on labels

Apparently, a couple of people are flipping out at my reference earlier today to a “neurology death cult” wing of contemporary continental philosophy. I’m not going to read those remarks, because I like at least a few of these people.

But I’m not sure why the sense of humor is only supposed to work in one direction. I’m supposed to sit idly by and listen to claims that object-oriented philosophy leads to “neoliberal fascism,” the hatred of human beings, and “the psychoanalysis of hummus,” not to mention Ponzi schemes, “Orientalism” (by someone who admitted to never having read Edward Said), and a general spirit of capitalistic opportunism and corruption. And then I’m not supposed to fire any shots in response.

If you’re going to dish it out, you have to be willing to take it.

Levi has admitted on his blog in the past to having gotten caught up in fights and said ugly things he regrets. There are also occasions when I feel that I have overreacted on this blog to things that were said (including by people I really respect, such as Shaviro).

But one thing that I think must be said about both me and Levi is that we have rarely if ever thrown the first stone. And that is an important point that needs to be considered more frequently. Retaliation may not always be worth the trouble, but it is a basic right. Some sociologists have even concluded that tit-for-tat retribution is the most effective way of maintaining social peace.

In any case, there has never been a time when I initiated conflict with any of these people. Their standard modus operandi is to try to stir something up and then to run crying to their friends when I pulled out a stick and whapped them back. Indeed, that’s why they generally travel in packs.

But I happen not to share the great enthusiasm for the philosophy-of-mind turn in our midst, especially when it comes from people who make no end of unkind remarks about such figures as Husserl and Latour, who are both of far greater importance than the Zeitgeist tends to imagine. And the Zeitgeist right now favors figures such as Badiou, Zizek, Deleuze, Lacan, Laruelle, a bit of Malabou and Metzinger lapping at the edges, etc. I like much of this stuff too, but it also has weaknesses of its own, and people need to have the freedom to address those weaknesses without explosions from those who like them.

Conversations cannot be one-way streets. My biggest intellectual disappointments in recent years were with those who constantly dumped on Heidegger, Husserl, and Latour in my presence, while exploding with rage whenever I raised the least concerns about Badiou, the Churchlands, etc. The basic principle is that one can’t be touchy when throwing first stones. People of the new philosophy-of-mind bent in continental philosophy have, on the whole, shown touches of the most strongly emotional responses to philosophical debate, whereas I have politely listened to all critiques of Husserl, Heidegger, Latour.

Your heroes are not immune from criticism just because they’re yours. That’s the general idea.