Anonymous

Having read the post against blogger anonymity at larval subjects, I feel I should put forward some of my views, given that I have just started an anonymous blog.

As far as I can see larval is not really arguing against blogger anonymity so much as arguing that, since he and many others cannot be anonymous, neither should anyone else. I hope I'm not being too assholish but this smells of ressentiment. There is something rather frightening about the idea that an antisocial blogger should have "to suffer [...] real world consequences for how they’ve participated or engaged with others." Why should they? Surely being an asshole every day of their lives is punishment enough. Larval then goes on to outline how the philosophy job market works, and the risks involved with having a presence on the internet. The vision he describes is positively nightmarish, and I feel sorry for anyone who has to have any relationship with that world. Nevertheless, we must not allow this description of a (pathetic) state of affairs to become a moral framework.

The blogosphere offers the unique opportunity to be able to share ideas with philosophically and politically like-minded people in a context less formal than conferences etc, yet more sustained than drinks at the bar. In other words, the perfect place for a student of philosophy to come to explore ideas, to learn about new approaches and different views without being expected to hold a coherent and clearly thought through philosophical position. I don't want to be taking an "existential risk" with every post; I have enough of that every day I spend at work.

Larval clearly has a problem with the "paper trail" of life, as I do, but the blogosphere is a place to escape from that, not a place to be told that you cannot escape: "The person being criticized should be able to say x (not the screen name, but the person’s true proper name) argued y and y should be tied to that person." Let's not make the internet as much of a Kafkaesque hell as the real world. Anonymous blogging opens up an exciting space for the experimental production of personal identities, so I don't like being told I mustn't forget my passport.

The real evil here is not the online peanut gallery, but the world of professional philosophy, and particularly the link between thought and earning a living. Apparently employers will ask "whether this person is a colleague they would like to have for the rest of their lives." For a philosopher, the answer will often be no (and the employers are idiots for asking such a question). Would you like to have weekly departmental meetings with Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Rousseau, Althusser, Heidegger, Diogenes, Kant or Lacan? Probably not - they were all sociopaths in one way or another. But that is irrelevant here. They had interesting things to say. And that should be the guiding criterion, because I want to listen to the interesting people, whether they are polite or not.