An excellent and principled use of your own growing and highly-credible platform.
I do wonder why, with plenty of billionaires in the world who are not George Soros, there is no comparable but ethically principled use of money to achieve goals more conducive to the preservation of the Western Enlightenment. If Cambridge and Oxford have fallen, surely in this the interwebs age the funding of the careers of principled academics can be accomplished so that rotten institutions can just go rot.
It’s dismaying to see these storied institutions indulge in such pointless behavior. They will never recover from the very fact that they are conducting such investigations. They have abdicated their responsibility to encourage open discourse.
A review in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews described Leiter as "one of the most influential legal philosophers of our time",[3] while a review in The Journal of Nietzsche Studies described Leiter's book Nietzsche on Morality (2002) as "arguably the most important book on Nietzsche's philosophy in the past twenty years."[4]
Among professional philosophers, his name is way more often associated with his blog and his "Philosophical Gourmet Report" than with his writings on Nietzsche or legal realism. This is a verifiable fact, Mr Wickins.
Cofnas is good on the facts as far as he goes, but once again, as in his debates with Kevin McDonald, he remains stuck at his original loyalty: Is It Good for the Jews? Of course it is! - retaining his own, and his tribe's, genealogical and cultural advantages. I guess it could be worse. We could be ruled by the Morons!
Can you define Cofnasian ‘race realism’ in philosophical terms? It seems a rather obsolete position prima facie. Not just in terms of 1950s UN recommendations but as a serious biological consideration.
I think I will butcher it, but I will give it a shot.
Here is my understanding -- you believe In evolution right? That based on where different races evolved over thousands of years, they evolve to suit their environment. This is obvious in physical terms, for example, I think that nobody disputes that biology dictates that Kenyans are good at running marathons.
The same principle which applies to this physical potential also applies to cognitive potential.
I'm not an academic but I did have direct experience of public school children and their teachers over the course of six years, and I can tell you that the vast majority of little black kids, even from extremely deprived backgrounds, start out quite normal, with enthusiasm for learning and having excellent observational skills and asking intelligent and pertinent questions when exposed to new environments, and that is exterminated in them by third grade, pretty much, and the greatest enemy to the success of little black boys is black female teachers.
Of course I am offering you anecdotal evidence, but an anecdotal experience repeated every day during six-week seasons, three times a year, is perhaps reasonably valid.
Of course there are many stupid children for whom the most consistent and loving attention cannot improve their IQs. But there are far more children who've figured out the game quite early, which itself is intelligence, and they realize before graduating elementary school that nobody gives a damn about them and it's everyone for himself and survival requires making alliances that can be very bad for society at large indeed.
Why does ‘race’ exist? And why is ‘evolution’ obvious? Some claim evolutionary theory is a philosophical interpretation of observations of ‘habituation’, so why are we sure that ‘habituation’ is true and that ‘evolution’ uniquely explains it? Given the example, are all ‘Kenyans’ of one race? Is ‘ethnicity’ related to ‘race’? ‘Nationality’? How was the concept of ‘race’ constructed compared to these other concepts of identity (‘ethnicity’ and ‘nationality’)? Were some constructed with more cognitive bias than others? Could someone have good cognitive potential given their low physical potential? Could that be a kind of intelligence?
So many questions to ask by logical presupposition for a philosopher of biology. I’m not sure Cofnas really did the job even if his conclusions were correct. That’s not what analytic philosophy is about (the modern tradition represented at Cambridge).
I’ll respond sentence-by-sentence in a bit. Because I think you are failing to do your job as a philosopher in “carving at the joints” in an artful way. There are too many logical fallacies to count, particularly ‘well-wishing’ and ‘suppressed evidence’.
The point of the post is not "do you agree with Nathan Cofnas". It's "should Nathan Cofnas be fired because people disagree with him".
The answer to both questions can be no!
this appeared in the wrong place but I can't seem to delete it!
An excellent and principled use of your own growing and highly-credible platform.
I do wonder why, with plenty of billionaires in the world who are not George Soros, there is no comparable but ethically principled use of money to achieve goals more conducive to the preservation of the Western Enlightenment. If Cambridge and Oxford have fallen, surely in this the interwebs age the funding of the careers of principled academics can be accomplished so that rotten institutions can just go rot.
It’s dismaying to see these storied institutions indulge in such pointless behavior. They will never recover from the very fact that they are conducting such investigations. They have abdicated their responsibility to encourage open discourse.
Nathan Cofnas is correct. The five races evolved different average IQs: Africa 71, Eurasia 100, Oceania 62, East Asia 105, America 86.
Brian Leiter is not a philosophy heavyweight.
A review in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews described Leiter as "one of the most influential legal philosophers of our time",[3] while a review in The Journal of Nietzsche Studies described Leiter's book Nietzsche on Morality (2002) as "arguably the most important book on Nietzsche's philosophy in the past twenty years."[4]
Being influential is not the same as being deep or sound. Besides, he is way more influential as a gossiper than as a thinker.
In your opinion.
Among professional philosophers, his name is way more often associated with his blog and his "Philosophical Gourmet Report" than with his writings on Nietzsche or legal realism. This is a verifiable fact, Mr Wickins.
Cofnas is good on the facts as far as he goes, but once again, as in his debates with Kevin McDonald, he remains stuck at his original loyalty: Is It Good for the Jews? Of course it is! - retaining his own, and his tribe's, genealogical and cultural advantages. I guess it could be worse. We could be ruled by the Morons!
The point of the post is not "do you agree with Nathan Cofnas". It's "should Nathan Cofnas be fired because people disagree with him".
The answer to both questions can be no!
And my answer is also no. But I often find that the most vociferous advocates for free speech have blind spots of their own.
Can you define Cofnasian ‘race realism’ in philosophical terms? It seems a rather obsolete position prima facie. Not just in terms of 1950s UN recommendations but as a serious biological consideration.
I think I will butcher it, but I will give it a shot.
Here is my understanding -- you believe In evolution right? That based on where different races evolved over thousands of years, they evolve to suit their environment. This is obvious in physical terms, for example, I think that nobody disputes that biology dictates that Kenyans are good at running marathons.
The same principle which applies to this physical potential also applies to cognitive potential.
I'm not an academic but I did have direct experience of public school children and their teachers over the course of six years, and I can tell you that the vast majority of little black kids, even from extremely deprived backgrounds, start out quite normal, with enthusiasm for learning and having excellent observational skills and asking intelligent and pertinent questions when exposed to new environments, and that is exterminated in them by third grade, pretty much, and the greatest enemy to the success of little black boys is black female teachers.
Of course I am offering you anecdotal evidence, but an anecdotal experience repeated every day during six-week seasons, three times a year, is perhaps reasonably valid.
Of course there are many stupid children for whom the most consistent and loving attention cannot improve their IQs. But there are far more children who've figured out the game quite early, which itself is intelligence, and they realize before graduating elementary school that nobody gives a damn about them and it's everyone for himself and survival requires making alliances that can be very bad for society at large indeed.
Why does ‘race’ exist? And why is ‘evolution’ obvious? Some claim evolutionary theory is a philosophical interpretation of observations of ‘habituation’, so why are we sure that ‘habituation’ is true and that ‘evolution’ uniquely explains it? Given the example, are all ‘Kenyans’ of one race? Is ‘ethnicity’ related to ‘race’? ‘Nationality’? How was the concept of ‘race’ constructed compared to these other concepts of identity (‘ethnicity’ and ‘nationality’)? Were some constructed with more cognitive bias than others? Could someone have good cognitive potential given their low physical potential? Could that be a kind of intelligence?
So many questions to ask by logical presupposition for a philosopher of biology. I’m not sure Cofnas really did the job even if his conclusions were correct. That’s not what analytic philosophy is about (the modern tradition represented at Cambridge).
> Why does ‘race’ exist? And why is ‘evolution’ obvious?
Are you a creationist?
> Is ‘ethnicity’ related to ‘race’?
'Ethnicity' is normally used to refer to more fine grained distinctions.
> ‘Nationality’?
Nationality refers to citizenship, which may be more or less correlated with race or ethnicity depending on the country in question.
> How was the concept of ‘race’ constructed compared to these other concepts of identity (‘ethnicity’ and ‘nationality’)?
Ok, now you're just nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.
It’s philosophy! I’m just asking clarifying questions. Minimizing presumptions about the truth at-hand.
See the section titled "Don't Give Up the Word 'Race'": https://ncofnas.com/p/a-guide-for-the-hereditarian-revolution
I’ll respond sentence-by-sentence in a bit. Because I think you are failing to do your job as a philosopher in “carving at the joints” in an artful way. There are too many logical fallacies to count, particularly ‘well-wishing’ and ‘suppressed evidence’.
I have never once seen bluster of this sort followed by an even remotely intelligent critique of hereditarianism.
Nathan won’t let me see his stuff, so it’s a ‘No Contest’.
FYI, soon after this interaction with Nathan, all my publications on Substack were falsely flagged for phishing and spam.
Nathan Cofnas blocked me. He doesn’t want to face the music.
Naw, he just got tired of dealing with your BS.