« The Election Made Simple | Main | You Rang? (Ambinder On Hume) »

June 23, 2008

Comments

Okay, I'll put my B.A. in philosophy on the line here, augmented by extensive exposure to Marc Ambinder's work, and say that he's just been caught out in an ignorant effort at pretension, and was intending "Hobbesian".

Maybe, he wants us to bracket our impressions of a necessary connection which derives from impressions of things in the external world?

Or something like that?

I believe it is from the same cloth as this.

I'm sorry, I meant to write, he wanted us to keep our impressions of a necessary connection which derives from impressions of things in the external world?

Or some sh!t about our assumptions conserning causation!

I always get this weird mental whiplash when I look at any of Muir's stuff. It's like listening to a bad William Buckley imitator while watching crappy soft porn.

It reminds me of all of those cheesy 60's radical chic types from back in the day, blabbing on about the dialectic while trying to get in some girl's pants.

Who knew the spiritual heirs of the "Mau-mauing the flak catchers" set would be movement conservatives? What's next, red white and blue love beads?

Losers.

Thanks -

I agree with Nell. It's an obvious reference to Hobbes. In other words, Ambinder experienced what the cognitive science PhDs call a brain fart.

Whatever. It's a complete non-issue and one I think Obama's team would be better off ignoring or, even better, acknowledging was an innocent misstep by Black. Pretending to be outraged is "old politics," the truth is nobody really cares or thinks this is anything more than that. By taking the high ground Obama can much better establish himself as someone who's tired of these distractions.

Very irritating. Not the philosophical pretention, the disengenuosness/naivete of the post. The point of Black saying what he said is not to objectively analyze the effect of a terrorist attack but to reinforce, by implication, the idea that John McCain's personality, judgment, and knowledge are CLEARLY superior to Barack Obama's when it comes to "security". For that reason Black was EXPLOITING tragic events and fearful emotions in the service of getting a candidate elected. It is foolish in the extreme to assume that Black is trying to get to the heart of this question about national security credentials. Not that anyone in the mainstream media ever tries to answer this question. I would love to ask various mainstream pundits to describe how they came to the conclusion that we'll be better of militarily if John McCain is president. I bet there'd be a very small amount of reasoning apparent in what they described.

My B.A. in Philosophy is nearly worthless already, but I'll offer the possibility that Ambinder has been reading _Moral Minds_, in which the author describes Humean, Kantian and Rawlsian creatures. The moral judgements of a Humean creature (according to the author) are preceded by emotional reactions. Reason plays no role.

BTW, In the "About" blurb, it says that Ambinder writes occasionally about cognitive neuroscience. This would make it at least plausible that he would read Marc Hauser.

So it's an error of fusion/substitution, unless Ambinder expects all the rest of us to have been reading Hauser.

Can we go back to talking about telecom law? My knowledge of philosophy is largely limited to French post-structuralists for whom "bold truth-telling" is only a product of "Enlightenment blackmail," and I sound elitist enough as it is.

I have an aversion to all philosophers whose surnames begin with 'H'. But in the case of Hume, it's guilt by association.

I have an aversion to all philosophers whose surnames begin with 'H'. But in the case of Hume, it's guilt by association.

Heidegger and Husserl huff haughtily at your hyperbolic hoo-ha.

Adding an "e" to "human" does not make for greater wisdom, any more than adding an "e" to "potato" makes one eligible to be vice-president.

While Hegel humbly hopes to have him hobbled.

Hobbes and Hayek howl horribly for his head.

However, Hume helpfully hacks Hegel's hamstrings, while hamming his hope that Hegel be healed by history's hand; his hurt is a horrible helix of harm held by hopes higher than hopping about his home.

"Harangue Hegel's hypotheses on historicism?!" howls he, hurling a hammer at Hume in hopes of hewing his head. "Ha!" Hume heckles, happily hopping heavenward as Hegel's Historic Hammer hurtles by harmlessly.

"Harangue Hegel's hypotheses on historicism?!" howls he, hurling a hammer at Hume in hopes of hewing his head. "Ha!" Hume heckles, happily hopping heavenward as Hegel's Historic Hammer hurtles by harmlessly.

Hilzoy, help!

Hee hee.

Ambinder knows that Hume is a sceptic, which he conflates with being a skeptic, so what Ambinder means is, "let's not be hyper-suspicious and skeptical here."

That's the best I can figure.

Ambinder is a clown. Hope that helps.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad