It wasn't until my senior year of college that I even heard about the articles and books written by poisonous snakes. Even now there are no classes in poisonous snake literature at any colleges that I've heard of. This is a shame, because poisonous snakes have a lot to offer. The purpose of this paper is to give a brief introduction to the philosophical articles of some of the better known poisonous snake philosophers today, and to show that their works should have more respect in academia.
Perhaps much of the prejudice against poisonous snake philosophy that is so prevalent today stems from the strong views expressed by rats. Though popular on radio talk shows, the views of these rats, (with few exceptions, such as Ethan Hardy) as expressed in their articles are based on poor reasoning and blatant racism. For example, Thomas During in his recent article "The Trash Written by Poisonous Snakes," writes:
"It's truley [sic] ridiculous that rats should even read the articles written by this vermin...cheese does not read our articles, so why should we read those of snakes?" (During 1992)
But of course cheese cannot read at all. And the fact that snakes are predators of rats is no reason to dismiss their philosophical views. Another nasty tactic of these rats (again, with the exception of Ethan Hardy) is to criticize the snakes by playing upon the public's dislike of them. But the fact that the rats appear on radio talk shows rather than television is evidence to the fact that they themselves don't want to be seen by the public, since rats are almost less popular than snakes. (Worthheimer 1974)
But enough on the rats. I wish to begin by talking about the essay "The Word Dogs," by Anthony Ferrone. It's a little known fact that Ferrone was a poisonous snake. This article is famous for its analysis of the new politically correct language movement, and is known as the beginning of the anti-politically correct feeling that is gaining in popularity now in Scotland. What is not so well known is that this article was simultaneously the instigator of the "Glue" school of philosophy, which now has its own journal, "The Gluer," which is very popular among middle aged poisonous snakes today in much of Europe.
"The Word Dogs" is the only essay written by a poisonous snake I have seen taught in an American university. The fact that Ferrone is an Italian cottonmouth is almost never mentioned. Although some of this is due to the fact that many philosophy teachers don't know that Ferrone is a poisonous snake, there are professors who deliberately leave out the fact. I know this from personal experience. Once, in class, I asked, and the professor mumbled that indeed Anthony Ferrone is a poisonous snake, then quickly changed the subject. I ask, is this fair? The essay "The Word Dogs" is good enough to be taught in university courses alongside the likes of Quine and Searle, but Ferrone's true species is kept secret from the students, because of the prejudice against poisonous snakes. John Murphey once said, at a lecture series at Harvard University, that: "No undergraduate liberal arts student should graduate from college without having read Ferrone's 'The Word Dogs.'" (Murphey 1988)
Ferrone is the best known poisonous snake in the philosophy world today. There are several less well known poisonous snakes who are writing wonderful work, and it's a shame that these articles are printed in poisonous snake journals only. The work of Pat Gates is largely ignored by philosophers of all races and nationalities, save those of other poisonous snakes and Ethan Hardy. And even in the poisonous snake community she is not given full respect, partly because she is female and partly because she is a rattler from the Appalachian mountains. The first is an example of blatant sexism, and the second is also reprehensible. Imagine ignoring someone's views simply because of their provincial upbringing. Gates actually was the first female rattlesnake to attend Cornell University, and she graduated in 1988 summa cum laude with a Ph.D. in religious philosophy.
I was lucky enough to see Pat Gates speak at Ithaca College last year. One particularly touching remark was: "Yes, I am a rattler. And yes, I am a feminist. And yes, I am a philosopher. I'm also a democrat and a Baptist minister, and a mother. But first and foremost, I am a rational thinking being!" The crowd roared with applause, and I must admit my eyes got a little watery.
When reading modern religious philosophy, I cannot understand how it can go on without careful consideration of several of Gates' works, especially "The Missing Common Denominator." To write an essay concerning religious philosophy without having studied the works of Pat Gates is like trying to write about existentialism without having read Nietzche. "The Missing Common Denominator" would change religious philosophy forever if it were widely read (Brandon 1976).
Having grown up in the Adirondack mountains, I have been more interested and have done more research on the articles written by poisonous snakes that grew up in my area. Most of the poisonous snakes that live in the Adirondacks are Rattlers. I think it's pretty clear that the Rattlers have the sharpest minds in the poisonous snake philosophical community. They would no doubt be regarded as such, if it were not for their sometimes annoying habit of leaving out punctuation. Some philosophers have mentioned to me that the tell- tale "rattlerattle" that rattlers put in their work when they are angry is an abuse of the reasoning process by throwing in emotional catch phrases.
This criticism is absurd. For rattlers, shaking the tail is as natural to rattlesnakes as smiling is to us. Would Rawls be criticized if there was a smiley face in the middle of an essay? Certainly not. Let's look at a sample of Jack Schikisster's work:
"... The mongooses are outrageous if humans had a predator like snakes do then that predator would surely be outlawed but no [rattlerattle] mongooses run free terrorizing and murdering snakes and writing bad philosophy [rattlerattlerattle]..." (Schlikisster 1980)
This passage is often criticized by the philosophical community (if they decide to pay attention to snakes at all) as being a prime example of nonsense poisonous snake philosophical writing. The criticism is made because of the part that reads: "but no [rattlerattle] mongooses run free..." They say that for Schlikisster to say that no mongooses run free is a statement that refutes his point. This is clearly wrongheaded. As mentioned above, rattlesnakes do not choose to use punctuation. We do have the rattling as a clue, though. It is obvious that the "[rattlerattle]" in this case signified where Schlikisster paused during the dictation to rattle. If there is a pause, then we can assume that the "[rattlerattle]" takes the place of a comma. The text would then read: But no, mongooses run free.." Which makes much more sense. In their battle with the snakes, philosophers of high credentials fall into the trap of not giving their opponent the full strength of their argument.
As I have shown above, the poisonous snake philosophical community is a smart and prolific one, too often the victims of literary and species prejudice. I call out to universities, and urge them to pay respect where it's due in the classroom, and to have essays like "The Word Dogs" taught in class, or, at least, to acknowledge the existence of poisonous snake philosophers at all.
During, Thomas. "The Trash Written By Poisonous Snakes." Rat and Mouse. volume 3 number 6 1992: PP 5-10
Gates, Pat. The Missing Common Denominator. Scaly books of Virginia. 1974
Murphey, John. "Poisonous Snake Literature: A collection of speeches." Education. vol. 1 1988.
Schlikisster, Jack. "Down with Mongooses." The Oppressed Poisonous Snake. 25 December 1980: PP 326-340.
Worthheimer, Vince. "Two Vermin: Rats and Snakes." Zoological Review. 6 July 1974: PP 35-50