Sean_aas

Fox Broadcasting Company is in the process of developing a new comedy television series based on the book, Assholes: A Theory, by philosopher Aaron James (UC Irvine). The show will be called Type-A, reports TV Line (via Splitsider).

The show will star Eva Longoria as “an ambitious, brutally honest consultant who is at war with her inner ‘nice girl,'” along with Andy Richter, Ken Marino, Kyle Bornheimer, and Steve Harris.

According to TV Line, the show “centers on a team of corporate consultants hand-picked to do the dirty work most professionals can’t handle (i.e. layoffs, downsizing, etc.).”

(via Seth Mayer)

The post Upcoming Sitcom Based on Recent Philosophy Book appeared first on Daily Nous.

Obama needs to decide how best to respond to Republican threats of total scorched earth obstruction of all nominees, no matter who and what, because Obama is a radical madman.

What if he called their bluff about him being a radical madman? How might he do so?

What if Obama offered to take the unprecedented step of submitting to Senate Republicans a list of (oh, say) 10 possible, moderate, Democratic nominees for the Supreme Court? Take the 10 most unobjectionable, mildest mannered, middlest of the road names from the long list of likelies prepared against this day. Don’t let this be the time we reach for a liberal pick. Go as mild and bland as humanly possible, while of course emphasizing professional accomplishment.

The President understands Republicans are frustrated that this vacancy arose on his watch. He appreciates that they feel Scalia was one of their own, and they want him replaced with one of their own. But Presidents nominate Justices. It says so in the rules. It’s not reasonable to wait another whole year for the next President to nominate, then maybe a year more for the process to play out. The people’s business needs a new Justice in less than 22 months. But, in deference to Republican control of the Senate – and the divided state of the country – the President is offering Republicans the chance to vet his picks for the sort of radicalism they say they find intolerable. Let Republicans pick any 5 of these 10, certifying them as – on the face of it – mainstream likelies of the sort you might expect a moderate Democratic President to nominate. Then Obama, duly-elected President of the United States, shall pick 1 of the 5 as his nominee. And we move back to the Senate for actual confirmation hearings.

Either Republicans would agree to this or not.

If Senate Republicans refused this generous offer (practically a David Brooks fantasy of bipartisanship, no?) and persisted in refusing even to consider any Obama nominee, that would amount to encroachment on the executive’s enumerated powers. (What if Obama further offered to let Senate Democrats help draw up the list of 10 candidates, so it wasn’t just the tyrant Obama doing the picking?) I don’t know what would happen, but at least it would be clear any constitutional crisis wasn’t down to Obama’s radicalism.

If Republicans agreed, then somehow couldn’t find five acceptable names even on the most moderate of lists; or if they got as far as shooting down whomever Obama picked, even from their own pre-vetted five; then Obama could proceed down the list to the next name. This would eventually result either in a moderate Democratic confirmation or, more likely, public display of Republican radicalism, disarray and dysfunction, over the long course of an election year. Make Republicans fight with themselves about what a moderate Democrat Justice should look like, by just plain giving them the chance to pick between the most plain and moderate of options.

Democrats have a strong interest in getting any Democratic nominee confirmed to replace Scalia, rather than none. They ought to be entitled to such a confirmation, procedurally (though it stings Republicans.) That doesn’t mean they are going to get it (since it stings Republicans.) But Democrats should be able to force Republicans to make plain the dynamics of the situation, if Republicans really are going to stonewall. It has nothing to do with Obama. Democrats should not let Republicans suggest otherwise.

Let this be Crooked Timber’s open thread on the Supreme Court situation. (I obviously have my idle thoughts and speculations. Perhaps you do, too.)

_Rationality, Markets and Morals_ 5:64-78. 2014 The article focuses on the justification provided by classical contract theory for the right of states to enact laws and the corresponding obligation of political allegiance. First the distinction between political authority and parental authority developed by John Locke in his seminal work “Two Treatises of Government” is explored. Thereafter it is discussed why the interests the individuals have in the creation of a state fail to vindicate the exercise of governmental power. As regards David Hume’s influential objections to contract theory it is argued that the consent criterion of political legitimacy withstands his criticism. Hume cannot establish that the core idea of Locke’s justificatory approach is mistaken; he merely demonstrates that hardly any existing state meets the consent requirement. Finally the question is discussed which conditions a state must fulfil in order to be entitled to claim that its citizens tacitly approve of its authority.

_Journal of Social Philosophy_ 46 (2):159-160. 2015

Shelley Tremain, the philosopher of disability, brought my attention to a recent article in the CHE entitled Indifference Toward Disabled Scholars, Especially at Conferences, Troubles a Disabilities Scholar .* In it, bioethicist William Peace details a "nightmare" he experience as a disabled scholar trying to attend a conference.

Peace also blogged about the experience here.

Tremain offers the following commentary:

-------

Here is an excerpt of the Chronicle piece for those who don't have access:

 

 

*The article will be behind a paywall for a week, but is available for the next 24 hours for free here

-------In my article "Introducing Feminist Philosophy of Disability" (https://independent.academia.edu/ShelleyTremain), I offered some details about ways in which the APA fails to treat disabled philosophers equally and promote our status within the discipline and profession. A recent petition that I and others circulated was motivated by this neglect. Some of the measures that the APA fails to take on our behalf concern the lack of information about disability (e.g., how to make conferences accessible, what APA chairs and presenters should do to make divisional meetings accessible, etc.) on the newly-furbished and inaccessible APA website. A recent conference on philosophy of disability at Syracuse University (at which all three APA disability representatives presented) demonstrates the impact that the APA's failure to provide leadership in this regard has throughout the profession.   In an article entitled "Indifference Toward Disabled Scholars, Especially at Conferences, Troubles a Disabilities Scholar," William Peace describes "the nightmare" he encountered at the Syracuse conference, a "nightmare" that could have been prevented if the APA provided information that many of us have been pressing it to provide. A key part of academic life is attending scholarly conferences, where colleagues gather to share knowledge and make the connections that could lead to their next joint research project, paper, or book.

But for people with disabilities, like William J. Peace, attending such meetings is almost always frustrating, if not impossible at times. Although the Americans With Disabilities Act is nearly 25 years old, Mr. Peace's experience at academic conferences shows that the change it was designed to bring about has been to slow to come.

"Things aren't improving at academic conferences," said Mr. Peace, 53, a bioethicist and disability-studies scholar who has been a paraplegic since he was a teenager and who uses a wheelchair. "I spend a lot of time—hours and hours—advocating for myself."

Recently, Mr. Peace took to his blog, Bad Cripple, to write a post about the obstacles he encountered while attending a three-day philosophy-of-disability conference at Syracuse University last week. The conference, he wrote, "has been an access nightmare."Among the problems Mr. Peace faced: The conference hotel's shuttle bus had a broken wheelchair lift, and the placement of the tables and the food on the buffet made it impossible for him to serve himself. Papers that were posted online were inaccessible to blind scholars, and organizers thought about the need for interpreters for the hearing-impaired too late.
Lennard J. Davis, a professor of English, medical education, and disability and human development at the University of Chicago, said many organizations just don't think about people with disabilities.

"It doesn't even occur to them," Mr. Davis said.

I know that other blogs have music features, but I have decided to start one of my own this summer for several related reasons. First and foremost, it's summer, and summer is a great time for music! ;) Second, I've been reflecting quite a bit lately on Anna Christina Ribeiro's recent post over at Aesthetics for Birds, "The Philosophical Importance of Aesthetics", and, more recently, Peter Kivy's 3AM interview about the philosophy of music -- both of which reminded me of just how central aesthetic experience is in my own life, and how unfortunate it is that aesthetics has increasingly been relegated to the backwaters of philosophical discourse. As Ribeiro points out, aesthetic experience is a significant part of human life. Almost all of us find ourselves deeply moved, at one time or another, by aesthetic experience -- whether it is the experience of a great song, a beautiful sunset, or a beautiful passing moment. And yet, Ribeiro points out, we hardly ever discuss these things philosophically. Finally, it has occurred to me, more and more recently, just how much of a role music has played in my life as a philosopher. Music has increasingly inspired my philosophical thinking on everything from free will to the philosophy of religion and morality. And yet, although music moves me personally and philosophically, I've never really had the opportunity to discuss it with any other philosophers (well, besides my wife!).

For all of these reasons, I thought it might be good to bring some music and aesthetic discussion to the blog. Aesthetics is something that I have neglected as a professional philosopher, and it is something that I -- following Ribeiro -- would really like to see return to prominence in philosophical discussion. Perhaps we can contribute to that, at least in a small way! Anyway, I hope to post music quite regularly, and ocassionally discuss it philosophy. I'd also like to encourage reader submissions discussing aesthetic experience, whether on music, visual art, or whatever! :) (Interested readers should send submissions to me at marvan@ut.edu).

In any case, I'm going to start off easy. No pretentious philosophical theorizing today. Just a couple of songs I like by the group Phantogram. I'll save the pretention for later. :)

 

  

A junior philosopher writes: While the vast majority of my students are perfectly happy to study philosophy in college and never crack open another book , I periodically meet with someone interested in pursuing graduate school. While these range from...