Tag Archives: institutional neutrality

The Contradictions of Institutional Neutrality

Posted on by under activism, Neutrality and Complicity, Notes on the Anti-War Movement

Coming Attractions in My Jihad Against Institutional Neutrality

Over the last year or so, I’ve written about two dozen posts here critiquing institutional neutrality, and given maybe a half dozen conference presentations on the subject. But in some ways, the criticisms I’ve made so far are peripheral to the fundamental problem with the doctrine. The fundamental problem is that it’s self-contradictory and self-subversive. This latter problem is so obvious, and so obviously fatal to the doctrine, that stating it threatens to trivialize the whole discussion about institutional neutrality: if the doctrine is self-contradictory, why discuss it? Good question. In any case, I might as well articulate the objection, if only to put it out there. Continue reading →

Erotetics Lost

Posted on by under Neutrality and Complicity

Dialectical relevance and defects of omission

Band: “We are The Answer!”
Crowd: “What’s the question?”

Philosophers have a robust lexicon of technical terms for the evaluation of arguments, so many that one hesitates to call attention to a lacuna. But there are some important lacunae out there, places where we see recurrent defects in arguments but have no name for them. Lacking a name, we sometimes miss the thing. Nullem nomen, nullem nominandum may be a fallacy, but it’s also a very strong and hard-to-avoid temptation. So it helps to have a name. Continue reading →

Death Camps and Torture Chambers

Posted on by under activism, cancel culture, ethics, moralism, Notes on the Anti-War Movement, Palestine

An Addendum on Institutional Neutrality
I wanted to add a sort of postscript to my March 17 post on institutional neutrality, meant to clarify an inference that is slightly (but only slightly) more complicated than I made it in the original post. The post was already somewhat long, and I didn’t want to burden it with over-complications by addressing every possible objection, or chasing down every twist and turn in the argument. But I also don’t want to burden it with misunderstandings.

Continue reading →