[MD] Sociopathy (wasRe: Step Two)

[david]

Is Randy Auxier the author of an academic book of philosophy or an internet troll? How did this stuff make it past the editors?! He says, "the current state of professional philosophy and a great deal of science is "sociopathic" and compares individuals in philosophy and science to Hitler! He says, "these little fascists of the intellect ensconced within their tiny domains of thought who are engaged in the academic and educational equivalent, cleansing the Reich of human thought of whatever strikes them as impure" with "whatever the Zyclon B of their pet theories happens to be."  Jeez. Hyperbolic much? Even the friendly critics complained about this unprofessional rhetoric...


Jacquelyn Kegley says, "Auxier is sarcastically critical of James and Dewey" and "one would wish that points made by Auxier could be made with less venom". 


"I found large portions of the book harsh and unduly polemical in tone in
 what I conceive is a markedly un-Roycean way as far as the nature of 
American culture, politics, and history are concerned. I reread Royce's 
essay, "On the Limitations of the Thoughtful Public in America".  Auxier
 does not discuss this essay, and I find it an antidote to much of what I
 see as his frequently intemperate criticism.  Auxier  is also scornful 
about many of his fellow philosophers, although his book shows that he 
has learned more from both the analytic and continental schools than he 
is ready to admit.  In sum, the book is worthwhile but erratic in its 
writing and argument with sections of great insight alternating with 
portions of unclarity and diatribe." -- From Robin Friedman's review of Auxier's book.


He also seems to be cherry picking and otherwise trying too hard. 



John quoted from Time, Will and Purpose by Randy Auxier:


> The problem of the sociopath is precisely the failure to credit the
> *value* of the possible experience of others, and the metaphysics that
> follows from such a condition fails to credit the possible reality of
> the same. Only with such a perverse move can there be a "problem of
> other minds" and other pseudo problems which 20th century philosophy
> so often occupies itself.  The real issue is not the reality of other
> minds, but the tendency among some to trust ungrounded abstractions
> above concrete experience, deemed "the philosopher's fallacy" by James
> and Dewey.  More pointedly, all forms of abstractionism and
> reductionism are sociopathic and we lament that this is the current
> state of professional philosophy and a great deal of science, both
> social and natural. ... The human being who strives to be a person by
> serving institutions that have been warped risks taken into himself or
> herself the defects of purpose and memory that are immanent in the
> activities of the institutions themselves.  Thus one can, under the
> right circumstances, get individuals such as Hitler, who thinks he is
> serving the genuine purposes of the Fatherland by purposing policies
> that destroy the very cause he sought to advance, or one can get
> scientists such as Dawkins and E.O Wilson, or philosophers such a
> Dennett, these little fascists of the intellect ensconced within their
> tiny domains of thought who are engaged in the academic and
> educational equivalent, cleansing the Reich of human thought of
> whatever strikes them as impure.  They tell human beings, without
> apparent shame and without any hint of humility, that we are nothing
> more than our biology or our physical aspects, or whatever the Zyclon
> B of their pet theories happens to be, and often this is not even
> recognized as a fundamental assault on human dignity and the full
> range of the human experience.