“Greg Restall”:http://consequently.org/ is putting together a cross-disclipinary introductory formal logic course, and is looking for “suggestions from anyone who has done something similar”:http://consequently.org/news/2006/11/15/horn_tooting.
Author Archives: brianweatherson
Philip Robbins on Introspection
Philip Robbins, “The Ins and Outs of Introspection”:http://compass.bw.semcs.net/subject/philosophy/article_view?parent=browse&sortby=date&last_results=&browse_id=635157&article_id=phco_articles_bpl043 for “Philosophy Compass”:http://compass.bw.semcs.net/subject/philosophy/.
bq. Introspection admits of several varieties, depending on which types of mental events are introspected. I distinguish three kinds of introspection (primary, secondary, and tertiary) and three explanations of the general capacity: the inside access view, the outside access view, and the hybrid view. Drawing on recent evidence from clinical and developmental psychology, I argue that the inside view offers the most promising account of primary and secondary introspection.
Frank Arntzenius on Time Travel
Frank Arntzenius, “Time Travel: Double Your Fun”:http://compass.bw.semcs.net/subject/philosophy/article_view?parent=browse&sortby=date&last_results=&browse_id=635164&article_id=phco_articles_bpl045 for “Philosophy Compass”:http://compass.bw.semcs.net/subject/philosophy/.
bq. I start off by relating the standard philosophical account of what time travel is to models of time travel that have recently been discussed by physicists. I then discuss some puzzles associated with time travel. I conclude that philosophers’ arguments against time travel are relevant when assessing the likelihood of the occurrence time travel in our world, and are relevant to the assessment whether time travel is physically possible.
Tim Schroeder on Desire
Tim Schroeder, “Desire”:http://compass.bw.semcs.net/subject/philosophy/article_view?parent=browse&sortby=date&last_results=&browse_id=635179&article_id=phco_articles_bpl047 in “Philosophy Compass”:http://compass.bw.semcs.net/subject/philosophy/.
bq. Desires move us to action, give us urges, incline us to joy at their satisfaction, and incline us to sorrow at their frustration. Naturalistic work on desire has focused on distinguishing which of these phenomena are part of the nature of desire, and which are merely normal consequences of desiring. Three main answers have been proposed. The first holds that the central necessary fact about desires is that they lead to action. The second makes pleasure the essence of desire. And the third holds that the central necessary fact about desires is that they open us to reward-based learning.
The Declaration of Independence
Over at Crooked Timber a while ago I posted something on the interpretation of the Declaration of Independence. I mentioned this to some people at Rutgers last weekend, and now “Jonathan Ichikawa”:http://jollyutter.net/wp/?p=628 has a nice post arguing in favour of a wide-scope interpretation of the ‘self-evident’ operator.
The Harmans
Here’s a “nice story”:http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S16/18/71C28/index.xml?section=featured in the _Princeton Weekly Bulletin_ on Elizabeth and Gilbert Harman, on being the first father-daughter pair to be on the faculty at the same time. The authors get several of their colleagues to say nice things about each Harman, which I’m sure wasn’t too hard a task! (Thanks to Pablo Stafforini for the link.)
Philosophy Dissertations
This was noted on a few blogs a while ago, but I thought it would be useful to remind everyone of Josh Dever’s “philosophy dissertations”:https://webspace.utexas.edu/deverj/personal/test/dissertations.html project. Josh aims to collect links to online philosophy dissertations. If your dissertation is posted, email him and he’ll add it to the list. For better or worse my dissertation isn’t online, but maybe I’ll think about changing that.
U.S. Congressional Elections
TAR is much less political than it used to be. But doing a bit of a public service announcement doesn’t seem like a misuse of the blog. The people named below are all Republican candidates in the upcoming elections. And the links in each case take you to a less than flattering story about the said candidate. (Although with some of these people, a random flick of the internet switch will find such an article.) So if you want more reason to disapprove of Jon Kyl, Rick Renzi, J.D. Hayworth, John Doolittle, Richard Pombo, Brian Bilbray, Marilyn Musgrave, Doug Lamborn, Rick O’Donnell, Christopher Shays, Vernon Buchanan, Joe Negron, Clay Shaw, Bill Sali, Peter Roskam, Mark Kirk, Dennis Hastert, Chris Chocola, John Hostettler, Mike Whalen, Jim Ryun, Anne Northup, Geoff Davis, Michael Steele, Gil Gutknecht, Michele Bachmann, Jim Talent, Conrad Burns, Jon Porter, Charlie Bass, Mike Ferguson, Heather Wilson, Peter King, John Sweeney, Tom Reynolds, Randy Kuhl, Robin Hayes, Charles Taylor, Steve Chabot, Jean Schmidt, Deborah Pryce, Joy Padgett, Melissa Hart, Curt Weldon, Mike Fitzpatrick, Don Sherwood, Lincoln Chafee, Bob Corker, George Allen, Frank Wolf, Mike McGavick, or Dave Reichert, just follow the links.
Some links
I’ll be presenting a paper called “The Bayesian and the Dogmatist”:http://brian.weatherson.org/tbatd.pdf (PDF) at a bunch of places over the next few months. The version there is a talk version, which is very rough around the edges. But I hope it’s interesting. It certainly draws together more of the different things I’ve worked on in the past than anything else I’ve done.
“Dave Chalmers”:http://fragments.consc.net/djc/2006/10/more_people_wit.html posted a long list the other day of additions to his list of people with online papers in philosophy. There are a lot of good links there, but I was particularly happy to see that “Lloyd Humberstone”:http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/phil/department/humberstone/ has an online papers page. There is a ton of interesting material there to work through, and the rewards for so working are very high indeed.
“Online Papers in Philosophy”:http://philosophy.jollyutter.net/opp/, which I used to run, is running as well as ever (probably better) under its new home at Jonathan Ichikawa’s site. Here is its “RSS feed”:feed:http://philosophy.jollyutter.net/opp/?feed=rss2. He has forms set up for suggesting corrections and additions to the site, so feel free to go and help out if you’re so inclined.
Finally, here are three new St Andrews related blogs.
* “Metaphysical Values”:http://metaphysicalvalues.blogspot.com/ by Ross Cameron, Robbie Williams and Andrew McGonigal (and perhaps others?)
* “Plurality of Words”:http://andreasstokke.blogspot.com/ by Andrewas Stokke
* “Nothing of Consequence”:http://notofcon.blogspot.com/ by Ole Thomassen Hjortland
Now if only they’d have RSS feeds, I could keep track of some more British philosophy!
Michael Monahan on Race
” Race, Colorblindness, and Continental Philosophy”:http://www.blackwell-compass.com/subject/philosophy/article_view?parent=browse&sortby=date&last_results=&browse_id=543249&article_id=phco_articles_bpl040
bq. The “colorblind” society is often offered as a worthy ideal for individual interaction as well as public policy. The ethos of liberal democracy would seem indeed to demand that we comport ourselves in a manner completely indifferent to race (and class, and gender, and so on). But is this ideal of colorblindness capable of fulfillment? And whether it is or not, is it truly a worthy political goal? In order to address these questions, one must first explore the nature of “race” itself. Is it ultimately real, or merely an illusion? What kind of reality, if any, does it have, and what are the practical (moral and political) consequences of its ontological status? This paper will explore the issue of colorblindness, focusing particularly on recent developments dealing with this topic in Continental philosophy. Beginning with the question of racial ontology, I will argue that race has a social reality that makes the practice of colorblindness, at least for the time being, politically untenable, and it may remain suspect even as a long-term goal.