Maverick Philosopher

This is a good post. I agree with it and hereby stamp it with my imprimatur and nihil obstat.

Can it be mitigated by the blogging of vanity?

Type 'Louis Lavelle' into the Google engine and Louis Lavelle on the Stoic Wisdom is fifth from the top of the page.

Type 'Theodor Haecker' into the Google search box and Theodor Haecker on the Teaching of Latin and Greek is second from the top.

Type 'C J F Williams' into Google and C. J. F. Williams' Analysis of 'I Might Not Have Existed' is at the top of the page. Here is the Google page so that you may confirm what I just wrote.

Order of appearance of course proves nothing as regards the quality of that which appears. Perhaps someone who understands how search engines work can confirm my suspicion: engines like Google favor sites that update often. I update daily with few exceptions. This helps keep my posts near the top.

Is that right?

My blog doesn't have a focus but a large number of foci, with a sizeable admixture of fringe posts as well. Nihil philosophicum, etc. If it is focus you want, Dale Tuggy's Trinities may be just the thing, assuming you are interested in doctrines of the Trinity.

This website consists of links to works by Peter Singer and R. M. Hare as well as to works by classical utilitarians from Hume to Sidgwick.

Here. His April 1st post:

In order for democracy to be acceptable, it needs to be combined with legal protections for the rights of minorities (gays, atheists, et al), or else there will be a tyranny of majority rule. But these protections cannot be made subject to the will of the majority or they lose their point and force. So, they must stay in place even if the majority opposes them--which is undemocratic. Therefore, democarcy [sic] is acceptable only if it is not absolute. A tolerable form of democracy cannot be consistently democratic. The problem is that democracy and individual rights are at odds with each other.

Correct, pithy, and illustrative of (1) good blogging technique and (ii) the aporetic nature of philosophy. Philosophy consists of problems first and foremost. The theories philosophers advance are responses to aporetic pressures, and if you do not understand the problems you will not understand the theories and their motivation.

Jim Ryan holds forth intelligently on Obama, McCain, race, and other topics to stir the blood. Courageous, incisive, edgy. Start at the top and scroll down.

You deserve a break from the rigors of Maverick Philosopher, long about now, and so do I. Mosey on over to Meghan McCain's place.

There are possible worlds in which I publish a weblog devoted to the thought of Arthur Schopenhauer. In some of these worlds the weblog bears the name The Scowl of Minerva.

Our friend 'Ockham' draws our attention to The Smithy, "A blog devoted to the life, times, and thought of the Doctor Subtilis, the Blessed John Duns Scotus."

Will you shed a tear over this cybercretin?

For the week ending 14 December, Sitemeter credits this site with 5,014 unique visits. That averages out to 716 per day. The day of greatest traffic was 11 December, with 859 unique visits. It may or may not be coincidence that that was the day I displayed a shot of Mayra Veronica's hindquarters.

A tip of the hat to 'Ockham' for drawing my attention to Peter Smith's weblog, Logic Matters. Since one of the purposes of this online notebook of mine is to provide free philosophy lessons for the un- and under-initiated, I will point out what is obvious to the initiated, namely, that Smith's blog title alludes to the important book by Peter Geach, Logic Matters. Note the double sense of 'logic matters.'

I have had only one encounter with Professor Smith and it was a good one. The one and only paper I sent to Analysis he accepted. ("Bundles and Indiscernibility: A Reply to O'Leary-Hawthorne," Analysis, vol. 57, no. 1, January 1997, 91-94) I think I recall someone telling me that they accept only 7 out of 100 papers. But don't infer from that that my paper is of much significance.

And a good one it is. But you decide.

Ralph Dumain's Autodidact Project lists my Adorno on Wittgenstein's Indescribable Vulgarity in its Wittgenstein, Marxism, Sociology, Politics: An Annotated Bibliography.

I'm running Windows XP, and a couple of days ago I downloaded and installed IE 7. Comments? The display is prettier, but the 'scripted windows' security feature makes the insertion of hyperlinks tedious. And he who blogs must link! And this despite the fact that I am a thinker not a linker. Is there a quick way to turn off the 'scripted windows' feature?

I need a brief respite from the blogging treadmill to attend to other matters. I hope to be back in harness by Monday at the latest. Carry on with your discussions, and thank you for your patronage.

Fake Halloween Tomstones and the Brevity of Life
Happy Halloween!

In John Doe, Internet Hatemonger, Dennis Prager writes:

There is not one good reason for any website, left or right, or non-political, to allow people to avoid identifying themselves. Anyone interested in serious political discourse, or in merely lowering the hate levels in our country, should welcome the banning of anonymous postings.

Although I agree with the gist of Prager's piece, I have a minor quibble with the above passage. There is a good reason for allowing some people to comment anonymously or pseudonymously: they have worthwhile contributions to make and they would not make them if that had to appear under their own name. They are young and not yet established and need to protect themselves against those who would use what they say against them.

Commenter screening and comment moderation is the solution. Don't allow anyone on your site whom you haven't vetted, and keep an eye on what they say. Don't be afraid to delete comments and give people the boot. I've booted a number of people from this site, some of them extreme right-wingers. But mainly the problem is the Left. If you manifest any ticture of being a contemporary liberal or leftist, I will consider you a bad bet as a commenter. In any case, there is little or nothing to be gained by debating with people whose heads are stuffed with PC nonsense.

Perhaps that is what we should call the 'blogging' of materials prepared before the advent of blogging circa 1999. Some of us were bloggers before there was blogging. We delivered our posts as soliloquies into thin air, or scribbled them into journals and notebooks. But why hide one's light — if light it be — under a bushel? You say blogging is vanity? Perhaps it is, but then all is vanity, with the sole possible exception of the Source, if there is one, of this showy world. To ex-ist at all, to stand-out on one's presumptive own from this Source, if there is one, is vain. The vanity of existence, writes Schopenhauer

. . . finds expression in the whole way in which things exist; in the infinite nature of Time and Space, as opposed to the finite nature of the individual in both; in the ever-passing present moment as the only mode of actual existence; in the interdependence and relativity of all things; in continual Becoming without ever Being; in constant wishing and never being satisfied; in the long battle which forms the history of life; where every effort is checked by difficulties, and stopped until they are overcome. ("The Vanity of Existence" from Parerga and Paralipomena)

I read it. Is that not enough? Who sees me study or hike or meditate? No one. Does that fact detract from the value of these activities? Thinking and writing are ends in themselves. Must not some activities be ends in themselves? And if so, then why not these most noble of activities?

"But if it is enough that you alone read it, then why publish it?" Because being read is 'icing on the cake.' Current 'icing' according to Sitemeter: average visits per day = 605; average page views per day = 923.

A similar answer can be made to those crude individuals who ask, "But how much money do you make from doing this?" Not a dime, and in fact it costs me. Is only the lucrative valuable? Could anyone who thinks actually believe this? People do believe this, ergo, etc.

Horace Jeffery Hodges, the Gypsy Scholar has applied himself more assiduously than I have in recent years to the task of understanding Islam and Islamism. The results are impressive. Here is a recent post.

This pamphlet may help.

A mirror site for my more substantial posts. Seriously under construction.

Peter Suber has quite a bit of interesting philosophical material on-line. Starting with Writings for the 'Net you should be able to get anywhere in the Suber subweb.

Frank Beckwith's post, My Return to the Catholic Church, currently boasts 365 comments. That must be some kind of Right Reason record.

Epicurus was the original "No Fear" guy. I'll offer you some thoughts of mine about him later. But for now, I refer you to The Epicurean Blog which, based on a very quick scan, looks interesting and worth your time. There is much here with which I am bound to disagree. But you know my policy: linkage does not constitute endorsement. And you know my motto, "Study everything, join nothing." And of course you appreciate the salience of cum grano salis.

A couple of days ago I was a Marauding Marsupial in the TLLB Ecosystem. But now I'm at the bottom of the ranking as an Insignificant Microbe. My incoming links have gone to zero. This is a curious development inasmuch as Sitemeter currently credits me with over 700 visits per day.

Ideas anyone? Has this happened to you? Has my series of logic posts ticked people off? Is a vast anti-logical conspiracy to blame?

A list of suggestions by Jimmy Wales. One way to save yourself a lot of trouble and promote civility at the same time is by using some form of comment moderation and by being very careful whom you allow on your site. And don't hesitate to ban offensive parties. Generally speaking, if someone applies to comment here, and I have no way of scoping him out, then I don't take the risk of allowing him on board.

Have the ChiComs banned your site? Find out here. (Via Matthew Gotham)

Just when you were afraid he was gone for good, Jim Ryan of Philosoblog fame is back in the cybersaddle. He informs me by e-mail that he is "Back to stay now." We'll see. In any case, I hope his job and family commitments allow him to turn out a couple of posts per week. He has a very unusual 'voice.' I admire him and all bloggers who have demanding jobs in the 'real' world, sire and raise kids, with all that that entails, and still find time to crank out good blog posts to edify and amaze and cause consternation in liberal/left ranks.

Jim's a naturalist ethically and metaphysically, but we are on the same page politically. So there is the twin pleasure of agreement and constructive disagreement.

Take a gander at his latest posts and a stroll through his archives.

Related posts: Jim Ryan on Consciousness and Zombies; Jim Ryan's Story and Mine; Mental Quiet and Enlightenment/Salvation.

Here (via Instapundit).

According to SiteMeter, there were 4,813 visits to this site for the week ending 23 March. SiteMeter defines a visit as a series of page views by one person with no more than 30 minutes in between page views. The high for the week was on 21 March with 902 visits. The average for the week was 688 per day. The average number of page views for the week per day was 1,078. The average number of page views per visit was 1.6. The average visit length was 2:02.

For purposes of comparison, Instapundit, is at the moment averaging 186,361 visits per day but with an average visit length of a paltry 7 seconds!

Visit Professor Reynolds if you want to link. Come here if you want to think. I thank you for your patronage.

Keith Burgess-Jackson hits the mark in this incisive post. Excerpt:

Perjury and obstruction of justice are independent crimes. That is to say, they are not dependent on a showing that some other (“substantive”) crime was committed. Different crimes have different grounds. Some crimes, such as murder and assault, are against the person. Some, such as larceny and embezzlement, are against property. Some, such as robbery, are against both person and property. Some, such as burglary, are against security. Some, such as perjury and obstruction of justice, are against the administration of justice. It doesn’t matter that nobody violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act in the Libby case. Libby lied under oath to a grand jury. He obstructed justice. These are serious matters that go to the heart of our criminal-justice system. As such, they deserve severe punishment.

Among the latest at Notre Dame Philosophy Reviews, we find William Hasker's review of Peter van Inwagen, The Problem of Evil and Timothy O'Connor's review of Peter Unger, All the Power in the World.

Max Goss, Right Reason editor, e-mails:

I am pleased to announce two upcoming interviews on Right Reason, the weblog for philosophical conservatism. In a few weeks, look for an interview with J. Budziszewski, who will be discussing his recent book, Natural Law for Lawyers. This week you'll find an interview with George H. Nash, whom I interviewed on the occasion of the 30th anniversary edition of his landmark work of intellectual history, The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945. Here is the introduction to the interview:

Suppose you wanted a better grasp on contemporary American conservative thought. Or suppose you were well acquainted with contemporary American conservative thought but were fuzzy about where it came from. Or suppose you understood where contemporary American conservative thought came from, but wanted to see how a historian with encyclopedic knowledge and a gift for elegant writing would weave its origins into a compelling narrative. Or suppose you were simply in the mood for a good book, a book that explored big ideas and interesting people and how they have interacted to shape history. You'd want to pick up a copy of The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945, by intellectual historian George H. Nash. This book traces the rise of the post-war conservative movement from its unpromising origins to its current status as a force to be reckoned with. ISI books recently published an updated and revised 30th anniversary edition of this landmark book, and I took the occasion to interview its author for Right Reason.

Here. Hat tip: Tim Mc G.

Here, on Wikipedia, is a list of criticisms of Wikipedia. Any doubts as to the reliability of Wikipedia should prompt a meta-doubt as to the reliability of this list. Nonbovine Ruminations has a series of posts on Wikipedia, including the Essjay fraud. This Essjay is the guy who claimed academic credentials he doesn't possess. Here is a BBC assessment of Wikipedia reliability on scientific topics.

As I always say, Caveat lector! And that includes the contents of these pages. Of course, I strive for accuracy and never knowingly publish anything false. But errors creep in.

Why waste one's time reading trendy pseudo-philosophical quatschmeisters like Derrida when one can read such real philosophers as McTaggart and Blanshard? Anthony Flood continues to upload Blanshard materials to his site, most recently some reviews of McTaggart.

Here. Now why didn't I think of that? Legion are the things one can give up for Lent. I heard tell of a fellow who gave up Catholicism for Lent and then forgot to come back to it. Is it self-denial to deny oneself self-denial?

Seriously, self-denial is a good thing, the nonpreaching of which by liberals is yet another reason to not be one. Read my post, William James on Self-Denial. It will do you good.

His website's motto is "Correct reasoning is our business." Definitely worth a visit.

For One Who Is Liberally Educated, Life Is Far Too Short

The Habit of Reason

See Anthony Flood's Blanshard page for more wonderful essays by the Yale philosopher.

The existence and amounts of natural and moral evil pose a well-known problem for theists. Rather underappreciated is the fact that evil is a problem for atheists as well. I have been planning a post on this, but I see that Alan Rhoda has taken a good solid crack at it. So go read his post. Perhaps I'll throw in my two cents later.

Aaron Snell, who comments here on occasion, informs me that he has begun a weblog. Get thee hence and give the young man some traffic!

. . . for the next three decades. İnşallah.

Just a note to correspondents and commenters that the volume of e-mail and comments coupled with my leisurely and inefficient habits make it difficult for me to answer everything. But I do make an effort, and I do appreciate your missives. But please be pithy.

A curious blogospheric expression of wide circulation. Need it be said? Can't it be shown? Do people need to be warned of an upcoming paucity of posts? It is not as if their supply of oxygen is about to be reduced.