An open letter from a philosophy professor to Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Yes, he's a vulgarian, and so was Sagan. A debate between an auto mechanic and a bunch of anxious priests. Obsequious but wounded. Pathetic.

a repeat, and repeats of repeats. All I'm doing is waiting, and waiting is annoying.
---

in re: discussions of philosophical naturalism and of the theory of art. NewApps, specifically a comment by Jon Cogburn: his defense of Danto and Noel Carroll. On Criticism reviewed at NDPR See also discussion of naturalism and Rosenberg, incl. my comment, at Leiter

I thought I'd put this put ages ago, but maybe not.

It's from the big paper. I had it on the web, but it's down. Still trying to find a real home for it. Basic notes, here.

The photo collage above is the best simple debunking I know of philosophers' arguments about Duchamp. The images are Ingres' La Source, Courbet's Origin of the World, a Sevres porcelain (1921) after an 18th century original by Etienne Maurice Falconet, and Duchamp's Fountain. The only thing I should need to add is that the Courbet was made for private view. The same holds of course for any urinal.
Duchamp/ Hitchcock. Notes, here.


Hitchcock/Warhol 5/4/09 The whole post is repeated below


Andy Warhol, Double Elvis, 1963
A doubled image of a fake cowboy -a movie image- played by a pop "icon," and beneath that of a person: Elvis Aaron Presley.
Two images of an image, of an image, of a man. And an image of psychosis.




Alfred Hitchcock, Vertigo, 1958, and Psycho, 1960.
I shouldn't have to point out, but I will, that the spiral image also is from Vertigo.

All of these ended up in the paper.