Cogburn weighs in

On the SR is dead question. HERE.

I'll mostly plead the fifth, but I can state that I do read Cogburn's blog but also think that Wolfendale's book has got alot right.  I certainly think that there is more truth in Pete's book than what you'll find in Shaviro's or Gratton's books (I am reviewing the copy of Shaviro's book that UMP sent to me in addition to Pete's book).

We need more honesty in all of this and that's what Pete's book provides.  I think Jon wrote his post with sincerity as well, even though I am not sure I agree with him on this particular issue.  But I guess some disagreements can be productive, and so far alot of folks have been nudged to read Pete's book.  So good for him.  

Pete (Wolfendale) and Ray Brassier are two philosophers that I certainly respect and enjoy reading.  I think that they are right about things when it does come to the whole notion of a former "speculative realism" versus Speculative ®ealism™.  The original spirit has been snuffed out, and all that we're left with is cronyism and a trademarked brand.  But let me repeat, Cogburn is honest and doesn't pull punches.  So I can respect that as well.

I've weighed in before, HERE with a post simply called "Speculative ®ealism™" and HERE with a response to Robert Jackson.