Slightly after the event, here’s an addendum to the quotes board, all courtesy of Shieva Kleinschmidt.

“Michael is property-intoxicated.”

bq. Linda Wetzel, responding to Michael Jubien’s claim that we are often object-fixated.

“I’m going to kill myself in about 5 minutes. Let me talk about endurantism.”

bq. Laurie Paul, responding to the difficulties for her presentation that were generated by the lack of a functioning overhead projector.

“Dogmatism was bad when Galileo was dismissed dogmatically, but it may not be such a bad idea when responding to your local analytic metaphysician.”

bq. Tom Kelly discussing Moorean facts, in response to a question I asked. I was too busy appearing to pay attention to actually take notes, but this wasn’t the most shocking part of Tom’s answer to me. That was when he claimed his paper wasn’t a _philosophical_ argument and hence was immune to general challenges to philosophical arguments. I don’t know, it sure didn’t look like physics or comp lit or sabermetrics or anything other than philosophy to me.

“I also said it was an embarrassingly simple argument, but it was an open question as to who it’ll embarrass.”

bq. Kent Bach, discussing an argument for the conclusion that almost any expression that can be used to refer isn’t inherently referential.

“There is a rainbow in my heart.”

Ned Markosian before starting his comments on Dean Zimmerman’s paper, and right after telling us that he’d just had his first 3 cups of caffeinated coffee in a long long time.