Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

Is Canada going insane?

Someone is seriously proposing a day in honor of a Pope?

Philosophers: do you see yourself making the world "a better place"? (Does that matter?)

A recently tenured philosopher writes:

I was wondering if you could request comments from the readers of your blog on the following question: how do academics see themselves as making the world a better place? I am just tenured, and, while I can see how my teaching and advising duties have a direct impact on the lives of students and advisees (hopefully making these lives better at least in some cases), I am far from sure that my research is producing anything else than egocentric pleasure. Note that I am not working in any of these fields which have obvious practical implications, such as applied ethics for example. I wonder if other academics worry as much as I do about whether we spend our time and utilize our skills the way we ought to, or whether we should think about ways to be more useful to the society and the world.

 

"Homeland Security" Head Napolitano as the New Head of the University of California System

An interesting commentary.  (Thanks to Georgia Warnke for the pointer.)

"Moral Skepticism and Moral Disagreement in Nietzsche," once again

The revised and penultimate draft (citable and quotable) of this 2009 paper is now on-line, for those who are interested; it will appear next year in volume 9 of Oxford Studies in Metaethics.

Schiffer on the McGinn case

Here.

Most chief financial officers at colleges not optimistic about the future

Everyone should read this--it is an ominous sign.

Want to be a journalist (God knows, we need more intelligent ones!)...

...then study philosophy (and avoid pomo nonsense!).

How often do articles in JPhil, Mind and Phil Review cite articles in other journals?

Not a lot!

Peter Ludlow on Democracy Now...

...defending hackers and journalists from persecution!

(Thanks to Nick Smaligo for the pointer.)

Rosen on beauty

Interesting interview.

Another Open Access Journal: Journal of Practical Ethics

I had missed this one, from Oxford.

(Thanks to Thomas Nadelhoffer for the pointer.)

Trilling on intellectuals and their country

From his 1952 essay "The Situation of the American Intellectual at the Present Time":

[W]hen you speak of your relation with your country and your culture, you are responding to a tone and a style in your compatriots, to their tempo of movement, the inflection of their voices, the look on their faces.  You trust or you do not trust.  You penetrate beneath the manner and the manners to the intention which the manner and manners stand for, you become aware of your compatriots' estimate of the future, of their relation to life and death.  Sometimes, as you meditate upon yourself in your individuality, insisting upon that individuality for the moment or for an extended time, your fellow beings simply do not seem very real to you.  They do not seem to exist sufficiently.  You have lost the power to understand their intentions.  Or, if you understand, you are repelled or frightened.

This is why Texas is doomed unless they throw out the Repugs

This woman correctly tells off the neanderthals in the legislature, and mentions she is moving out of the state.  And that says it all!  I hope a day will come when civilized people will once again want to move to Texas.

Two More Part-Time Senior Appointments at Edinburgh: Goldberg, Sayre-McCord

In addition to Colorado's Rupert, Sanford Goldberg (epistemology) at Northwestern and Geoffrey Sayre-McCord (ethics) at North Carolina, will take up short-term Professorial Fellowships at Edinburgh--the tip of the iceberg, actually, of a huge hiring year for philosophy at Edinburgh.  As with Birmingham, it is nice to see a major research university making such a strong investment in philosophy.

Norms governing posthumous publication of work that requires some revising

A philosopher elsewhere writes:

I would like some guidance from journal editors and others who may have experience publishing the posthumous work of others. A recent student of mine passed suddenly and left behind some quite good work. The family of the deceased has asked me to aid in getting the work published.  Knowing the selectivity of the general and specialized journals of the field, I am pretty confident that the work as it stands will not be accepted without some work and revision on my part. My question is: what are the professional norms concerning how one is to proceed in this situation? Ideally we would like the work submitted and published under the posthumous student's name only, yet I will be directly putting together the submission and revisions, and all correspondence concerning the submission and revisions will be done through me.  Thank you for any advice you or your readers can provide.

Comments are open for feedback from anyone with experience in matters like this, or with editorial views about how to proceed.

A sensible takedown of the infantile attitudes of Internet enthusiasts

Here.

"You're the Expert" podcast

Comedians (!) question scholars about their work, including, in the most recent episode, philosopher Caspar Hare (MIT) discussing "normative ethics."

(Thanks to Ryan Doody for the poiner.)

More open-access philosophy: "Ergo"

Here.  Sponsored by the Department of Philosophy at the University of Toronto (and published through MPublishing, that also maintains Philosopher's Imprint), the editorial board is notable for its impressive diversity of generally younger talented philosophers, suggesting that this will genuinely be a "generalist" journal, publishing in all areas.  (I was particularly pleased to see such serious subject editors for post-Kantian Continental philosophy, which bodes well for scholars in those areas, since there are relatively few reputable fora in which to publish.)

ADDENDUM:  The new journal also has an intelligent peer review system as well, which should be attractive, especially to tenure-track faculty looking for timely turnaround on their work.

Oxford DPhil or American PhD?

A student recently e-mailed me, concerned that the Oxford DPhil was "frowned upon" in the US, which didn't seem to me true.  But I invite comment from faculty and students--signed only--about the pros and cons of doing the DPhil at Oxford versus a PhD at a top US department.

Another philosopher with a new "informed" charitable giving project

Here.

A new E-Magazine: Symposium...

..."where academia meets public life."

"High brow" jokes

A lot of good ones here.

(Thanks to Ruchira Paul for the pointer.)

In defense of the humanities

These authors make fair points, but it is indicative of the depraved circumstances under which we live that the argument has to be made in this form ("studying humanities can make you employable"!).  The point of humanistic study is to make students human, that is, to allow individuals to realize some distinctively human abilities, such as having and understanding values, reflecting upon and understanding the past, cultivating aesthetic appreciation or achievement along the many dimensions that the world has offered us, and refining the intellectual tools necessary to understand, interpret, and interact with the broader world as something other than an automaton.  Or, to borrow from Nietzsche, the point of disciplined humanistic study is to cultivate everything that "makes life on earth worth living--for instance:  virtue, art, music, dance, reason, intellect--something that transfigures, something refined, fantastic, and divine" (Beyond Good and Evil, 188).  The real scandal is that purportedly serious universities let students study "business" and "engineering" and other fields that have their uses--they make life livable, but not worth living. 

Chattel slavery may be history in most parts of the world, thank goodness, but wage slavery is not, and these defenses of the humanities are, alas, depressingly realistic testimonies to that fact.

In Memoriam: Daniel Wegner (1948-2013)

I was surprised and saddended to learn of his passing.  Although a psychologist rather than a philosopher, his work was of considerable interest to many moral philosophers, philosophers of action, and others.

UPDATE:  Harvard's memorial notice.

Top philosophy journals, without regard to area

MOVING TO FRONT FROM JULY 3, UPDATED

With almost 550 votes in our earlier poll, here are the results:

1. Philosophical Review  (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)

2. Journal of Philosophy  loses to Philosophical Review by 244–117

3. Nous  loses to Philosophical Review by 245–130, loses to Journal of Philosophy by 195–178

4. Mind  loses to Philosophical Review by 260–114, loses to Nous by 185–179

5. Philosophy & Phenomenological Research  loses to Philosophical Review by 284–97, loses to Mind by 236–143

6. Ethics  loses to Philosophical Review by 279–85, loses to Philosophy & Phenomenological Research by 205–154

7. Philosophical Studies  loses to Philosophical Review by 312–60, loses to Ethics by 215–133

8. Australasian Journal of Philosophy  loses to Philosophical Review by 317–70, loses to Philosophical Studies by 175–162

9. Philosopher's Imprint  loses to Philosophical Review by 319–57, loses to Australasian Journal of Philosophy by 191–140

10. Analysis  loses to Philosophical Review by 325–65, loses to Philosopher's Imprint by 184–166

11. Philosophical Quarterly  loses to Philosophical Review by 331–48, loses to Analysis by 193–158

12. Philosophy & Public Affairs  loses to Philosophical Review by 303–51, loses to Philosophical Quarterly by 166–149

13. Philosophy of Science  loses to Philosophical Review by 303–50, loses to Philosophy & Public Affairs by 162–110

14. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science  loses to Philosophical Review by 299–57, loses to Philosophy of Science by 138–112

15. Synthese  loses to Philosophical Review by 328–51, loses to British Journal for the Philosophy of Science by 155–131

16. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society  loses to Philosophical Review by 333–31, loses to Synthese by 152–147

17. Erkenntnis  loses to Philosophical Review by 319–51, loses to Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society by 152–141

18. American Philosophical Quarterly  loses to Philosophical Review by 341–33, loses to Erkenntnis by 148–145

19. Canadian Journal of Philosophy  loses to Philosophical Review by 333–33, loses to American Philosophical Quarterly by 154–120

20. Journal of the History of Philosophy  loses to Philosophical Review by 295–42, loses to Canadian Journal of Philosophy by 135–123

21. Journal of Philosophical Logic  loses to Philosophical Review by 304–26, loses to Journal of the History of Philosophy by 119–100

22. Mind & Language  loses to Philosophical Review by 312–30, loses to Journal of Philosophical Logic by 117–91

23. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly  loses to Philosophical Review by 337–17, loses to Mind & Language by 123–118

24. European Journal of Philosophy  loses to Philosophical Review by 319–38, loses to Pacific Philosophical Quarterly by 148–113

25. British Journal for the History of Philosophy  loses to Philosophical Review by 303–37, loses to European Journal of Philosophy by 120–112

One thing the poll confirms is that Kieran Healy was right to choose the four journals he focused on.  On the other hand, I do suspect the ordinal listing tells us more about the distribution of AOS in the profession than about anything else (or, in some cases, the nationality of the voters).

One can get some idea of the distribution of areas among respondents by looking at how many ranked a particular journal on a par with or better than Philosophical Review; that list doesn't correspond to the rank above:

1.  Nous (130)

2.  Journal of Philosophy (117)

3.  Mind (114)

4.  Philosophy & Phenomenological Research (97)

5.  Ethics (85)

6.  Australasian Journal of Philosophy (70)

7.  Analysis (65)

8.  Philosophical Studies (60)

9.  Philosopher's Imprint (57)

9.  British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (57)

11. Philosophy & Public Affairs (51)

11. Synthese (51)

11. Erkenntnis (51)

14. Philosophy of Science (50)

15. Philosophical Quarterly (48)

16. Journal of the History of Philosophy (42)

17. European Journal of Philosophy (38)

18. British Journal for the History of Philosophy (37)

19. Inquiry (36)

20. Biology & Philosophy (33)

UPDATE:  Ernest Sosa (Rutgers), editor of both Nous and Philosophy & Phenomenological Research, writes:

I write about the comment on your blog as follows: "One thing the poll confirms is that Kieran Healy was right to choose the four journals he focused on." I have to disagree. 

I mean not that it was not right to choose those four journals. For one thing, it is not my place to judge that publicly, since I edit the journal that just missed the cut. No doubt the citation study had to limit its scope, moreover, just to be manageable with the resources available. So I have no objection whatsoever to the cut that it made. Kieran Healy of course deserves our thanks (and not sniping) for the time, energy, and skill that he applied pro bono!

What I doubt is the implication that now four generalist journals stand out at the top. Here are a couple of points in support of my doubt.

1. Your most recent poll, run in April of 2012, had the following relevant result: PPR was fifth in the ranking, but only 38 votes below the fourth-place journal, Mind, which itself was 59 votes below the third-place journal, JP. On the other hand, PPR was 257 votes above the journal next below it in the ranking! This suggests a much more natural break with five top journals, not four. 

2. There are large changes in several of the vote differentials as we compare the 2012 and the 2013 surveys, though all other differentials are dwarfed by the one involving PPR. In any case, none of these large changes is plausibly explained by any evident corresponding changes in the quality of the journals involved. So, it seems most sensible to take both surveys still into account, since the set of voters is likely to have changed somewhat, consequentially so.

3. Even the new, 2013, survey still has PPR substantially closer to the next  higher generalist journal than it is to the next lower generalist journal (and the citations study was explicitly focused on generalist high-prestige journals, so that Ethics in particular is not relevant here). Obviously it matters little where we draw these lines, but I thought that as PPR editor I should point to what makes it so doubtful that there is a natural break where some now assume that there is. 

It is fair to say that PPR has more claim to being a true generalist journal than most of the others, since it publishes in an unusually broad range of areas, both contemporary and historical.  Whether there is a "natural" cut-off point or not, it is also true that PPR came in fifth in both surveys, though not by a significant margin, as Professor Sosa correctly notes.

Bolivia should close the U.S. Embassy...

...after the latest bit of criminality by the Obama Adminnistration.

General Petraeus at CUNY

The scandal explainned.

(Thanks to Peter Ludlow for the pointer.)

NYU's Tim Maudlin interviewed...

...at 3AM.

Political indoctrination in Jewish Day Schools in the US

An MIT graduate student comments.

Whitman's "Leaves of Grass"

From Garrison Keillor's Writer's Almanac:

On this day in 1855, Walt Whitman (books by this author)published the first edition of Leaves of Grass. The first edition consisted of 12 poems, and was published anonymously; Whitman set much of the type himself, and paid for its printing. Over his lifetime, he published eight more editions, adding poems each time; there were 122 new poems in the third edition alone (1860-61), and the final "death-bed edition," published in 1891, contained almost 400 poems. The first edition received several glowing — and anonymous — reviews in New York newspapers. Most of them were written by Whitman himself. The praise was unstinting: "An American bard at last!" One legitimate mention by popular columnist Fanny Fern called the collection daring and fresh. Emerson felt it was "the most extraordinary piece of wit and wisdom America has yet contributed." This wasn't a universal opinion, however; many called it filth, and poet John Greenleaf Whittier threw his copy into the fire.

The 1855 edition contained a preface, which was left out of subsequent editions, and in it he wrote: "This is what you shall do: Love the earth and sun and the animals, despise riches, give alms to every one that asks, stand up for the stupid and crazy, devote your income and labor to others, hate tyrants, argue not concerning God, have patience and indulgence toward the people, take off your hat to nothing known or unknown or to any man or number of men, go freely with powerful uneducated persons and with the young and with the mothers of families, read these leaves in the open air every season of every year of your life, re-examine all you have been told at school or church or in any book, dismiss whatever insults your own soul; and your very flesh shall be a great poem and have the richest fluency not only in its words but in the silent lines of its lips and face and between the lashes of your eyes and in every motion and joint of your body."

UPDATE:  Reader Jason Streitfeld writes:

I enjoyed your recent post on Whitman's original publication of "Leaves of Grass."  The whole of that original, lengthy preface is phenomenal.  But there are some important points that the quote from Garrison Keller leaves out:  While Whitman didn't put his name on the original publication, he did sign it with his own image.  (See the frontispiece, here: http://www.whitmanarchive.org/published/LG/1855/whole.html)  Also, Whitman's name is not the only one missing.  The publisher was not named, and none of the poems were given names, either.  Nothing is named, except (in the preface) his country.

The APA has clearly turned a corner...

...even Spiros grants it "one cheer."

The top ten activities of philosophers on July 4th

Now we know:

1. Drink booze  (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)

2. Eat barbecued animal products  loses to Drink booze by 134–38

3. Read philosophy  loses to Drink booze by 128–66, loses to Eat barbecued animal products by 92–88

4. Eat barbecued non-animal products  loses to Drink booze by 143–33, loses to Read philosophy by 99–67

5. Read blogs  loses to Drink booze by 142–36, loses to Eat barbecued non-animal products by 90–55

6. Write philosophy  loses to Drink booze by 143–42, loses to Read blogs by 75–73

7. Drink non-booze  loses to Drink booze by 147–32, loses to Write philosophy by 90–69

8. Read poetry  loses to Drink booze by 147–26, loses to Drink non-booze by 86–49

9. Burn the flag  loses to Drink booze by 145–26, loses to Read poetry by 69–54

10. Renew membership in the Communist Party  loses to Drink booze by 142–22, loses to Burn the flag by 58–51

I especially like that dead last in philosophers' activities for July 4th is renewing membership in the Republican Party, which loses (57-30) to eating barbecued human products (presumably Republican ones).

Time to break out the lighter fluid...

Disgraceful sexist abuse of the Australian PM

This video makes Australia look as stupid and ass-backwards as the United States.  What explains it?  Is the garbage it highlights unusual, or really mainstream?  Am curious to hear from Australian readers. 

Blast from the past: Leiter v. Shapiro on "theoretical disagreements"

Bloggingheads TV, 2008, but at a new URL now.

Peter Kail (Oxford) and I are going to record something for Philosophy TV (which is coming back to life this fall, and has a great archive of old dialogues) on Hume and Nietzsche.

Aesthetics at ranked PhD programs

Interesting data here.  If others want to compile such data for other areas that are often neglected (e.g., philosophy of law, philosophy of religion, medieval philosophy, 19th-century Continental philosophy), send me the URL.

From just missing rock 'n' roll superstardom to Special Forces...

...to majoring in philosophy at Columbia.  (Thanks to the many readers who sent this item.)

July 4th (American Independence Day) is coming, it's time to vote!

The annual July 4th poll.

Georgia State's Eddy Nahmias...

...at Flickers of Freedom this month.

New Books in June

Authors and/or publishers kindly sent me the following new books last month:

Human Rights as a Way of Life:  On Bergson's Political Philosophy by Alexandre Lefebvre (Stanford University Press, 2013).

Philosophy and Its History:  Aims and Methods in the Study of Early Modern Philosophy edited by Mogens Laerke, Justin E.H. Smith, & Eric Schliesser (Oxford University Press, 2013).

A Brief History of the Philosophy of Time by Adrian Bardon (Oxford University Press, 2013).

New APA Website

It looks pretty good!

CHE profile of McGinn

Behind a paywall; an excerpt:

Mr. McGinn says he believes that the student later complained about him because she had failed to complete her work over the summer and was wary of receiving a negative report. He does not think that their sexual banter made her uncomfortable.

The student, however, maintains otherwise, according to some of her friends and professors. Before she went to administrators last September, "she was just extremely scared and anxious," says Benjamin M. Yelle, her boyfriend, who is a fifth-year graduate student in philosophy at Miami.

Although she declined to comment for this article, citing her desire to pursue a career in philosophy, Mr. Yelle consulted with her before speaking with The Chronicle. "Sexual harassment is a serious issue in philosophy, and it's not going to stop unless people are willing to stand up against famous philosophers like Colin," he says. It took months, Mr. Yelle adds, for the student to work up the courage to approach the university about Mr. McGinn's behavior.

Mr. McGinn once wrote to the student that they should "have sex three times in my office over the summer when no one else is around," Mr. Yelle says. He also says the professor once suggested that the student should wear shorts more often because he thought her legs were attractive.

Mr. McGinn says he never suggested to the student that they should have sex. He also says he merely told the student that her legs were "muscular." He is unwilling, however, to share the e-mails he sent to the student.

The JFP/Phil Jobs Merger

A young philosopher on the job market writes, regarding the recently announced merger:

I worry that, since PhilJobs is already pretty much perfect, the joint venture can only make it worse.  First, since they're going to charge for ads, some jobs that would otherwise be posted to PhilJobs will probably not be. Second, one of the worst things about JFP is that job ads vanish after 30 days if departments don't shell out extra. Sometimes they vanish even before the deadline, which creates obvious problems. But sometimes it's helpful to be able to look up job ads months after the application if, say, one unexpectedly gets an interview.

I suspect a number of your readers (anyone on the job market) might have similar worries.

 I have no information, but hopefully knowledgeable individuals will respond!

UPDATE:  David Chalmers, who is co-director of the PhilPapers Foundation (which hosts PhilJobs) writes:

I'm glad your correspondent thinks so well of PhilJobs!  The new service will use the PhilJobs software and so will keep most of the old service's virtues.  We certainly expect to keep ads available until deadline and at least for a while after deadline.  It's true that because we'll be charging advertisers where the old PhilJobs was free, we may lose some ads.  But we'll make a proactive effort to reach out to such advertisers in these cases to ensure that the service is as comprehensive as possible.  In any case, it was inevitable that PhilJobs would have charged advertisers eventually in order to survive, so the merger shouldn't be blamed for this development.  The new service will be more comprehensive than either JFP or PhilJobs on their own would have been.

If one compares the new service to the situation just a couple of years ago, we think the new arrangement is great for all parties.  For the APA, it provides a much better job service with which to serve the profession.  For the PhilPapers Foundation, it provides desperately needed income that will support many new services to the profession.

For job seekers, it provides a definitive high-tech job service that is now free to job seekers around the world, with features that are far beyond the old JFP already, and with many new features to come in future years.  We're grateful to the APA for being forward-looking enough to help make all this possible.