Research What Are You Reading...On the Involuntary Celibate

What Are You Reading…On the Involuntary Celibate

The recent Toronto van attack seems to have been motivated by the Incel movement (short for “involuntary celibate”), though investigations are still ongoing and no definitive conclusions have been reached. What is known is that the attacker spoke highly of Elliot Roger (who killed six people in 2014), encouraged an Incel rebellion, and used Incel-based terms like “Chad” and “Stacy” (respectively, men and women who are successful in relationships with the opposite sex). Incels believe themselves oppressed by a sexual culture which privileges women, and advocate for a right to sex. At its worst, the Incel movement has spoken longingly of days when women could be taken as spoils of war and used however men wanted.

The attack was heartbreaking and will doubtless cause agony for the loved ones of those who were lost. But just as frustrating is that the Incel movement seems to be falling victim to an all-too-common misunderstanding of philosophy. Because they have a legitimate grievance (their frustration with sexual culture today), they believe themselves oppressed. And their solution is to return to a time when the problem didn’t exist. What they ignore is that the philosophies which study how politics manifests itself in everyday practices don’t say that any imposition on one’s will is a form of oppression; you need to be able to connect those practices to data showing a systematic injustice. Similarly, the goal of these philosophies was never to go back to a time before the problem existed—since other problems existed then—but to start a conversation about how everyone can be best cared for. Simply returning to a culture that is best for you but creates larger burdens for others might solve a problem in the short term but is unlikely to create a healthy society. Though it saddening to have to do this yet again in response to a tragedy, here are some papers with suggestions for overcoming the problems of misogyny.


Have a suggestion for the What Are You Reading column? Contact us here.


  1. This is another one of those cases where we are called to focus on the differences between philosophy and reason.

    Philosophy, as the term is commonly used, would involve the publication of analytical papers such as are linked to above.

    A reasoned analysis would involve examining the evidence in such a clear minded manner as to realize that no philosophy paper any one could possibly write is going to have any impact upon wannabe rapists and other such scum.

    A reasoned analysis would reveal that such papers are also unlikely to have much impact upon the law abiding general public, due to the philosopher’s strong bias for inaccessible language and obscure concepts. Who such papers are for is a bit of a mystery, given that even on a blog for professional philosophers nobody seems to read them, or at least readers do not find them interesting enough to discuss.

    A reasoned analysis would reveal that we’ve been thinking and talking about rape culture for many centuries, sometimes in a very intelligent, educated and articulate manner, and still rape is routinely used as a weapon of personal and even state sanctioned war around the globe.

    Philosophy would further analyze this situation, reason would see that never accomplishes much of anything.

    Philosophy would put the priority on itself, on the production of more and more philosophy which comments upon what’s already been said so that we can say some more, an infinite loop which is it’s own end.

    Reason would put the focus on solving the problem, on ending the suffering. And what thousands of years of data from all around is clearly saying is that there is only one way to end the suffering.

    Stop making men.

    Philosophy will say, “Oh no no no, that’s insufficiently sophisticated!” And the women being raped will say, “WE DON’T CARE!”

    My wife and I were watching a movie recently which contained a rape scene. We usually flip the channel at this point, but this scene was so skillfully filmed that we gave it a chance. Somehow the director managed to skip the gratuitous violence and sex shots while still hitting you with the horror of what was being inexperienced.

    When the scene was over my wife and I looked at each other in shock and the words “that should never happen to anybody!” sprang from out from our lips. I’m sure you will agree.

    But there’s only one way to ensure that doesn’t happen to anybody. And it’s not philosophy papers, but rather the use of reason.

    Philosophy and reason, not always the same thing.

  2. To admit, as I readily do, that Western culture, American society, and the early modern human species have been predominantly patriarchal, male supremacist, and male dominant for many thousands of years, and that predatory male sexual violence against women is a big, big problem, is not to deny that there is also a strong caste/class bias against certain categories of predominantly white men, who are targeted at early ages as criminals, juvenile delinquents, or undesirables (‘white trash’), who are frustrated by their inability to succeed in contemporary society (and with women … ), and who frequently end up homeless, in prison, or in psychiatric wards, without much hope of rehabilitating themselves or changing their lives, sexual or otherwise. And if you doubt that this caste/class discrimination exists and is a significant factor in creating the syndrome described in this article (the so-called incel movement, which, however deplorable, is obviously a symptom of a bigger problem…), I’d suggest you take a look at the enormous population of frustrated white males and substance-dependent, indigent, homeless men that is shockingly evident in every American city, from Portland Seattle and LA to Phoenix Albuquerque Denver Chicago and New York. I know what it’s about, because I’ve been there, and I’ve seen and felt the trauma and pain of discrimination in my own nerves and guts, and I know how hard it is to get out of it, once it’s been done to you, and you don’t even know where to start to get your life back again, when all the accusations of caste/class discrimination and sexual violence, however false, are stacked against you, and there’s no professor lawyer or social worker to defend you, however not guilty ( or not innocent? … ) you may be.

    I’ve also been ridiculed, humiliated, and insulted, many hundreds of time, publicly and privately, by insinuations of homosexuality (or heterosexuality … ), attacks on my sexual potency (or lack thereof … ), and false accusations of sexual misconduct (or, again, lack thereof …), by counselors, teachers, coaches, and women with whom I was simply casually or more seriously associated, for the non-offense of simply being a white heterosexual male of a certain physical description, who was therefore held responsible for every abuse committed by former boyfriends, ex-husbands, and luckless dead-beats, against the female of the species, even if I had done nothing to provoke the attacks, and was simply trying to be the compassionate, decent, and sympathetic person that I have always tried my hardest, despite my many failings and disadvantages, to be. The problem is, I’d say, that this American patriarchal male sexist etc. society, which is built upon predatory, bullying competition between un-equal participants and constant caste/class discrimination against stigmatized underclass groups, creates frustrated, angry people, both women and men, who constantly need somebody to take their frustrations out on, whether the objects of their attacks have done anything to deserve the attacks, and whether they are guilty of anything or not. And despite the 12, 16, or 20+ years American students spend in American public schools, this American patriarchal sexist chauvinistic etc. society completely fails to teach young people even the most basic lessons on how to behave with courtesy and politeness towards the opposite sex (or, heck, even towards the same sex), how to have caring, meaningful relationships with other people (not on social media), how to find a compatible person with whom you would want to be married (or not … ), or how to raise children to be decent, caring adults, with the predictable result that sexual relationships, marriage, and parenting are a complete disaster in contemporary American society. And with the further predictable result that there are these frustrated, confused, angry young men (the aforementioned incels … ) who blame all their problems on the demo-liberal-leftists who act superior to them (see above … ), and on the women they feel are discriminating against them, and thereby only make the problem created by their disadvantaged situation in contemporary patriarchal male chauvinist sexist racist etc. society that much worse, despite themselves.

    If anybody is really interested in solving the problem of patriarchal male privilege and predatory male violence, and not just looking for somebody to blame it on (Bill Cosby?!?!), it will be necessary not to just analyze masculine misogyny, as Nathan suggests, but also to analyze the extreme misanthropy often evident in attacks against certain categories of men: Southern black men accused of rape during the lynch-mob era (the Scottsboro Boys etc.), Hispanic men accused of molesting white women (Miranda v. Arizona), Muslim men accused of the harem-mentality, but also poor white trash in the contemporary homeless camps, whose misbegotten existence is a very clear symptom of that misanthropy, whether anybody wants to admit it or deal with it or not. As are the shrill complaints of the self-identified incels, who just may have real complaints and real problems, even if they don’t have the slightest clue how to deal with them, except by blaming them on everybody else. And excuse me, Mister Tanny, but watching a fake rape scene on TV and tsk-tsking with your wife doesn’t make you somehow supremely morally superior to all other men, and capable of dispensing advice to everybody else, nor does it make you an authority on the sociological or biological-evolutionary causes of masculine violence, which you say nothing about, short of recommending sexo-cide against all men except yourself. As you once said to me: Deal with your own masculinity before you start blaming it on everybody else, thank you very much. And then maybe we can discuss the real causes of the problem, which is, of course, a big, big problem, and a whole heckuva lot bigger than the both of us, I also readily admit.

    And I’d also add, after watching Michelle Wolfe’s profanity-laced, obscenity-ridden, extremely offensive so-called comedy routine at the White House correspondents’ dinner, which included a constant tirade of insults against masculine potency (Paul Ryan’s absence of balls, for example, or Trump’s admittedly negligible capacity for orgasms … ), but also attacks against other un-feminist women (like SHS, who was forced to submit to it in front of everybody … ) that supposedly empowering sh*t-talking, foul-mouthed, pseudo-feminist women to engage in even more disgusting, offensive, and humiliating hate-speech than that spewed up by the worse white trash male or black gansta-rapper against those sub-caste men and women they do not find politically or sexually attractive is not going to solve the problem, either. Quite the contrary. It’s going to make it worse, and create an even worse backlash than the 2016 American elections, which got Pres. ‘Grab-’em-by-the-P—-y’ Trump elected, in the first place. Just a warning, because I don’t want to see the Demo-liberal-left blow another election by offending and insulting the masculinity and intelligence of the American electorate, in which not everybody is identified by their hyphenated sexual- racial- and/or ethnic-status, and white heterosexual males, however deplorable, still have the right to vote, like it or not. Just like the African-American gangsta-rappers and white trash-talking feminists who now appear to monopolize the demo-liberal media, without, it often seems, having much to contribute except grossly offensive personal slurs and anti-sexist shock-tactics, crass vulgarity and potty-mouthed obscenities, of the most insulting type. Which, by my thinking, are decidedly not funny, even is that’s what passes for black or white humor, in this contemporary un-American il-liberal class-less society which is Donald J. Trump’s America, love it or leave it or not …

  3. Hi Eric,

    You wrote…

    “And excuse me, Mister Tanny, but watching a fake rape scene on TV and tsk-tsking with your wife doesn’t make you somehow supremely morally superior to all other men, and capable of dispensing advice to everybody else, nor does it make you an authority on the sociological or biological-evolutionary causes of masculine violence, which you say nothing about, short of recommending sexo-cide against all men except yourself. As you once said to me: Deal with your own masculinity before you start blaming it on everybody else, thank you very much.”

    1) I never made any claim to be morally superior to anybody, you are arguing against an assertion of your own invention here.

    2) I’m happy to dispense with advice on this topic because I am the only person on the site offering an effective solution to violence of all kinds. The rest of you seem to be lost in sophistication for sophistication’s sake.

    3) I never claimed to be any kind of authority, and deliberately write in such a manner so that no one will confuse me with all those using fancy language to position themselves as authorities.

    4) I never suggest sex-ocide as a solution. I suggested “stop making men” which is something else entirely.

    5) I never said anything to do about dealing with your own masculinity, I believe you have me confused with somebody else.

    So, now that we’ve dispensed with all the blabber, how about we get serious and talk about SPECIFIC solutions to rapists, wannabe rapists, other forms of violence against women, and violence in general.

    I’ve presented a specific solution and am happy to have it challenged by anybody, by everybody.

    No one else has presented any specific solutions as best I can tell, but just more of the same old pseudo-sophisticated blabber, blabber, blabber for blabber’s sake.

    You guys all have PhDs. I was a wallpaper hanger until age 45. Get your shit together guys, try to keep up.

  4. Please note that the “stop making men” proposal is also a direct specific response to the Incel idiots situation.

    1) As we transitioned over time to a world without men, the males who were still with us would experience a dramatic improvement in their dating prospects, meaning even the Incel idiots could probably get a date.

    2) Once the process was complete the Incel movement, along with all other varieties of moronic man stuff, would be swept off the table. As example, shooting defenseless wild animals from a safe distance with high powered rifles as an expression of “manliness”, a very common form of moronic man stuff.

    In related science news, check out this article in the New York Times.

    It says in part…

    “Within a decade or two, researchers say, scientists will likely be able to create a baby from human skin cells that have been coaxed to grow into eggs and sperm and used to create embryos to implant in a womb.”

    Which means that men will soon no longer be required for human reproduction.

  5. Here’s an interesting experiment. We could go to websites dominated by women and ask if they would be willing to give up men if that would result in 90% less violence in the world.

    I haven’t done this and so can only guess what the answers would be. My guess for now is…

    1) Those who replied would focus on scrambling off the horns of this dilemma in search of a cake and eat it too solution.

    2) If that effort was effectively challenged, folks would start getting mad.

    3) Younger women would be inclined to answer no, old women would be inclined to answer yes.

    These guesses could be completely wrong, but they’re the best I have at the moment.

  6. Once again I check the blog.apaonline website and I find that the comments line is completely dominated by Mister Phil Tanny, who evidently believes that nobody else has anything important to say about anything except himself, that whatever the explicit topic of the blog, it’s an excuse for him to offer his unsolicited advice to everybody else, and that although he is apparently male by gender, origin, sex-organs, or pen-name, he can stereotype all other men as potential rapists and advocate their castration, incarceration, defenestration, or elimination without including himself in his self-professed sexo-cidal program.

    I confess I do not know if the Mister Phil Tanny who constantly monopolizes the comment line here is the same Phil Tanny who is referred to as “a real MENSCH!” (footnote: Goethe’s description of Napoleon during the French invasion of Germany, c. 1808) on the Congregation Beth-El Newsletter, and I do not care whether Mister Tanny is Jewish or German, homosexual or heterosexual, female or male, or whatever (… sorry, Phil, not trying to out you here …), but I do suggest that advocating the elimination of whole categories or classes of human beings is tantamount to sexo-cide, classo-cide, or geno-cide, whether those human beings are white heterosexual males or black trans-sexual females, white Zimbabwean planters or black homeland dwellers, German communists or Jewish Bolsheviks, or whatever, and that constantly monopolizing the dialog on the apa-blog certainly partakes of the bullying, domineering (male!) behavior that Mister Tanny supposedly deplores. I first believed that Mister Tanny was not serious in his remarks, but I am forced to conclude, following his current diatribe, that he takes himself, and his self-proclaimed mission to dispense advice to everybody else on virtually every topic under the sun, altogether too seriously, and I’d simply suggest that he begin his self-professed crusade against men by dealing with his own very mensch-like tendency to want to monopolize the comment-line, without recognizing that his critique of the bullying, violent tendencies of patriarchal male domination also applies to himself….

    And I apologize if when I wrote yesterday, I was outraged by listening to Michelle Wolfe’s profanity-laced, obscenity-ridden, and extremely insulting monologue at the WHCA dinner, and I responded with some excessive language of my own. My point was simply that white heterosexual men, like myself, have an equal right not to be stereotyped, ridiculed, humiliated, insulted, and neutralized (not to mention wiped off the earth …) as do African-American men, Native American men, Hispanic men, Asian men, Jewish men, African-American women, Native-American women, Hispanic women, Jewish women, and so on, and that white heterosexual males, like me, also have an equal right to feel proud to be who they are, what they are, where they are, just as do all those mentioned above, along with whomever doesn’t fit into these stereotyped categories. When white heterosexual males feel proud of themselves and secure in their sexual identity, I have no doubt that a considerable portion of the stereotyped behavior associated with, for example, the white supremacist or incel factions, will pass away, without the necessity of somehow eliminating all white heterosexual males, as Mister Tanny evidently advocates. The constant degrading, demeaning, and highly stereotypical attacks against white heterosexual males, by self-proclaimed saviors of womankind like Phil Tanny, who claims to have the final solution to the white male heterosexual problem, or by self-professed feminist comedians like Michelle Wolfe, who spent her entire monologue engaging in the most profane, obscene, disgusting, and insulting attacks against the Trump administration, Republicans, and white heterosexual males generally ( … not even sparing women associated with the aforementioned groups, like Ivanka Trump, whom Wolfe compared to a dirty diaper full of unmentionables … ), are not only not likely to solve any of the problems that I mentioned in my comment, like predatory masculine violence, substance-dependency, homelessness, sexual insecurity, and so on, but are certain to make those problems much, much worse, when the backlash they touch off among those attacked by Wolfe or Tanny finally comes home to roost, and the festering frustration and suppressed violence evident in the 2016 American elections breaks out again. As if the aforementioned problems weren’t bad enough, already, without Michelle Wolfe’s and Phil Tanny’s dubious contributions …

    And furthermore, I deplore the shocking double-standard, evident in contemporary demo-leftist-liberal circles, that says that profanity, obscenities, insults, and hostility, even when easily classifiable as hate speech, are perfectly acceptable when directed against white heterosexual males, Republicans, Christians, Mormons, and stereotyped ‘white trash,’ by self-proclaimed demo-leftist liberals, multi-culturalists, feminists, and sh*t-talking, potty-mouthed comedians ( … who are really not as funny as, say, Bill Cosby … ), but are absolutely forbidden and taboo when spewed up by those conveniently stereotyped as white supremacists, involuntary celibates, fascists, nazis, or whatever, against the aforementioned demo-leftist-liberal groups, who may very well have started the stone-throwing, mud-slinging contest, in the first place. Sorry, folks, but degrading demeaning stereotypes of stigmatized groups, whether white heterosexual males or black transsexual feminists, conservative black republicans or rich white female democratic presidential candidates, and so on, are still degrading demeaning stereotypes, and profanity-laced, obscenity-ridden hate speech is still profanity-laced, obscenity-ridden hate speech, even when mouthed by self-proclaimed feminist comedians who attack the stereotyped categories of people you want them to attack. And it is even more embarrassing to see and hear this profanity-laden, obscenity-ridden hate-speech coming out of the mouth of somebody who supposedly represents your own sociological political or cultural group, than when it comes out of the mouth of your enemies, who just might not be your enemies if you didn’t make them into enemies by your scurrilous attacks against them, and who are only encouraged in their stereotyped behavior by your demeaning, degrading, insulting comments.

    What I see happening in contemporary politics is something like a 13-year-old American adolescent gross-out contest, played out on Facebook and You-Tube, between the self-proclaimed demo-liberal left, with its constant need to convince itself it is the pinnacle of multi-culti trans-sexual political correctness by claiming to be ‘down with black people’ (…red people, brown people, any color but white people…), and hence dignifying even the most scandalous, scurrilous, pornographic, and violent gangsta-rap music (…like, say, Kanye West’s ‘Atmosphere’…) as some great contribution to American culture, and the self-defined republican-conservative right, with their constant need to defend what they see as Christian moral values and the American Way of Life (…which are, in fact, worth defending, I might add …) against the scurrilous attacks of their stereotyped opponents on the demo-liberal left, who, in turn, adopt the worst stereotypes projected upon them by republican-conservative right, just to get a hostile reaction from their opponents. And so on.

    But, seriously folks, nothing is accomplished by dividing the American political arena into two mutually hostile, mutually hateful parties, slinging degrading slurs and spewing obscenities at each other, and thereby attempting to win this adolescent gross-out contest called 21st C. American politics. In a flat-out, mud-slinging, muck-raking gross-out contest between Michelle Wolfe and Donald J. Trump, I’d guess Michelle Wolfe might just win, by being even more obscene, insulting, and pornographic than President Trump (…if that’s possible … ). But it would be a Pyrrhic victory, at best, which would probably result in increased sympathy for Trump & Co., among Middle American voters, and a nasty backlash against Michelle Wolfe and her supposed allies on the demo-liberal-left. And those results would be felt during the mid-term elections, when demo-leftist-liberal attempts to win back some of the losses of the 2016 elections would be sabotaged by another stampede of the American voters to the right-ward, fleeing from the Democratic Party just to avoid being identified with Michelle Wolfe and the sh*t-talking, mud-slinging, muck-raking demo-liberal-left and its gangsta-rapper associates.

    As an example of that backlash effect, I offer this statement from WHCA President Margaret Talev:

    “Last night’s program [Michelle Wolfe’s monologue] was meant to offer a unifying message about our common commitment to a vigorous and free press while honoring civility, great reporting and scholarship winners, not to divide people,” President Margaret Talev said in the statement, which the WHCA shared to social media. “Unfortunately the entertainer’s monologue was not in the spirit of that mission.”

    And I thank President Talev for having the courage to make that statement, against the sheer deluge of screaming raucous cheers and obscene cat-calls coming from the self-proclaimed demo-liberal-leftists, who are falling all over themselves to prove that they are even more profane, obscene, vulgar, and violent, than Michelle Wolfe, Kendrick Lamar, and Cardi B, put together. But, now, if Michelle Wolfe puts out a CD on Gangsta Bitch Music, you can bet there’d be a demo-leftist-liberal stampede down to the hip-hop shop to buy it, no matter how profanity-laced, obscenity-ridden, pornographic, disgusting, and outright violent it might be. And damn those white male heterosexual honkies, anyway…

  7. Eric writes…

    “Once again I check the blog.apaonline website and I find that the comments line is completely dominated by Mister Phil Tanny, who evidently believes that nobody else has anything important to say about anything except himself…”

    First, it’s not even possible for me to dominate the comment section. Nor do I want to. The ideal situation would be that there was so much conversation going on I could type all day long without dominating.

    The comment section of this blog has been abandoned by APA members, I can do nothing about that, even though I’ve been investing a lot time in to trying to stir up some conversation. You might want to know that Nathan has stated the explicit goal of building engagement on the blog, a goal I am serving, as are you.

    Eric writes…

    “he can stereotype all other men as potential rapists and advocate their castration, incarceration, defenestration, or elimination without including himself in his self-professed sexo-cidal program.”

    I never said anything about any of this. This is just pure nonsense. Are you on drugs? Are you experiencing mental health difficulties at the moment? This isn’t an insult, I’m trying to determine whether I should give you some space to articulate pure fantasy.

    If you’re actually trying to be serious, what is your specific solution to violence against women, violence in general? I’ve offered a SPECIFIC solution. Where is yours?

    If you want anybody to read your solution, go easy on the walls of text. Try to summarize your solution in a couple of paragraphs. I can summarize mine in three words…

    Stop making men.

    It is true that I am experiencing some frustration with this site, which isn’t always expressed in the most constructive manner. But honestly, a site full of PhDs, and not a single one can offer a real solution to violence, or offer an effective interesting challenge to the solution I’ve presented.

    What are any of us doing here anyway? We should probably all have our heads examined.

  8. Oooh, owch! My first visit to the blog and piss, vinegar and vitriol abounds amongst what ought to be persons of reason who treat each other with respect. I thought that I was going to find someone who was knowledgeable of Gabrielle Souchon’s Le Celebat Involuntaire, published in 1700. I was hoping to cajole a submission on her views of celebacy for the about-to-be-launched-online Encyclopedia of Concise Concepts by Women Philosophers. Guess not.

  9. Mary Ellen Waithe,

    I apologize if my comments struck you as shocking or offensive, but I was shocked and offended by Michelle Wolf’s profanity-ridden diatribe at the WHCA dinner, and felt I had to try to shock somebody into responding. And I was also shocked by watching ganstah-rap videos from Gangsta Bitch Music (Apache’s “Gangsta Bitch,” for example, or Nikki Minaj’s “Only …”) which struck me as far worse than the worst stereotypes of black violence and the feminine dominatrix purveyed by the white liberal media, with its own s-&-m complex, and pornographic, offensive, and insulting in the extreme, if only somebody would say it.* So I said it …

    I was also trying to shock Phil Tanny into recognizing that constantly blitzing the with his often hackneyed advice and irrelevant comments was preventing other commentators (like myself) from presenting their opinions without having to deal with Mister Tanny’s attacks, and might be considered an example of the stereotyped male violence he deplores. But I’m afraid I failed at that, considering Mister Tanny’s recent threat to cut funding for philosophy programs who fail to recognize his superior wisdom and sage advice. And I’m afraid I’m really not much interested in involuntary celibacy, despite being nominated for it at different points in my life. But I welcome a comment describing the woman philosopher’s position on the issue, which is probably more polite and intelligent than mine …


    PS: I define pornography as confusing sex with violence, and obscenity as confusing sex with filth, and both as effects of WASPish puritanism and prurience. But see Tad Friend, “The Rise of Do-Me Feminism,” Esquire February 1994, or Andi Zeilser, “‘Do-Me Feminism’ and the Rise of Raunch,” Alternet, October 16, 2008, for different opinions…

  10. Eric wrote…

    “I was also trying to shock Phil Tanny into recognizing that constantly blitzing the with his often hackneyed advice and irrelevant comments was preventing other commentators (like myself) from presenting their opinions without having to deal with Mister Tanny’s attacks, and might be considered an example of the stereotyped male violence he deplores.”

    1) I am not blitzing. I am commenting. Everyone else is free to do the same, and I WISH THEY WOULD.

    2) I’m not attacking you Eric. I’m correcting the blatantly inaccurate record that you keep posting. You’re characterizing my ideas because you don’t know how to present them with an effective reasoned challenge, which I would welcome.

    3) You aren’t shocking me, or I suspect anybody else. The exchanges we’re having couldn’t possibly be more routine on the Internuts.

    4) I’m not being violent, which as you might recall, is impossible to do on a blog. What I’m doing is challenging the stale status quo group consensus through the lens of an admittedly imperfect personality, the only kind of personality which exists.

    The solution to our less ideal exchanges is this. The editors need to get off their fannies and find some APA members to participate on the APA blog.

    Once ample conversation exists among APA members, then they can delete comments from the peanut gallery if they find them unproductive. If they delete us now, they will be left with pretty much nothing in the comment section, which would serve as evidence that pretty much no one on the Net is interested in the articles they are selecting, not an ideal circumstance from an editor’s perspective.

    To get to a larger point…

    Why should the public, specifically taxpayers, fund any project which they receive no benefit from? I’m proposing that academic philosophy in it’s current form is not producing a product worth paying for. The evidence for this claim is that even APA members seem to lack interest in the articles they are producing.

    If someone wishes to challenge that claim, that would be great. I’d love to see an article which makes the case for why we should take money from plumbers and waitresses and give it to academic philosophers.

    I do think that professional philosophers are capable of making meaningful, useful, productive contributions to the society paying their salary. In my judgment they are able, just not willing. They want to do what they want to do, and they want us to pay for it. That’s not serving the customer, that’s scamming the customer.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

WordPress Anti-Spam by WP-SpamShield

- Advertisment -


Must Read

Test post Nathan

test test test 

Test Title