...and in violation of its own procedures in the way it dismissed Assistant Professor Melissa Click. Just to be clear about the differences from the Salaita case: Click was not a tenured professor, and she was not fired for her scholarly or political views. Click pretty clearly did engage in inappropriate conduct, but she was still entitled to a formal faculty review prior to Board action, as the comments from Missouri law professor Ben Trachtenberg make clear. However, she is unlikely to have any meaningful legal remedy, given that the same result probably could have resulted from the regular procedures, and the Board's action was not wholly capricious or without any review and evaluation. Alas, like the University of Illinois incident, or the Barnett case at the University of Colorado, or the earlier Churchill case at Colorado, or the LSU case of the "vulgar" professor, it's now quite clear that controversial speech is no longer protected by tenure or due process, the way it once was in public universities. And, alas, the APA's irresponsible "civility" statement plays right into the hands of this administrative mischief.
His passing was announced on the Facebook page devoted to memorable stories about Professor Benardete, who was emeritus in the Department of Philosophy at Syracuse University. I will add links to memorial notices when they appear.
[I]t was someone in the faculty senate and not the university that offered the advice to UH faculty that you linked to this morning. I’m certainly no fan of the new law—it’s absurd. But I also think that some of the fear-mongering of my colleagues goes too far (a class in statistical fallacies might be in order for those who think the new law gives them reason to change their curriculum—I say this as someone who teaches an intro to ethics course that’s basically designed around the idea that many of the things that we value the most are worthless). I am far less concerned about the students who will wait until 8/1 to carry a concealed handgun on campus than I am of the ones who are probably already carrying.
So with over 300 votes cast in our most recent poll, here's the top 20 (recall that for living philosophers, only those 60 or older were included; Paul Russell, alas, was wrongly omitted):
1. G.E.M. Anscombe (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)
2. Donald Davidson loses to G.E.M. Anscombe by 142–74
3. Harry Frankfurt loses to G.E.M. Anscombe by 162–57, loses to Donald Davidson by 141–63
4. Michael Bratman loses to G.E.M. Anscombe by 169–43, loses to Harry Frankfurt by 108–67
5. P.F. (Peter) Strawson loses to G.E.M. Anscombe by 180–38, loses to Michael Bratman by 94–68
6. Jennifer Hornsby loses to G.E.M. Anscombe by 181–30, loses to P.F. (Peter) Strawson by 83–78
7. Gary Watson loses to G.E.M. Anscombe by 182–31, loses to Jennifer Hornsby by 82–70
8. Alfred Mele loses to G.E.M. Anscombe by 180–37, loses to Gary Watson by 69–68
9. John Martin Fischer loses to G.E.M. Anscombe by 170–42, loses to Alfred Mele by 62–61
10. David Velleman loses to G.E.M. Anscombe by 194–15, loses to John Martin Fischer by 69–63
11. Roderick Chisholm loses to G.E.M. Anscombe by 187–26, loses to David Velleman by 74–65
12. Daniel Dennett loses to G.E.M. Anscombe by 186–32, loses to Roderick Chisholm by 77–53
13. Fred Dretske loses to G.E.M. Anscombe by 185–21, loses to Daniel Dennett by 55–50
14. Thomas Nagel loses to G.E.M. Anscombe by 189–29, loses to Fred Dretske by 60–50
15. Alvin Goldman loses to G.E.M. Anscombe by 193–18, loses to Thomas Nagel by 62–60
16. Hector-Neri Castenada loses to G.E.M. Anscombe by 189–16, loses to Alvin Goldman by 62–51
17. Susan Wolf loses to G.E.M. Anscombe by 189–26, loses to Hector-Neri Castenada by 62–57
18. Jonathan Bennett loses to G.E.M. Anscombe by 188–21, loses to Susan Wolf by 61–54
19. Carl Ginet loses to G.E.M. Anscombe by 191–20, loses to Jonathan Bennett by 61–52
20. John Searle loses to G.E.M. Anscombe by 191–23, loses to Carl Ginet by 64–53
I confess I was astonished by Anscombe's strong showing (ahead of Davidson?!?), but clearly the Anscombe renaissance is in full bloom! Just outside the top 20 were Anthony Kenny, Peter van Inwagen, Judith Jarvis Thomson, and Stuart Hampshire. Among living philosophers of action, the top ten were Frankfurt, Bratman, Hornsby, Watson, Mele, Fischer, Velleman, Dennett, Nagel, and Goldman.
Comments are open for observations and reactions from readers.
Ian Rumfitt (philosophy of language, logic & math), currently Professor of Philosophy at the University of Birmingham, has also been elected to a Senior Research Fellowship at All Souls College, Oxford University.
The Professorship in Jurisprudence, at University College, is the one previously held by H.L.A. Hart; to take up the Senior Research Fellowship at All Souls, Professor Gardner--perhaps best-known for his work in philosophy of criminal law, though he has written widely in legal and moral philosophy--will have to resign that post. There is one other statutory Chair in jurisprudence at Oxford--the Professorship in the Philosophy of Law at Balliol held by Leslie Green--and Timothy Endicott, also at Balliol, holds a Personal Chair as well. So this will present an opportunity for Oxford to make another senior appointment in the field.
...in a heretofore obscure journal called Metaphilosophy. The article was incompetent, as I first noticed and as David Wallace (Oxford) confirmed in detail. There was also, of course, the little matter of the article's defamation of those who produced the PGR--me and Brit, as well as the Advisory Board--as really being racists and sexists.
I have now had a correspondence with the editor of this allegedly "scholarly" journal--Prof. Marsoobian--and, to his credit, he did commission additional referee reports on Prof. Bruya's article in the wake of the criticisms. Prof. Marsoobian declined to disclose either the new referees (recall that he also chose the initial referees, so one does wonder) or even an anonymized version of their reports--I can not blame him for the former, but think the latter revealing: why not let skeptics see the assessment by alleged professionals? Despite this secrecy, the best the new referees could say about Prof. Bruya's article was, according to Prof. Marsoobian, this: "the methodology in the article is not so seriously flawed that it would warrant retraction." It is good to know that the referees concur with Prof. Wallace that Bruya's article is "seriously flawed," as it obviously is. But according to Prof. Marsoobian, the referees did not defend the article or its methodology or its analysis; all they could say was that it was "not so seriously flawed that it would warrant retraction." What are the standards for retraction for incompetent work? Prof. Marsoobian did not say.
Metaphilosophy will publish Prof. Wallace's critique. As to the defamation, that issue may not, it appears, be resolved in the journal, though the matter is still under discussion with Prof. Masroobian and Wiley-Blackwell and counsel.
Predictably, I suppose, some pontificators on social media are mystified that the irresponsible APA statement could be at all controversial. Indeed, philosopher Jenny Saul (Sheffield) has reiterated her view that controversy about the statement reflects badly on the state of the profession. My view is, unsurprisingly, different: the absence of controversy in certain parts of academic philosophy is what suggests the "profession" is populated with people who are not really grown up. The deficiencies of the APA statement are so obvious that it should hardly be surprising that, for example, no group of academic lawyers has promulgated a statement so ridiculous.
Let us recall what the statement said--not regarding the criminal threats and racist abuse suffered by Prof. Yancy--but regarding the lawful anonymous speech on metablogs:
Abusive speech directed at philosophers is not limited to responses by the public to published op-eds. A look at some of the anonymous philosophy blogs also reveals a host of examples of abusive speech by philosophers directed against other philosophers. Disagreement is fine and is not the issue. But bullying and ad hominem harassment of philosophers by other philosophers undermines civil disagreement and discourse and has no place in our community.
I'm not entirely sure why the statement targets anonymous speech, since it seems to me there are many possible examples of speech that runs afoul of the APA statement that was not anonymous. But they all raise the question: what exactly is the "abusive speech" that is now according to a handful of philosophers at the APA forbidden? Consider:
1. Philosopher Rachel McKinnon (Charleston) launched a Twitter tirade against Justin Weinberg (South Carolina), because he had linked to a part of a discussion by Leslie Green (Oxford) of whether Germaine Greer was correct about transgender women. Prof. McKinnon wrote, inter alia, that those she attacked should "suck it up, buttercup," and proudly proclaimed "we're not polite" after denouncing Weinberg for having "fuck[ed] up just now." Indeed, she regularly calls her opponents "philosophy asshat," "fuckwhistles" and tells them to "shut the fuck up" and "fuck off." Surely this speech violate the APA's new policy! If so, what is the APA going to do about it?
2. I have, on multiple occasions, made harsh criticisms of anti-gay bigotry in the philosophy profession, for example, here, here, and here. Does this speech violate the APA's new policy? (Admittedly, if it does, the APA can't do anything about it, since I am not a member.)
3. After I criticized a badly reasoned opinion piece co-authored by Jason Stanley (Yale), he denounced me on his very public Facebook page before hundreds if not thousands of my colleagues, dismissing me as "old, dated, shrill, and frightened." This certainly sounds like ad hominem abuse (though admittedly it did lead dozens of philosophers to friend me on Facebook!). Does this volate the APA's new policy on speech? If not, why not?
My own view is that (a) all of this speech ought to be legal; and (b) none of it should be the object of sanction or opporobium by a purportedly professional organization. Yet all of it appears to fall within the scope of the APA's careless statement. And the reason why professionals in other fields, especially law, don't promulgate statements like this is precisely because such standards are vague and overbroad and thus inconsistent with the values of freedom of expression central to all intellectual and political life. That the APA has been captured by some academics who don't see this should be a cause for concern.
Our latest poll, concerning philosophers of action in the post-WWII period. I'll permit write-ins for a bit, just in case there are some egregious omissions. Remember, for living philosophers, they must be over 60 in 2016 to be eligible. Get to it!
UPDATE: I've closed the write-ins. I do wish folks would bother to check whether philosophers they are writing in qualify; for example, none of Derk Pereboom, Michael Thompson, or Paul Russell are over 60. And some other write-ins don't even do philosophy of action, but that will presumably be reflected in the results. But since Pereboom, Thompson, and Russell aren't eligible, do not vote for them. Unfortunately, I can't remove the mistaken write-ins.
ANOTHER: Two correspondents claim that Russell is in fact 60, thus betrayed by youthful looks! If that's right (I haven't been able to confirm), then he was a serious omission. Readers can, in any case, vote for him, though being added late may be, given the poll software, fatally prejudice the results in his case.
In light of Trump's surprisingly strong showing in a caucus state (Nevada), I think the prospect of his getting the Republican nomination is now very real. It is true I endorsed him early on for this "honor," but the fact that two-thirds of Republican voters overall have continued to prefer someone else (for more than six months now) seemed like it should cause a problem. Unfortunately, the Republican primary system is designed to produce a winner fairly quickly, even in a field where one candidate can't command a majority of the support. Here Trump has been greatly helped by the large field of competitors who have divided the vote. Rubio--whose substantive policy positions are basically the usual insane Republican fare--has failed to win a single contest to date; unless the "anyone but Trump" vote coalesces around him soon (i.e., by next Tuesday, when there are eight primaries!), one wonders how much longer the "big money" will back him. Cruz is simply too much of a narcissistic sociopath--on a par with Trump, though Trump is less of a sociopath--to drop out, especially since he's actually won a primary (Iowa). Of course, if Rubio and Cruz stay in the race to the end, they and others might well have enough delegates to stop Trump at the convention, if they can actually agree on who will get the nod (which seems doubtful).
This means the next exciting issue will be whom Trump chooses as a running mate. I'm guessing it will be one of his sons.
1. Rudolf Carnap (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)
2. Thomas S. Kuhn loses to Rudolf Carnap by 92–89
3. Carl G. Hempel loses to Rudolf Carnap by 106–64, loses to Thomas S. Kuhn by 99–74
4. Karl Popper loses to Rudolf Carnap by 99–64, loses to Carl G. Hempel by 94–73
5. Bas van Fraassen loses to Rudolf Carnap by 111–69, loses to Karl Popper by 89–78
6. W.V.O. Quine loses to Rudolf Carnap by 115–50, loses to Bas van Fraassen by 99–71
7. Hans Reichenbach loses to Rudolf Carnap by 124–35, loses to W.V.O. Quine by 81–67
8. Nancy Cartwright loses to Rudolf Carnap by 127–40, loses to Hans Reichenbach by 78–72
9. Paul Feyerabend loses to Rudolf Carnap by 123–50, loses to Nancy Cartwright by 83–74
10. Ian Hacking loses to Rudolf Carnap by 123–45, loses to Paul Feyerabend by 78–74
11. Imre Lakatos loses to Rudolf Carnap by 130–39, loses to Ian Hacking by 76–71
12. Hilary Putnam loses to Rudolf Carnap by 122–41, loses to Imre Lakatos by 75–71
13. Philip Kitcher loses to Rudolf Carnap by 133–35, loses to Hilary Putnam by 85–63
14. Wesley Salmon loses to Rudolf Carnap by 133–24, loses to Philip Kitcher by 70–62
15. Ernest Nagel loses to Rudolf Carnap by 135–31, loses to Wesley Salmon by 61–58
16. Elliott Sober loses to Rudolf Carnap by 136–29, loses to Ernest Nagel by 66–55
17. John Earman loses to Rudolf Carnap by 129–30, loses to Elliott Sober by 62–60
18. Nelson Goodman loses to Rudolf Carnap by 138–28, loses to John Earman by 67–65
19. Patrick Suppes loses to Rudolf Carnap by 133–20, loses to Nelson Goodman by 72–54
20. Larry Laudan loses to Rudolf Carnap by 134–21, loses to Patrick Suppes by 58–56
Runners-up for the top 20 included Michael Friedman, Wilfrid Sellars, Arthur Fine, and Clark Glymour. Unlike in the Kant poll, there didn't appear to be a strong bias in favor of living contemporaries. The top ten living philosophers of science in the poll were van Fraassen, Cartwright, Hacking, Putnam, Kitcher, Sober, Earman, Laudan, Friedman, and Fine. Of course, philosophy of science as a field has changed dramatically since 1945: the general questions about the nature of explanation or the logic of induction have given way to questions raised within the philosophy of particular sciences, especially physics and biology.
It's hard to know what to think of this piece: does Prof. Allen really think the Republican Presidential contenders are waiting for her advice? And how seriously should one take advice from someone who thinks it obvious that Rubio is preferable to Trump? Has she looked at Rubio's actual positions? Rhetorically, the piece is poorly done--one can't start with a Hitler comparison, and then disavow whether it is relevant!
Clinton beat Sanders by a solid margin in Nevada (about 5%), which means he's done. She will beat him in South Carolina by a larger margin next week. To be sure, I expect Sanders to hang on through the big primaries on March 1, but I think it's clear Clinton will be the nominee of the Democrats. Sanders has nonetheless accomplished something very important--millions of people in the United States have been exposed to and not quite as many have now embraced (what they think is) democratic socialism--and the prudent wing of the ruling class now knows they have to be careful going forward into the general election. Even their designated representative of prudent greed must be sure to cover her tracks as a representative of the ruling class. The generational implications of Sanders's unexpected success to date are clear.
Meanwhile in the asylum: it now seems clear that Rubio will be the nominee of the Repugs, unless he has another "Christie moment" The relevant fact is not that Trump won in South Carolina's primary--one which allowed independents to vote--it's that he failed to outperform the polls and failed, still, to capture more than a third of the Republican primary voters. Even though South Carolian is full of right-wing evangelical Christian voters, Rubio kept pace with, and maybe even beat, Cruz. The pressure on Bush and Kasich to drop out will be substantial now, so that the imprudent wing of the ruling class can coalesce behind a well-behaved water boy like Rubio.
So within a few weeks, it will be clear that the fall contest for leadership of the most dangerous nation on earth will be between Clinton and Rubio. Clinton will choose an Hispanic running mate, and the Republicans will go down to massive defeat this fall. (Most Hispanic voters are not well-disposed to Cuban-Americans like Rubio, but to be safe Clinton will choose a Mexicaon-American running mate, which will insure her victory.) This will be good, all things considered, for vulnerable people in the U.S., and a matter of indifference to vulnerable people elsewhere.
FEB. 21 UPDATE: So Bush has officially dropped out of the race, and Rubio did beat Cruz by .2%--but to have done so in South Carolina, where two-thirds of the primary voters are evangelical Christians, is remarkable and bodes ill for Cruz. Of course, if Cruz drags this out, then Trump could continue to prevail just with his one-third of the vote. The Nevada caucus will be revealing--Rubio has campaigned hard there, and we know from Iowa, that caucuses do not favor Trump's, whose ground organization is thin and whose whim voters are less likely to caucus. If Rubio can win Nevada, that should shift the momentum on the Republican side his way--not that I'm hoping for that! It would be wonderful if Trump were the Republican nominee, as it would guarantee that women, Latinos, African-Americans, Asian-Americans and young people vote by landslide proportions for the Democrats.
ANOTHER: Robert Paul Wolff thinks that the winner-take-all nature of most (all?) of the Republican primaries gives Trump a clear path to the nomination.
HuffPo has a good summary of the latest dispute among the fake oracles, including the damning observation by James Galbraith that the critics didn't actually bother to examine the analysis they attacked! Astrologists behave better than these folks.
ADDEMDUM: It's a good time to revisit this piece by philosopher Alex Rosenberg (Duke).
The latest poll, with a lot of choices, alas (93!), since it includes not only philosophers of science generally, but philosophers of physics, biology and other particular sciences. Among living philosophers, only those over 60 in 2016 are included. I'll permit some write-in additions for awhile, though I think this is a pretty comprehensive list! Go at it!
UPDATE: I've closed the write-ins--a few good suggestions, including Huw Price, John Norton, Wolfgang Spohn, and Harvey Brown, some of whom I didn't realize were over 60! Please don't vote unless you really know something about philosophy of science! There are some, shall we say, odd results so far, that suggests that too many tourists are voting...but that's life on the Internet!
Funny remarks by philosophy James Lenman (Sheffield) on Facebook that he kindly gave me permission to post here:
Universities are buinesses. Students are customers. So say people who think they are being hard-headed and unsentimental and living in the real world. In fact they are none of those things. You only need to look at seriously rich universities. The richest universities on the planet these days are the great American private universities. And why are they as rich as they are? In a nutshell: because endowments. People give them shedloads of money because people believe in and care about what they do. And people believe in and care about what they do because they are seen to serve educational, scholarly and scientific values rather than commercial values. No one ever died and left their life savings to Walmart.
My undergraduate degree was in philosophy. I am no longer undertaking any formal study but I would like to study the subject further in my own time. While I can join my local university library and borrow books I am not able to have access to the online academic journals.
Do any of your readers know the most effective way of getting access to online philosophy journals if you are not actually a student at a university. Is there a private online library you can join or some other way of paying to gain access. I am based in the UK.
I have come across a online library called Questia - this has a limited number of philosophy journals - is there anything else that gives wider access?
Despite being a rather specialized topic, the poll attracted over 320 votes. Since there were fewer choices here (even with write-ins, only about 40), I'm going to list only the top ten by way of results, though the full results are available.
1. Henry Allison (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)
2. Paul Guyer loses to Henry Allison by 122–90
3. Allen Wood loses to Henry Allison by 125–79, loses to Paul Guyer by 126–74
4. Karl Ameriks loses to Henry Allison by 145–51, loses to Allen Wood by 107–85
5. Tied: Lewis White Beck loses to Henry Allison by 143–55, loses to Karl Ameriks by 89–82 Dieter Henrich loses to Henry Allison by 134–62, loses to Karl Ameriks by 91–84
7. P.F. (Peter) Strawson loses to Henry Allison by 150–53, loses to Lewis White Beck by 98–81
8. Michael Friedman loses to Henry Allison by 149–45, loses to P.F. (Peter) Strawson by 91–84
9. Beatrice Longuenesse loses to Henry Allison by 160–36, loses to Michael Friedman by 87–70
10. Christine Korsgaaard loses to Henry Allison by 161–51, loses to Beatrice Longuenesse by 91–82
Ignoring the ordinal order, this is a fairly plausible top ten. (Not far outside the top ten were Onora O'Neill, Eckart Forster, Frederick Beiser, and Barbara Herman.) An amusing aside, however, about the peculiarities of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences: every philosopher in the top ten is (or was) an elected member of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences except for Henry Allison. Indeed, it looks like the top ten in all the prior polls are (or were) elected members, with the exception of #7 in epistemology, Ed Gettier. Certainly the #1 philosopher in all the other polls has been an elected member. Now perhaps the explanation for this is just that those voting here are less discerning than the members of the Academy when it comes to Kant scholarship. The other possibility is that Allison just lacks the right friends: after all, he took his PhD at the New School, and spent his entire career largely outside highly ranked departments (though UC San Diego towards the end of his tenure there became a very strong program overall).
Comments are open for discussion of the results. Remember that only scholars who did their major work in the post-WWII period and, in the case of living scholars, who are over 60 were included in the poll.
...where Michael Beaney will continue as editor. As of January 1, Beaney has been Professor of Philosophy at King's College London and Professor of the History of Analytic Philosophy at the Humboldt University in Berlin.
For tenure-track/continuing positions advertised in the second half of the calendar year, we recommend an application deadline of November 1 or later. It is further recommended that positions be advertised at least 30 days prior to the application deadline to ensure that candidates have ample time to apply.
In normal circumstances a prospective employee should have at least two weeks for consideration of a written offer from the hiring institution, and responses to offers of a position whose duties begin in the succeeding fall should not be required before February 1.
When advertising in PhilJobs: Jobs for Philosophers, advertisers will be asked to confirm that the hiring institution will follow the above guidelines. If an advertiser does not do so, the advertisement will include a notice to that effect.
With the APA Central coming up in March here in Chicago, this overview of Chicago dining options may be helpful to some readers--and, of course, I hope it is useful to non-philosophy readers as well. As with my opinions about philosophers, I pull no punches; unlike my opinions about philosophers, the subjectivity of these judgments is probably a lot greater!
I break the restaurants into two categories, those that will run you at least $50/person (depending on how much alcohol), and maybe higher; and those where it is realistic to get away for less, and yet still have a very enjoyable meal.
EXPENSIVE (easily $50/person or more, some closer to $100/person)
The Gage serves "rustic American fare," but check out the menu to see for yourself. It's an eclectic menu and fun, and the quality of the dishes is almost always very high. One can get away for less than $50/person here depending on one's choices. It is also the only restaurant noted here that is just a couple of blocks from the Palmer House Hilton, the usual locus of the meetings of the Central Division of the APA. Do make reservations, it is a popular place and can be quite noisy as well.
Katsu is not conveniently located to anything, except the far north side of Chicago! Longtimers say it is the best sushi in Chicago, and having now been there, I concur. The prices are a bit eye-popping, but the pieces of fish served are quite generous. The hot dishes are more of a mixed bag: shrimp tempura was mediocre, but the beef & asparagus appetizer was quite appealing. But basically you come here for the sushi or sashimi. The restaurant itself is comfortable, and street parking is easy. (Be aware that another Japanese restaurant sometimes turns up if you search "Katsu Chicago"! Katsu needs to get their lawyer on that one! The preceding link gives the actual address as well as a sample menu.)
MK is one of those nouveau American places, or something like that; check out the menu. The food is always very good, often excellent. Its near northside location is reachable by a fairly short taxi ride from the Palmer House. But it ain't cheap, esp. if you order a bottle of wine. But if you do go, get an order of the fabulous pommes frites to share!
Naha is similar to MK, both in food and location (I think it's a bit closer to Palmer House actually, but still probably a cab ride). We've never had a bad meal here either.
NoMI Kitchen is probably the priciest one on this list, and it even offers sushi/sashimi, as well as many dishes you might have found at MK or Naha, but other more unusual offerings. Fabulous dining room overlooking Michigan Avenue and the old "water tower" landmark. Food is always outstanding.
MODERATE ($25-50/person, including some alcohol)
A10 is a recent addition to the generally dreadful dining scene here in Hyde Park/Kenwood, where the University of Chicago is. It is part of a university effort to increase the number of amenities in our part of town, and has been quite successful. The food is good, sometimes excellent; it is sort of Italian, though an eclectic Italian. The alcohol is overpriced, so one could exceed $50/person depending on one's choices! One probably wouldn't make a trip to the south side just to eat here, but if you're in this part of Chicago, this is the place to go. (Some oldtimers would say the same for La Petite Folie, a solid French restaurant [and more staid and quiet than A10], though I think there are plainly better French places in the city [one noted below].)
Cumin offers Indian and "modern Nepalese" cuisine, in a slightly off-the-beaten-track location, but the food is very good to excellent and the prices can't be beat. It's the best Indian we've had in Chicago (and compares favorably with the best Indian I've had in New York), but I should admit to not having been to the far North in the city where many good Indian restaurants are purported to be. (India House downtown is a fancier restaurant, in a pleasant setting, and the food is good, but not nearly as good as Cumin)
This poll includes both Anglophone and German scholars, and write-ins will be permitted for awhile, since I fear I may have missed some relevant scholars. Among living scholars, they must be over the age of 60!Have fun! And if you don't read the Kant secondary literature, don't vote!
Via Anne Jacobson at FP, comes this very amusing video, prepared I gather by philosopher John Schwenkler (Florida State). The "Hitler" character this time is the Chair of the Board of Trustees who learns, to his dismay, what President Newman has done!
UPDATE: Prof. Schwenkler informs he did not prepare this video, he merely shared it. He also kindly shares another one (also not of his making).
Continental Philosophy Farhang Erfani, a philosopher at American University, provides a useful set of links to news, events, interviews, reviews, videos, etc. related to "Continental philosophy" (broadly construed)