COLLOQUY

THE QUESTION

RESPONSES

BACKGROUND

Let me answer Mr. Coates's questions in turn, as briefly as possible (though I'm happy to elaborate later).

Do philosophy depts. in the U.S. fundamentally agree or disagree with skepticism? They fundamentally disagree. Skepticism is a minority view.

Are young Objectivists all taken seriously, or is it the luck of the draw? The question turns on a false alternative. Many are taken seriously, and it's not always the luck of the draw. But not all of them are always taken seriously, and sometimes in academia (as everywhere in life), rewards are given on the luck of the draw.

Will they publish/give tenure to a system builder? I can't predict with certainty, because they have free will. But have they published/given tenure to system builders? Yes. If the past is a guide to the future, the answer is: being systematic won't necessarily stand in my way. I aim to be systematic.

Will I have an influence if I deny other people's fundamental assumptions? My whole doctoral dissertation does this: it's about the false assumptions of contemporary ethics. I got it through a committee, and it's gotten a good reception so far, so it looks like I'm having some influence already. But for someone ahead of me, what about Tara Smith, who seems to be writing on a similar theme (mentioned in the article)? What about the influence of the Ayn Rand Society, and of the scholars associated with it? What about the other Objectivist academics who ARE having an influence? To put the point bluntly, actuality proves possibility.

The next question, like so many of these questions, is also invalidly based on a false alternative--adopting "their" tools (all of them at once?) means becoming compartmentalized and rationalistic. No it doesn't. There are always risks in this respect, but the obvious answer is: adopt what tools can be justified, leave what can't, remember the Objectivist axioms, and inculcate IOE in your psycho-epistemology.

I don't see that academic life is much different than corporate life in this respect. I know plenty of corporate executives who can compartmentalize their laissez-faire political views from the way in which they deal with the regulators down the block (or their leftist political views with the benefits of the free market, etc.) Should it follow from this that Objectivists should abandon business, too?

Can those who don't doubt the validity of concepts can grasp Objectivism? No. On the other hand, people who can, can. The tacit assumption behind this question seems to be that "contemporary philosophers" doubt the validity of concepts, which I don't grant.

How do you pursue truth if you've discarded the tools for seeking it? You don't. The assumption here seems to be that contemporary philosophers have discarded the tools of reason. Since no evidence is given, I can only ignore this claim and ask: How does one evaluate a claim for which no evidence is given (and which isn't even explicitly stated in the first place)?

Is trashing philosophy the same as criticizing bad trends in philosophy? No, of course not: But that's precisely why Mr. Elmore's note falls into the first rather than the second category. There's an objective difference between those two things, and Mr. Elmore's note was very different than a legitimate criticism of certain bad trends. A criticism of trends presupposes that the critic names the trend, its features, its sources, and what's wrong with it. That doesn't describe his note. For that matter, it doesn't describe Mr. Coates's note either--despite being more polite than Mr. Elmore's.

Finally, to the penultimate question: I reject the assumption that the philosophy profession has gone as far downhill as Mr. Coates suggests, and for my own part, I am waiting for objective evidence that it has, given that the objective evidence I see on the basis of years of daily interaction with it contradicts such claims. So Mr. Coates's request for an explanation is premature: it presupposes an assertion that I haven't conceded, and requires evidence that hasn't been given.

Incidentally, what I said is not evidence of any "insider's fallacy." If anything, the "fallacy" is what might be called "the fallacy of coming to inductive generalizations in conformity with evidence and the willingness to trace one's evidence to perceptual reality." As someone who works in academia, I can do that more easily than people who don't--as a doctor could generalize about the medical field, or a policeman about law enforcement, or an airline pilot about flying, better than a layperson. But I don't deny that others CAN be in contact with the evidence. I only insist that that "can" be regarded as a "must"--especially, as in Mr. Elmore's case, when that person wants to insult my profession with impunity.

Let me finish by saying that I didn't go into the academy with a primary hope of "changing the culture." "The culture" had nothing to with it. I did. This is the fallacy, I think, that runs throughout Mr. Coates's note: that we have to justify the value of going into a field by its beneficial effects for the rest of the culture. I reject that standard, and everything that would follow from it.

-- Irfan Khawaja, Doctoral student, University of Notre Dame (posted 4/27, 4:37 p.m., E.D.T.)

previous response

next response

STEP 1: Your contact information (required)

Your name:

Your title & institution:

Your phone:

Your e-mail address:

STEP 2: Your comments (required)

STEP 3: Submit!

Check this box if you would like this submission to be considered for publication as a letter to the editor in the printed Chronicle.