Too late for this, particularly as this has been the ways that Kaufman and Leiter, and those of who follow their example have acted. Moreover, by condoning these actions with their silence, prominent members of philosophy have allowed this to be the shape of philosophy. (1/n) 
If we follow Sara Ahmed's prescient words, that a space or a field takes the shape of the bodies that take action in it, the ways that Kaufman and Leiter have acted in response to issues within the field has resulted in the organization of the field in line with the above. (2/n)
While Kaufman and Leiter have pushed the field in this direction through the prominence of their positions, the field itself already trended in this direction through the habits of the senior members of the field: Kaufman and Leiter simply enabled broader circulation. (3/n)
And this, too, is how the field takes shape: the silence of senior members of philosophy in the face of the habits, the actions, of people like Kaufman and Leiter to give form to the field is just as much to blame as Kaufman and Leiter for that shape. (4/n)
So, to be clear, the trajectory of the field of philosophy has been trending in this direction since I've been in it. It is now that we have the cultural, social, and technological conditions whereby we can accelerate the coalescing of the field in this manner. (5/n)
And for Kaufman to come out and decry the shape of the field as if he had no responsibility for its organization is the height of hypocrisy, the height of a failure to "read the room," and demonstrative of his sheer disconnection from the reality of the field of philosophy. (6/n)
Thus, the cultural politics of philosophy have long since trended in this direction and to argue against it without recognizing one's responsibility for it is complete bullshit and all the more reason why we should not take such protestations from these folks at face value. (fin)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
