Objectologist the Son is at it again, another grumpy post directed at PE, but, of course, he is not brave enough to actually cite or link to our conversation here: we are anonymous others who say things and do things “somewhere in the blogosphere” and so on. Read the post – judge for yourself.
Strangely enough, the objections that the Son raises are supposed to show us here how the objections we raise only reveal to everyone our careerist selves but, of course, as irony would have it, the Son ends up revealing his own self in his hapless and sulky post – someone quickly post a comment there about how he is awesome and how all those jerks at PE will burn in hell.
As for the actual “argument” advanced in the whiny post, I give you two citations from Objectologist the Son’s recent posts:
The academic rat race is already competitive enough– the only equivalents I can think of are the NFL draft or getting a good gig in Hollywood –without having an online “paper trail” following one about. The point here is not that we shouldn’t have a paper trail, but that we should be attentive to the sort of paper trail that we leave. The grad students that publicly reveal who they are really have spine because their engagement online will impact their subsequent career in the form of publishing opportunities, presentation opportunities, and project opportunities with the gatekeepers that happen to witness their meritorious or not so meritorious interactions online, as well as the word of mouth that gets around in the small world of academia when names come up. That behavior will either increase or diminish those job, publication, presentation, and project opportunities, and those decisions will be made through a combination of the merit of the work that folks produce online and offline (publications, presentations) even when being assholish, and the good or bad blood generated as a result of various interactions, their civility, their generosity, their respectfulness, and openness to fair discussion.
In other words, the suggestion is that I do not blog as much as I do for the reason that I’m genuinely engaged with the things I blog about, nor because I genuinely appreciate the philosophical positions of folks like Harman, but because somehow these relationships will advance my academic career.
Second, the way to advance yourself in your career is to publish in the most prestigious journals and with the most prestigious presses. You don’t exactly do yourself any favors publishing in obscure journals that aren’t recognized as the primo journals in your field, nor do you do yourself many favors by publishing with currently unknown presses as I will soon be doing with The Democracy of Objects. Moreover, for the non-established academic the simple fact of blogging, I think, can be a black mark against you. On the one hand, blogging remains suspect for many old school academics. This is especially true in philosophy where attitudes tend to be somewhat provincial and luddite in character. In addition to this, blogging leaves a long trail of comments where your less than stellar moments, your poorly thought out ideas, your weird ticks and passions, etc., are there for everyone to see.
[No, there’s no “on the other hand” in the last sentence, don’t look for it]
Conclusion: blogging is important and can get you ahead academically, blogging is not important since no respectable philosophers blog, therefore blogging cannot get your ahead academically. Go figure.
As for our “attacks” on Paul’s idea for a journal, they are not attacks and I would certainly not consider erasing anything I’ve said so far about it (I actually wished him luck with it), like, I don’t know, Bryant’s long and offensive rant against Reid that he since sheepishly deleted.
Levi, I know you read this blog religiously. If you have a problem with what we write, be a man and comment, you are not banned or forbidden – stop with this idiotic “some people say I’m so and so” and say it like it is, more people will respect you for it.