or don't conceive at all because of an aesthetic choice for homosexual sex.

The process CS talks about is happening a lot faster than he imagined. Atheist demographer Phillip Longman:

The Empty Cradle
(http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FI08Aa01.html).

(Monotheism gives seems to give an evolutionary advantage against modernity). And I read recently the inventor of the pill went public about the horror he believes he has wrought.

This is all very sad. Though they think it’s the end of Christianity or something, (which maybe emboldened some of the ring leaders I don’t know), but its really just the end of them. I think Drs. Feser and Beckwith know all this and are nailing their colours to the mast. Those winds of fashion! Students and policy makers will know where to go. And where not to go (they'll have a list of names now).

As far as being called names by Brian Lieter; from my brief experience Kyle I’d take it as a mark of success and proclaim it proudly along with my Christian credentials. And its great sport too as Dr Feser showed in his article.

So its good that we can be allowed to call scholars ‘nothings’ it might even be apt sometimes. I suspect Brian Lieter might be a bit worried of being one himself.

We should pause before we disbar people from calling scholars ‘nothings’ afterall what would we have left to say about Brian and his pals?

I am wondering why advocacy for the Sodomites isn't anti-Semitism? It was those odd Hebrews who limited sex to marriage and executed homosexuals. Oi, I wonder if Leiter wishes to apply his German philosophical outlook to Jewish schools as well?

I'll see his "bigot" and raise him an anti-semite.

The thing is, though, that I don't know of any Jewish colleges that have and apply the policies Leiter is trying to penalize and that is also likely to advertise in JFP. I'd love to know if/that there are such schools. But Leiter is an equal-opportunity name caller. I have no particular reason to think he'd single out any such Jewish school any more than any other. They'd just be bigots along with the Christians.

The truth is that this really is a culture war thing. If someone gets in the liberals' way he will be attacked by the liberals. It just happens to be the Christian schools that right now constitute the biggest challenge to the liberal agenda.

Mind you, it's been an odd, odd thing to watch in Europe, and especially in the UK, the liberals coddling the Muslims. And it may play out that way in the U.S. "Anything but Christianity." But as there aren't any Muslim universities (that I know of) advertising in JFP, we haven't had a chance to see how that plays out in this particular case yet.

Lydia,

Perhaps someone should find out if there are any Jewish seminaries and colleges that do. I bet there are. And I'd wager that he'd sing a different tune if it were persecuting Jews. I think some people's intuitions will shift when that happens. Just start tossing out anti-semitism and watch what happens.

I myself tend to be careful how I use the term "anti-semitism." I think there is a lot of hostility towards Judeo-Christian ethical norms here, but I think that that is really what it is--fear and loathing of a particular set of ethical norms. I think there is a lot more anti-Christian sentiment than anti-Jewish sentiment per se. The skirting of the anti-semitic line seems to me, purely as a cultural phenomenon within academe, to arise far more when Israel is mentioned than in this ethical context.

Lydia,

Christian morality in the main is Jewish morality. Historically, and I mean history long past, anti-semitism was linked to Jewish sexual mores. In any case, if there are Jewish colleges and seminaries that have the same sexual policies, then this should be inserted to the discussion.

If memory serves, there have been Jewish seminaries that took federal funds in some way or form while at the same time denying co-ed dorms. So I'd be suprised if there aren't any Jewish schools that didn't have essentially the same policies with respect to homosexual relations/habitation/benefits.