Having said that, it seems clear that Thom is, indeed, engaging in some disciplinary policing. If he believes that he is not policing his discipline, he might want to take a few moments to consider why others may see him as doing that. (And this brings us back to the discussion with Neil McLaughlin on sociology’s boundaries – a topic I want to return to. Has anyone received – or their library – the latest issue of Topia? I have a feeling that the article by Kurasawa and the response by Hayes will be of interest to the sociology discussion.)

This is ridiculous. It is not “exclusionary” to say that people with Ph.D. in subjects other than philosophy are more often than not trained properly in philosophy, but fact. Thus, someone with a Ph.D. in Political Science specializing in International Relations (and having a minor in, say, American Politics) may have a “doctorate in philosophy” but it would be absolutely ridiculous to say that this degree “in philosophy” is actually a degree signifying philosophical competence.

For another, I am accused of calling my colleagues “silly” which I have not done. In fact, my only disagreement with them is over the philosophical merits of their espoused postmodernism. I can promise you that our conversations are often fruitful and conducted in a collegial spirit, a spirit that seems absent here.

I’ll also take that as a resolute “no” to my question, Craig. Oh, yes, and Skinner is an historian…; we might even say historian of ideas (especially political ones).

Thanks for noting my post and best of luck to you: I wish you all the best.

What is “bone-headed” about this?

Copying and pasting a passage from Kant and saying, “Look! Postmodernists!” is boneheaded, sophomoric and – yes – journalistic. All the tendencies in thought that you (apparently) claim to hate. (Indeed, it is par for what passes as criticism of “postmodern” thought among those trained in traditional philosophy departments – c.f., John Holbo’s “work” on Zizek at The Valve.)

This sounds like more of the heavy on jargon and weak on substantive arguments that I claim characterizes much postmodernist work….

That is quite a reading of a single word post, I must say! For what it is worth, given that precision is no doubt a virtue to you, “bonehead” is slang. American in derivation and it appears that its first use was in 1908. As such, it is clearly not “jargon” nor an “argument.” Your comment is just strange.

…and so then this blog trades in verbal abuse then?

As opposed to your own? That is, the blog where you make a post entitled “Kant reveals postmodernism for what it is” thus writing-off a number of your colleagues a priori – i.e., postmodernists are silly; some of my colleagues are postmodernists; they can be written off as silly. All without even reading a single word! (By the way, didn’t Kant say something about “self-incurred immaturity?” – a fine display, I must say.)

In any event, I can think of three colleagues of mine —all PhD’s from York, in fact— who are all influenced by several of those cited above *and* call themselves postmodernists.

Relevance?

If I may respond to a previous comment, no, I don’t think the term ‘postmodernism’ is itself used to dismiss others.

Your comment in the original post certainly indicates otherwise – as does the following:

(And, no, the fact that philosophers are French is not at all a problem you attribute to analytic philosophers: the problem is poor arguments (much work in the area looks like journalism about heroes).)

For what it is worth – given that precision is valued in this discussion – I haven’t imputed any position to analytic philosophers (which I’m told don’t exist anyway – much in the same way that post-modernists don’t, I suppose).

As for the list: Durkheim, Clastres and Foucault were not philosophers (all French). Schmitt was a legal theorist (but German); Strauss self-identified as a political theorist (German Jew); Skinner seems to identify as a philosopher, but I see him more as a historical sociologist (British); that leaves Castoriadis (Greek living in Paris), Lefort (French) and Derrida (Algerian Jew). All of whom were philosophers and none of whom self-identified as “post-modernists.” Castoriadis, especially, (like Foucault and, incidentally, Deleuze – but also Lefort) was quite clear about this.

In any event, like virtually all post-friendly scholars, I also notice that you are not doing your Ph.D. in Philosophy. If you had, then you might have seen much of this for what it truly is.

“Arguments” of self-evidence don’t go very far – maybe they do in the corners you frequent, but I find them rather unconvincing. But then, you began with an a priori position that “all people who I call post-modernist or who identify as post-modernist can be dismissed as silly – mostly because their academic habits are not my own.”

You are quite right: I’m not a philosopher nor do I claim to be one. I do, however, work on the history of thought, especially the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries and this requires that I keep up to date on the relevant history of philosophy scholarship.

As for the “post-friendly” thing – now it is you who are imputing positions. I am quite clear: arrogant boneheadedness (such as your copy-and-paste of Kant) is my enemy. Boneheadedness is not limited to those who self-identify as “postmodernists” nor is it limited to those who are reflexively opposed to “postmodernists” – as you amply demonstrate.