the silencing of nozick

Conversation with a "philosopher":

What are you teaching this term?

Political philosophy.

Oh, what are you teaching?

The first half of the term is Rawls, the second half contemporary critiques of liberalism.

That sounds great—are you teaching Nozick at all?

No, I find when you teach Nozick, students just accept his criticisms and can't take Rawls seriously any more . . . .

the philosopher's oath

If you are a practicing philosopher, please consider taking this oath:

I, [insert name here], do hereby vow to never use, in speech or in print, the locution "X taught us that Y", where X is a famous philosopher and Y is a claim which they have defended. Furthermore, whenever I read or hear claims of the form "X taught us that Y" made by some other philosopher, I vow to remind myself that mentioning a claim in conjunction with its most famous defender does not constitute an argument for that claim, and that it is a defining feature of philosophy that it should have no dogmas, that all claims are open to question. Finally, I recognize that it is this feature of philosophy which distinguishes it from science, but also which prevents it from degenerating into hollow and dogmatic scholasticism, and I vow to maintain an open mind and protect philosophy from the descent into scholasticism until my dying day, or forfeit my right to practice philosophy.

modern atheism

When atheism was young and in its prime, it's hatred for christianity was a palliative. This modern atheism is ossified, however, its dogma writ large in the books of the Scientists. Now, the "critique" of "religion" offered by this fashionable atheism is just another dogma clamoring amongst dogmas. Snore.