Sent via Blackberry

Sent via Blackberry

All I had in mind was the fact that black women are very much underrepresented in academia, that their perspective is valuable, and that since building inroads for up and comers could correct that inadequacy, many existing faculty, deans, and editors are eager to help make it happen, and would justifiably take that into account when making hiring and publishing decisions.

The current dearth of black female philosophers is no doubt in large part due to past racism and sexism–I took that as obvious. Insofar as I should have made my thought process more explicit, perhaps my comments were indeed superficial. Sorry for the confusion!

Matt Deaton :
What do I have in mind? For one, there are loads of white male philosophers, but very few black female philosophers. So without being spiteful, I think I can say Matt the black woman would have an easier time getting academic attention, an academic job, tenure, published, etc. Since I like to define myself by reference to the things I do well (rather than the things I suck at), I think Matt the black woman would think of herself more fundamentally as a philosopher. That’s of course part of my identity right now. It’s my profession–and a profession I love, one I would do for free, and one I in fact do for free, for personal enjoyment, and for satisfaction all the time. And even though I do plan on being an academically successful philosopher, I think it’s realistic to think that these exact same talents and this exact same ambition would get me further, were I an African American female.

You are assuming there are very few black female philosophers in academia because there are very few black females who aspire to be philosophers. And since “black female Matt” would want to aspire to be a philosopher she would have no problem getting all of her academic goals met being one of the few black women who aspire to be a philosopher. But you are forgetting about racism and sexism…did it ever occur to you that maybe there are many black females who aspire to have a career in philosophy but maybe not so many institutions that are willing to give them the opportunity? I know, or at least I hope, it was not your intention to insinuate that black people have it easier because of things such as affirmative action but your argument is very close to those that do! Your argument also leans to the concept that black people generally don’t aspire to intellectual or academic professions - again, not to say that was your intention but it kind of comes across that way.

As a philosopher you should be able to see deeper than what is just on the surface. You cannot just look at the surface of a topic and assume that’s just the way it is! There is always a reason for it. Now I was not trying to make a statement of fact I was just trying to give a very possible (and in my opinion) plausible alternative, based on history, to why there are not more professional black women philosophers…your assumption may very well be correct but it is just that - an assumption!

Very much looking forward to this book coming out!

1. The straw men just like straw men arrangements annoying, but usually not to dangerous by themselves. But when assembled into armies they can both be very dangerous. As we see in politics today any issue that you are not a expert on and you are open minded enough to listen to more than a few people you are inundated with straw men and you have no idea what to believe.

2. As i watched the episode, to me The Doctor (as john Smith) cries when the decision comes down to him, not so much because he is going to have to step out into a much scarier world, but that he will in fact have to die in order for The Doctor to be able to save everyone else.

3. As mentioned above The Doctor does bear part of the responsibility of what the family does. That episode always struck me as odd that The Doctor would take such tactic just to spare the villains, while putting so many others in danger.

4. I didn’t see The Doctor’s punishment of the Family as merciful, but as a being nearly the full extent of his wrath. but i am looking forward to having my mind changed by another one of your fine articles.

Interesting forgiveness angle there too, then. I think I see your point. To kill them, or allow them to die naturally would have denied them the potential of taking responsibility for their actions, for learning from their mistakes and perhaps earning the right to another chance to be better beings. It worked in the case of Blon Fel-Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen. Judge and jury he may have to be, but executioner is optional.

Nice, I like how you equate the scare crows with “scare tactic.” In response to your comments and questions about the massacre of the scare crows, I think there is a line to be drawn between what happens in the school yard and the war of attrition that ensues in World War I. We see millions of young soldiers ordered to walk in front of firing lines, just like the scare crows, and it shatters not only the psyche of those shooting and being shot at, it shatters history (see Paul Fussell’s The Great War). Of course these soldiers were not an empty threat, at least not at first, but eventually the stale-mate of trench warfare made ameliorated the threat, except for major offenses.

Also, in regards to your last statement, in an essay coming out next year, I argue that the Doctor’s punishment of the Family is the only compassionate thing to do. The argument goes roughly like this: The Doctor has three choices: kill the Family, let them go free, or since he has the power to, let them continue living in a state where they can cause no harm; the Doctor can’t let them go free; the Doctor doesn’t want to kill them; and based on the Family’s desire to live forever, he chooses the third option. The Family gets to live forever, and they can’t harm them. And the Doctor’s visit to the girl is to provide her with company and to also remind himself of what he has done (i.e. he continues to suffer with the little girl). The argument, however, rests on your intuition of whether it is better to be dead or live forever in a state of suspended animation. If you have the former, then the argument leads to the conclusion that the Doctor should have killed them. But if you have the latter intuition, then the only just thing for the Doctor to do is what he did.

I guess the Doctor could one day grant them a reprieve!

Thanks for the post!