The Stone Reader

  CONTENTS

  Introduction

  Section I: Philosophy

  Prefatory Note

  NEW IMPRESSIONS OF AN OLD PROFESSION

  What Is a Philosopher? —Simon Critchley

  The Flight of Curiosity —Justin E. H. Smith

  Philosophy as an Art of Dying —Costica Bradatan

  Philosophy—What’s the Use? —Gary Gutting

  In the Cave: Philosophy and Addiction —Peg O’Connor

  Women in Philosophy? Do the Math —Sally Haslanger

  What’s Wrong With Philosophy? —Linda Martín Alcoff

  The Disappearing Women —Rae Langton

  The Difficulty of Philosophy —Alexander George

  The Philosophical Dinner Party —Frieda Klotz

  When Socrates Met Phaedrus: Eros in Philosophy —Simon Critchley

  THE GEOGRAPHY OF PHILOSOPHY

  The Enlightenment’s “Race” Problem, and Ours —Justin E. H. Smith

  Kung Fu for Philosophers —Peimin Ni

  Bridging the Analytic-Continental Divide —Gary Gutting

  Of Cannibals, Kings and Culture:

  The Problem of Ethnocentricity —Adam Etinson

  Found in Translation —Hamid Dabashi

  Born Again in a Second Language —Costica Bradatan

  Philosophy’s Western Bias —Justin E. H. Smith

  RETHINKING THINKERS

  Spinoza’s Vision of Freedom, and Ours —Steven Nadler

  Of Hume and Bondage —Simon Blackburn

  A Feminist Kant —Carol Hay

  Sartre and Camus in New York —Andy Martin

  Kierkegaard’s Antigone —Ulrika Carlsson

  Freud’s Radical Talking —Benjamin Y. Fong

  Was Wittgenstein Right? —Paul Horwich

  OLD PROBLEMS, NEW SPINS

  Experiments in Philosophy —Joshua Knobe

  Your Move: The Maze of Free Will —Galen Strawson

  The Limits of the Coded World —William Egginton

  On Modern Time —Espen Hammer

  Logic and Neutrality —Timothy Williamson

  Paradoxical Truth —Graham Priest

  The Drama of Existentialism —Gary Gutting

  Reasons for Reason —Michael P. Lynch

  Reclaiming the Imagination —Timothy Williamson

  Are There Natural Human Rights? —Michael Boylan

  PHILOSOPHY, LITERATURE AND LIFE

  Is Philosophy Literature? —Jim Holt

  Does Great Literature Make Us Better? —Gregory Currie

  Stormy Weather: Blues in Winter —Avital Ronell

  Poetry, Medium and Message —Ernie Lepore

  Boxing Lessons —Gordon Marino

  The Practical and the Theoretical —Jason Stanley

  The Meaningfulness of Lives —Todd May

  The Spoils of Happiness —David Sosa

  Section II: Science

  Prefatory Note

  CAN SCIENCE EXPLAIN EVERYTHING?

  What Is Naturalism? —Timothy Williamson

  Why I Am a Naturalist —Alex Rosenberg

  On Ducking Challenges to Naturalism —Timothy Williamson

  The Core of Mind and Cosmos —Thomas Nagel

  Things Fall Apart —Philip Kitcher

  THE EVOLUTION OF RIGHT AND WRONG

  Moral Camouflage or Moral Monkeys? —Peter Railton

  Evolution and Our Inner Conflict —Edward O. Wilson

  If Peas Can Talk, Should We Eat Them? —Michael Marder

  The Future of Moral Machines —Colin Allen

  Cambridge, Cabs and Copenhagen:

  My Route to Existential Risk —Huw Price

  WHERE IS MY MIND?

  Mary and the Zombies:

  Can Science Explain Consciousness? —Gary Gutting

  A Real Science of Mind —Tyler Burge

  Out of Our Brains —Andy Clark

  Do Thrifty Brains Make Better Minds? —Andy Clark

  BLINDED BY NEUROSCIENCE?

  Bursting the Neuro-utopian Bubble —Benjamin Y. Fong

  Bodies in Motion: An Exchange —Alex Rosenberg and William Egginton

  Is Neuroscience the Death of Free Will? —Eddy Nahmias

  Is the “Dumb Jock” Really a Nerd? —Jason Stanley and John W. Krakauer

  THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF SCIENCE

  Learning How to Die in the Anthropocene —Roy Scranton

  Can Neuroscience Challenge Roe v. Wade? —William Egginton

  Depression and the Limits of Psychiatry —Gary Gutting

  Why Are States So Red and Blue? —Steven Pinker

  The Enigma of Chinese Medicine —Stephen T. Asma

  The Dangers of Pseudoscience —Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry

  CAN WE LIVE WITH UNCERTAINTY?

  Nothing to See Here: Demoting the Uncertainty Principle —Craig Callender

  The Dangers of Certainty: A Lesson From Auschwitz —Simon Critchley

  The Riddle of the Human Species —Edward O. Wilson

  Section III: Religion and Morals

  Prefatory Note

  WHAT IS FAITH?

  Philosophy and Faith —Gary Gutting

  Mystery and Evidence —Tim Crane

  The Rigor of Love —Simon Critchley

  Does It Matter Whether God Exists? —Gary Gutting

  The Importance of the Afterlife. Seriously. —Samuel Scheffler

  THE VARIETIES OF RELIGIOUS DISAGREEMENT

  In Praise of the Clash of Cultures —Carlos Fraenkel

  What’s Wrong With Blasphemy? —Andrew F. March

  Why I Love Mormonism —Simon Critchley

  An Imperfect God —Yoram Hazony

  The Politics of the Binding of Isaac —Omri Boehm

  On Questioning the Jewish State —Joseph Levine

  The Freedom of Faith: A Christmas Sermon —Simon Critchley

  MORALITY’S GOD PROBLEM

  Good Minus God —Louise M. Antony

  Morals Without God? —Frans de Waal

  The Sacred and the Humane —Anat Biletzki

  Confessions of an Ex-Moralist —Joel Marks

  Are We Ready for a “Morality Pill”? —Peter Singer and Agata Sagan

  The Light at the End of Suffering —Peg O’Connor

  SOME HARD MORAL CASES

  The Maze of Moral Relativism —Paul Boghossian

  Is Pure Altruism Possible? —Judith Lichtenberg

  The Living Death of Solitary Confinement —Lisa Guenther

  Should This Be the Last Generation? —Peter Singer

  The Meat Eaters —Jeff McMahan

  Think Before You Breed —Christine Overall

  On Forgiveness —Charles L. Griswold

  Questions for Free-Market Moralists —Amia Srinivasan

  The Myth of Universal Love —Stephen T. Asma

  Section IV: Society

  Prefatory Note

  ECONOMICS AND POLITICS

  Hegel on Wall Street —J. M. Bernstein

  What Is Economics Good For? —Alex Rosenberg and Tyler Curtain

  The Taint of “Social Darwinism” —Philip Kitcher

  The Veil of Opulence —Benjamin Hale

  Dependents of the State —Amia Srinivasan

  The Failure of Rational Choice Philosophy —John McCumber

  Mandela’s Socialist Failure —Slavoj Žižek

  When Hope Tramples Truth —Roger Scruton

  THE MODERN FAMILY

  Is Forced Fatherhood Fair? —Laurie Shrage

  “Mommy Wars” Redux: A False Conflict —Amy Allen

  When Culture, Power and Sex Collide —Linda Martín Alcoff

  Lady Power —Nancy Bauer

  The End of “Marriage” —Laurie Shrage

  BLACK, WHITE OR OTHER

  Fugitive Slave Mentality —Robert Gooding-Williams

  Walking While Black in the “White Gaze” —George Yancy

  Getting Past the Outrage on Race —Gary Gutting

  A Lesson From Cuba on Race —Alejandro de la Fuente

  Is the United States a “Racial Democracy”? —Jason Stanley and Vesla Weaver

  What If We Occupied Language? —H. Samy Alim

  Does Immigration Mean “France Is Over”? —Justin E. H. Smith

  FREEDOM FROM THE BARREL OF A GUN

  Who Needs a Gun? —Gary Gutting

  The Weapons Continuum —Michael Boylan

  The Freedom of an Armed Society —Firmin DeBrabander

  Is American Nonviolence Possible? —Todd May

  The Moral Hazard of Drones —John Kaag and Sarah Kreps

  A Crack in the Stoic’s Armor —Nancy Sherman

  Rethinking the “Just War” —Jeff McMahan

  THIS AMERICAN LIFE

  The Gospel According to “Me” —Simon Critchley and Jamieson Webster

  Deluded Individualism —Firmin DeBrabander

  The Very Angry Tea Party —J. M. Bernstein

  Is Our Patriotism Moral? —Gary Gutting

  The Cycle of Revenge —Simon Critchley

  What Is a “Hacktivist”? —Peter Ludlow

  The Myth of “Just Do It” —Barbara Gail Montero

  How to Live Without Irony —Christy Wampole

  Navigating Past Nihilism —Sean D. Kelly

  Acknowledgments

  Contributors

  INTRODUCTION

  I.

  What is a philosopher? And more important, who cares?

  These two questions, and our attempt to answer them, are central to explaining this book, a collection of more than 130 ess
ays and arguments from The New York Times’ philosophy series, The Stone.

  The questions are not arbitrary; they arose as we began this project in 2010, guided us as we developed it over the next five years, and like all the best questions, presented themselves again and again, and forced us to rethink our answers as we went along.

  As might be expected, the answer to the first—What is a philosopher?—is somewhat elusive. At least one of the contributors to this book has taken a stab at it—Simon Critchley, my coeditor and coconspirator in this project, devotes the opening essay to it. Many others over the last few centuries have, too, and their conclusions vary: Truth seeker. Rationalist. Logician. Metaphysician. Troublemaker. Tenured professor. Scholar. Visionary. Madperson. Gadfly. Seer.

  Underlying at least some of these definitions is a common perception—that a philosopher is a marginal, perhaps useless, creature, typically unemployable, poorly wired for worldly pursuits and ill suited for normal life. In other words, a philosopher is a person whose habitual introspection renders him or her of little practical use to those in the “real world.” Remarkably, that perception hasn’t changed much over time. When was the last time you heard a proud parent mention “my son, the philosopher,” or “my daughter, the metaphysician”? Philosopher—as opposed to, say, firefighter, web developer or regional risk-assessment manager—isn’t quite a job, is it? In polite or expensively educated company, wherever that might be found, identifying oneself as a philosopher might only raise a few eyebrows; in certain other precincts, that is to say practically everywhere, the admission would more likely be met with laughter, puzzlement, scorn or worse.

  Implicit here is the view that philosophy itself is somehow deficient, an impractical, even indulgent intellectual pursuit. This strain of anti-intellectualism is thought to be especially virulent in the United States, with its can-do, colonialist DNA and a bloodthirsty manifest destiny at its historical core—a view Richard Hofstadter laid out famously in his book Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (1963). We may even go as far as to say that in America, where the evangelical overlords of material productivity still hover, “navel-gazing” of the sort philosophers engage in might be considered a punishable offense, or worst yet, a sin. It might follow, then, that the United States is a nation in which any sort of intense thoughtfulness has no real place.

  All this leads us to the second question—Who cares?—because if the answer is “no one,” why waste any time answering the first or even thinking about any of this?

  Let’s be guileless for a moment, put aside the question’s implied dismissal, and take it literally. The answer in that case is actually simple and surprising: A lot of people care. Despite a robust global appetite for cat videos, pop music and porn, and the alleged collapse of “the humanities” in American life, millions care deeply about, study, consume and practice philosophy. It is not confined to its traditional place in the university system. In fact, more people than ever have access to philosophical works and schools of thought, and they use them. As you no doubt know, the works of any philosopher under the sun—from Plato to Avicenna to Heidegger to the seventeen-year-old Spinoza devotee with a blog—are available electronically in most of the developed world. That was not the case a few decades ago.

  Given all this, we find the often heard argument that philosophy, along with the rest of the humanities, is rapidly becoming obsolete to be a tired one. With all due respect, we reject that claim. We maintain that the reports of the death of American intellectual life (and such life elsewhere) have been greatly exaggerated, and that philosophy both inside and out of the academy is more vital than ever. And we offer this collection, as well as the popular success of The Stone, as a small bit of evidence.

  II.

  To those new to this particular philosophical project, here are a few basic facts: The Stone is an ongoing series, launched in 2010 as a part of the online Opinion report of The New York Times. Each week we publish at least one philosophic essay, often dealing with a current social, political or cultural issue. As the short description on the Times website says, the series “features the writing of contemporary philosophers and other thinkers on issues both timely and timeless.” In other words, we aim to examine the world we find ourselves in by putting forward new ideas without discarding—or forgetting—the established wisdom of the past.

  As series moderator, Simon often serves as a liaison between the world of professional or academic philosophers and our journalistic work at The Stone. He is part ambassador and part talent scout, inviting philosophers and other original thinkers to write pieces for us, and writing them himself at least a few times a year. Back in the Times Building on Eighth Avenue, I do some of the same; I assign and solicit pieces based on current events or the attractiveness of certain topics and review submissions from writers. Since this is ultimately a product of The New York Times, we conduct the fact-checking, editing and publishing of each essay in-house and take full editorial responsibility for the final product.

  The book, as you find it here, is a selection from The Stone’s first four years of essays, organized into four sections, not chronologically but by way of broad subject areas: Philosophy, Science, Religion and Morals, and Society, each beginning with a short preface written by Simon. Within each of these sections are subsections that offer a sharper focus on the essays. The aim of this structure is to make it easy for readers to navigate the large body of work here. As with any anthology, readers may either work through the material from beginning to end or move back and forth between sections at will. It is neither a “text book” designed to provide some form of tutelage nor a mere collection of “newspaper columns” but an anthology of contemporary essays and arguments that we hope will engage readers and reward many readings, and make clear the continued relevance of philosophy.

  The seed for The Stone was planted in a much larger initiative at the Times. In late 2005 I was hired as an editor in Opinion by the editorial page editor at the time, Gail Collins, to help with the effort to develop material that would take full advantage of the possibilities in the digital space. What could we do here that we could not do on the printed page? While I can’t speak for the intent or vision of my superiors or the great institution for which I work, I can say that as an editor with deep interests in not just world events, as a job like mine normally requires, but in artistic, intellectual and cultural life as well, I was excited by the possibilities. There was the sense, rare at a big newspaper—or an organization of any kind, really—of being given space to create new forms, to pursue themes, ideas and writers both within and outside the typical realm of opinion journalism, and venture into areas that were socially or culturally relevant, whether they responded directly to the news, danced around it or just shed a broader light on it. New ideas and approaches were encouraged, green-lighted and supported. The field was open.

  One of the approaches we hit upon to broaden the scope of our report was the online opinion series. This involved curating a series of pieces based on a larger single theme over the course of one month or more. The idea was not primarily to stake out positions on particular issues—the traditional role of the op-ed—but to offer readers a greater variety of voices, perspectives and insights into a topic that mattered.

  Over the next few years, I was given opportunities to develop and edit a number of these series, most featuring the writing of nonjournalists. Early on we published a collection of real-time dispatches written by Iraqi citizens during the war (Day to Day in Iraq), then one by soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan (Frontlines), and later, by veterans as they returned home (Home Fires). As the form proved successful, we broadened our scope. We heard from insomniacs (All-Nighters), migraine sufferers (Migraine), American composers (The Score), songwriters (Measure for Measure), school teachers (Lesson Plans), drinkers and teetotalers (Proof), and soon after the economic crash of 2008, ordinary people in search of contentment in hard times.

  That last series, called Happy Days, is where we got an inkling of what eventually became The Stone. We didn’t follow the news as reported. We let people tell their own stories and share their thoughts about their place in the economically transformed world around them, even as it continued to shift under their feet. We didn’t ask very much except that the writing be true, sound, compelling and that it give some sense of an actual human experience.