Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

Leslie Green on jurisprudence and its relation to its history

He's made a very interesting, new paper available here.

The military's obligations to the U.S. President

An interesting perspective from philosopher Graham Parsons, a professor at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.  (You'll note his by-line notes specifically that he is not speaking for the Academy or the militiary.)  I hope Professor Parsons's view has some influence.

In Memoriam: Gerald J. Massey (1934-2024)

Professor Massey, who spent most of his career at the University of Pittsburgh, where he was emeritus, was best-known for his work in logic, philosophy of science, and philosophy of language; he also wrote on a number of historical figures in philosophy as well.  You can learn more about his career here.  Comments are open for remembrances from those who knew Professor Massey or for those who wish to comment on the significance of his work.

Caltech (and other schools) are asking to be sued for consumer fraud

This NYT article may inspire some lawyers to bring the case.

Nietzsche's moral anti-realism

I talk about it with Johnathan Bi here, in the second part of the long interview I did with him (part I).  Mr. Bi tells me he is now doing series of interviews on ancient Greek philosophy with, among others, Tad Brennan, Agnes Callard, Rachana Kamtekar, and Richard Kraut, among others.

Why is this race so close? There is no mystery

The "undecided" or "waivering" voters have no idea what's going on and do not understand cause and effect.  Consider this from the latest NYT polls showing an essential tie in the key Northern battleground states:

The polling results fit a recurring theme with voters in battleground states: Many tend to believe that Mr. Trump’s time in office helped people like them, and they worry that Ms. Harris’s policies would hurt people like them.

For these voters, economic correlation is causation:  if the economy was good under Trump, Trump caused it.  In fact, Trump's policies were not good for people of average income, but to know that you'd have to know something about his actual policies (e.g., his tax cuts).  (Interestingly, voters give Trump a pass on the pandemic:  they know he didn't cause that.  On the other hand, they apparently don't know how badly he handled it, but, again, that would require actually paying attention to his malign influence on health policy.)  (Achen and Bartels in Democracy for Realists discuss various cases in which correlation is treated as causation by voters, including some pretty bizarre ones.) 

Conversely, because substantial inflation occurred under Biden, he caused it:  correlation is causation and thus responsibility.  The role of the pandemic and the disruption in supply chains in producing inflation is a consideration unavailable to the ignorant.

The problem for Harris is that every time voters walk into the supermarket they are reminded that prices of most stuff they buy is 15-20% higher than under Trump.   (I'm not an especially alert shopper, but even I am astonished at times.)  As the NYT also reports, "As for the issues that matter most to swing voters, pocketbook economics is No. 1 by far." There's just no way around that, and it may be enough to return the monster child to office.  Harris's pitches to the prudent wing of the capitalist class won't change this.

Great moments in obscure rock 'n' roll: Tear Gas, "Lay It On Me," 1971

ORIGINALLY POSTED AUGUST 8, 2020--COMMENTS NOW OPEN

Another great rollicking number from the Scottish rock band:

2024 UPDAT:  Feel free to add links to other Tear Gas favorites or live performances (the latter are hard to come by!).

Blast from the past: Should graduate students use social media?

Back in 2013, with reader discussion (including, amusingly, comments from one of the bigger social media maniacs in professional philosophy of recent years).

On academic predictions of the future

Sociologist Randall Collins looks back at some unsuccessful ones, and offers reflections on why and how they went so wrong.  Quite interesting.

(Thanks to Howard Berman for the pointer.)

Corrupt mayors, New York City style

As a native of NYC, I've been following with some bemusement the travails of the eccentric and now indicted current Mayor, Eric Adams; it brought to mind an earlier, and far more corrupt, NYC Mayor, William O'Dwyer, who was saved by President Truman.  I doubt President Biden, or a President Harris, will come to Mayor Adams's rescue.

PGR update

Professors Kar and Pynes have been hard at work finalizing the faculty lists for the surveys, as well as consulting with the Advisory Board for nominations of evaluators and other matters.   The survey will launch in October, probably not later than mid-October, and the goal is for results to start being available before the American Thanksgiving.  I will, as in the past, preview some results here.  The final report will be available, as before, at www.philosophicalgourmet.com.

 

An ominous change in nuclear policy by Russia

This really deserves more attention than it is receiving:

Mr. Putin said, Russia would treat “aggression against Russia by any nonnuclear state, but with the participation or support of a nuclear state” as a “joint attack on the Russian Federation.” The language was a clear reference to Ukraine, which does not have nuclear weapons, and the military support it receives from nuclear-armed NATO countries like the United States and Britain.

Mr. Putin also said that Russia would be prepared to use a nuclear weapon even in response to an attack carried out with conventional weapons that creates “a critical threat to our sovereignty.” Ukraine last month pressed a cross-border offensive that captured territory in Russia for the first time since the war began and has been lobbying Washington for permission to use Western missiles for strikes deep into Russian territory.

While I do not expect Russia to launch a nuclear first strike on the U.S. or U.K., I worry that he may use tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine, and once that happens, things could spin out of control very quickly.

Tenured professor at Muehlenberg College fired for lawful extramural speech in support of Palestine and against Zionism

There is an account at The Intercept, with a quote from AAUP officials who are on this case (I hope FIRE and the AFA are too).  On the facts reported, the college has acted illegally.  This looks to be another example of weaponizing Title VI for purposes of punishing lawful political speech.  Please email me if you have other details/information about this case.

(Thanks to Liam Murphy for the pointer.)

UPDATE:  Here's the AAUP letter to the college.  It's fine, if a bit too reticent.  What the college needs is to get a credible lawyer letter informing them that they are going to be sued for breach of contract if they try to fire Professor Finkelstein for her political speech.  (Absent evidence that her political speech manifests itself in discriminatory behavior in the classroom, there is no basis for sanctiniong her under AAUP standards.)

(Thanks to Michael Risch for the pointer to the AAUP letter.)

Calculating "indirect costs" (IDC) on federal grants for humanities projects

A philosopher elsewhere writes:

I've been wrestling with my office of sponsored research on the issue of IDC rates for federal grants, in my own case for a translation proposal for the NEH.

My university has a newly negotiated rate with the federal government of 39%. In previous years, they were willing to reduce the existing rate (I think it was closer to 30%) to 10%, on the reasonable assumption that research in the humanities costs the institution considerably less than research in the hard sciences. But they are no insisting that the rate should be fixed across disciplines and projects. I've tried to make the case that a scholarly project in the humanities is in no way comparable to a scientific investigation of, say, the role of platelet-derived growth factor in carcinogenesis. The latter requires maintenance of lab equipment, payment of post-doctoral researchers, etc. that have no real equivalent in humanistic inquiry. But the current administration appears to be operating under the assumption that the value of grants is not to make scholarship possible but to put money in the university's purse.

I wonder if other philosophers have encountered similar issues, or if my own institution is comparatively unique in asking the NEH (in this case) to give the university a sizeable cut of the money that won't contribute in any meaningful way to the scholarly project at hand. And in a way that (in my own case) will make the grant application itself less competitive.

Curious to hear how other universities handle this.  If you do not want to post your name, at least say something about your school (public/private, R1, SLAC) and the project (e.g., translation project, humanities research, interdisciplinary research [with psychology, law etc.]).

"My dinner with Nozick"

Philosopher David Schmidtz recounts the interesting experience.  I'm curious what readers make of this claim:  "The difference in the styles of Rawls and Nozick was momentous. Rawls cultivated apostles. Nozick did not. Nozick had no interest in becoming a religion."  Signed comments will be preferred (full name, valid email address.)

Steve Pyke, famed photographer of philosophers and many others, interviewed...

...at Aesthetics for Birds.  I sat for him in his NYC studio for the second series, and it was a lot of fun, and he was kind enough to let me use the photo in various places, including at the bottom of my home page.

 

Blast from the past: Transparency about refereeing

Back in 2019, with reader discussion.

"The Impact of PhD studies on mental health"

A Swedish study, not encouraging (except the last line):

We study the impact of PhD studies on mental health care uptake using Swedish administrative records of prescriptions for psychiatric medication for the full population of PhD students. First, we provide descriptive evidence that PhD students collect psychiatric medication at a higher rate than a matched sample of individuals holding a master’s degree, but at a lower rate than a matched sample from the general population. Second, we implement an event study analysis and document that, in the years preceding their PhD studies, prospective students collect psychiatric medication at a rate similar to that of a matched sample of individuals holding a master’s degree. However, following the start of PhD studies, the use of psychiatric medication among PhD students increases substantially. This upward trend continues throughout the course of PhD studies, with estimates showing a 40 percent increase by the fifth year compared to pre-PhD levels. After the fifth year, which represents the average duration of PhD studies in our sample, we observe a notable decrease in the utilization of psychiatric medication.

More on the coming crisis of antiobiotic-resistant microbes

Following up on last week, this grim appraisal appeared in Science:

In 2019, while attending the annual conference of the American Society for Microbiology, I listened to an interview with Carl Nathan, a renowned tuberculosis researcher. During the conversation, Nathan shared that in 1948 he was among the first group of civilians to receive penicillin treatment for pneumonia. At that time, pneumonia, primarily caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae, was the leading cause of death in the United States. Tuberculosis ranked second. The introduction of penicillin and streptomycin in the 1940s provided the first effective treatment for pneumonia and tuberculosis, respectively.

 

The benefits that antibiotics brought to society were monumental. Before they were introduced, infectious diseases were the leading cause of death, driving epidemics with unimaginable mortality rates. For example, a plague epidemic is believed to have triggered the Neolithic decline in Europe. The resulting population drop-off facilitated the spread of Indo-European languages during the Bronze Age. A few centuries later, the plague of Justinian caused devastating mortality in the Byzantine Empire, killing between a quarter and half of the population and contributing to the empire’s downfall. And between 1492 and 1600, an estimated 80 to 90% of the Native American population died from infectious diseases introduced by Europeans and Africans, a factor that contributed to European colonization of the Americas.

 

Living through the COVID-19 pandemic, which killed approximately 0.4% of the US population, provided only a glimpse into the fear and societal impact associated with catastrophic population declines caused by infectious diseases....

 

A new translation of Marx's Capital...

...amusingly reviewed by James Miller.    Professor Miller notes:

Marx asked Engels, in one of the German reviews he wrote, to summarize “Capital” simply, using language that Marx helpfully supplied: It showed how “present society, economically considered, is pregnant with a new, higher form,” and it revealed in human civilization “the same gradual process of evolution that Darwin has demonstrated in natural history,” thus confirming the “doctrine of progress.”

It’s a sign of our times that the editor and translator of an eagerly anticipated new English edition of the book — the first major translation in half a century — largely ignore both Darwin and the idea of progress in their copious notes.

It certainly tells us something about the editors at least.  Maybe also a "sign of the times" is the introduction by political theorist Wendy Brown (what an odd choice to write an introduction for Capital?):

[W]ith capitalism still firmly intact, the American political theorist Wendy Brown briskly lays aside such hopes [of transformation in the preface of the new Princeton translation, calling them a “fantasy.” She also worries that if the workers of the world were ever to use freely what Marx called “the free gift of nature” in order to create more abundance for human beings, they might trigger an “ecological catastrophe,” something that she says the author of “Capital” only considers in passing. Brown suggests that the main contemporary value of Marx’s text is as a “critical theory” that reveals the system of capital as “a philosophical object.” In other words, it might not be the best guide for political practice.

Certainly, “Capital” is a cerebral read and the dangers of the world Marx lived in are not all the same as ours. Still, it’s a bit weird (if that’s the right word) that the scholars working on this new English edition of Marx’s most revered text should downplay Marx’s own deepest hopes, not just for a future classless society, but also for an ongoing process of upheaval that results, yes, in suffering, but also in ongoing technological and moral progress.

For if capital is just “extremely unnatural and incompatible with human flourishing,” and inexorably leading toward the destruction of the planet, what’s the point? Marx couldn’t predict the future, and neither can we. But, as he once put it, “the philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.”

Well-said.  The choices of the editors and introducers to one side, the translation itself is favorably reviewed.  (I have not seen a copy yet.)

Rousseau on Trump's lies about Haitan immigrants...

...with some help from political theorist David Lay Williams.

Academic freedom abolished at Penn

Very embarrassing for a major research unversity.  Penn faculty will need to watch their mouths!  Somehow Northwestern, a roughly peer university to Penn, has managed to permit an actual Nazi apologist to remain on its faculty for decades, without violating its contractual obligations to uphold the AAUP requirements of academic freedom.  (I guess the writing was on the wall two years ago at Penn!)  Penn will end up in court over this.  They deserve to lose, and lose badly.

Talk about election interference

Does anyone doubt that Netanyahu picked this moment to escalate a war with Hezbollah in Lebanon (and, by proxy, Iran) in order to try to help Trump? The clueless voters who decide elections will pick up something about a conflagration in the Mideast, and will think, "We need a tough guy in office [not a mere woman!]."  With Trump in office again, Israel will have an even greener light to engage in mass murder wherever and whenever it wants.

In Memoriam: Max Cresswell (1939-2024)

Emeritus at Victoria University of Wellington, where he spent most of his career, Professor Cresswell was well-known internationally for his contributions to logic (esp. modal logic), philosophy of logic, and formal semantics.  Comments are open for remembrances from those who knew Professor Cresswell, or for those who wish to comment on the significance of his work.

(Thanks to David Gordon for pointing me towards Bernard Kobes's memorial notice on Facebook.)

Want to write philosophy in an attractive setting in nature in Estonia?

There is a call for proposals for Theda Rehbock’s Philosophy Residency 2024/2025 in Susimetsa, Pärnu County, Estonia:  Download Call for applications_2024_2025_Philosophy Residency.   Note that this is free!

(Thanks to Margit Sutrop for sharing this with me.)

More Wiley journal troubles

Last March, the editors of a Wiley linguistics journal resigned, and started a new open access journal.  Unless Wiley shifts gears, I expect this will continue across Wiley journals in most disciplines.

(Thanks to Paul Elbourne for the pointer.)

Great moments in (somewhat) obscure rock 'n' roll: Humble Pie, "Bang!", 1969

Steve Marriott left the Small Faces to form more of a blues rock band with Peter Frampton and others; they made it fairly big in the U.S. in the early 1970s (Frampton left shortly thereafter), but this song comes from their first album, As Safe As Yesterday Is, which had some success in the UK, but almost none in the U.S.  This is a studio-produced video clip from 1970 of the song:

We've featured Humble Pie several times over the years, but barely scratched the surface of the output of one of the best bands, now largely forgotten, to come out of the British blues explosion.  Feel free to add links to your favorite clips in the comments. 

Blast from the past: "Preposterous" philosophical views, poll results

Back in 2020.

U of Michigan faculty committee recommends adopting "institutional neutrality" and other principles related to expression and academic freedom (CORRECTED)

The 131-page report on "diversity of thought and freedom of expression" is here, and the news release is here.  Philosopher Chandra Sripada, who was on the faculty committee that prepared the report, summarizes the main themes:  'It endorses and defends institutional neutrality. It documents, via comments solicited from about 4,000 faculty, staff and students, that progressive voices are often seen as dominating the conversation, and those with dissenting perspectives often feel silenced. And it advocates for a standing University-wide 'initiative' to expand diversity of thought."

Millions to die from anti-microbial resistant infections in the coming years

Isn't this cheery?

More than 39 million people will die due to antimicrobial-resistant infections over the next 25 years, a major new study has predicted.

Known as the ‘silent pandemic’, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) happens when bacteria, viruses, and other pathogens evolve to evade the drugs used to treat them.

The new study, which was partly funded by the British government, found that AMR is now responsible for 1.14 million deaths every year – higher than the combined toll of HIV/Aids and malaria.

It predicts the number of annual deaths will almost double by 2050 to 1.91 million.

Driven in part by the overuse and misuse of antibiotics in medicine and agriculture, the exponential rise in ‘superbugs’ puts modern medicine at risk.

"Prosthetic Gods," a new podcast on the "ethics of emerging technologies"

Philosopher Nir Eiskovits (U Mass/Boston) writes:

I’m writing to let you know about a podcast I recently launched with my colleague, the sociologist J Hughes, on the ethics of emerging technologies.

It’s called “Prosthetic Gods”.

The premise is a techno-progressive (J) and a luddite (me) debating new tech. The first three episodes have covered Chatbot therapy, using AI to enhance democratic participation, and the ethics of diagnosing diseases that can’t be cured. The fourth episode, on voice cloning, will be released next week.  You can find the podcast here or wherever you listen to podcasts.

I thought this could be of interest to your readers, as we actively try to bring two competing philosophical and cultural sensibilities to the discussion. I find there’s not enough of that in the public sphere.

SSHRC Grants, 23-24 cycle

Philosopher Corey Dyck (Western) kindly shared the following (comments are open for additions to the list):

In case it might be of interest to your readers, I am sending along a list of this year's Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) "Insight Grant" recipients. As you likely know, this is the primary source of external funding for the humanities in Canada (covering disciplines in the Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences, but also a variety of other disciplines, such as business). I have gone through the recently published list (available here) and selected out the recipients who I know to belong to Philosophy programs in Canada. I have likely overlooked some (and those concerned would be welcome to add themselves to the list), and I didn't include recipients working in cognate areas (such as law or political science) or those funded projects that might list philosophers among their collaborators. In any case, here's the list, which includes the winner's name, affiliation, project title, and duration and amount of the award:

Fatema Amijee (UBC), Émilie Du Châtelet’s Idealist Legacy (4 years, $53,420)

Sara K. M. Aronowitz (Toronto), Understanding the Space of Possibilities (5 years, $79,050)

Antoine Côté (Ottawa), Deux questions quodlibétiques de Pierre Roger (1291-1352) (4 years, $56,946)

Nilanjan Das (Toronto), The Absence of Evidence Principle in South Asian Philosophy (6 years, $96,796)

David Davies (McGill), Fiction, Imagining, and Reality: a Defense of a Fictive Utterance Account of Fictionality (4 years, $51,685)

Richard Marshall interviews Kendall Walton...

...at 3:16 AM.  Very interesting!

The unusual case of Barrington Jones: from elite philosophy to plumbing

MOVING TO FRONT FROM SEPTEMBER 2:   Dr. Jones's widow has kindly comented, below, both confirming and clarifying the story.

A scholar of ancient philosophy, Jones taught at Princeton in the 1970s, then at Oxford, and then according to various sources (for example), quit philosophy to become a plumber.   This seems a bit like the famous story about Tolstoy, who when asked what work he was most proud of, displayed a pair of shoes he had made himself.  Is the Jones story true?  Does anyone know?

"Philosopher's Magazine" is defunct (in print)

Reader Howard Simmons writes:

Did you know The Philosopher's Magazine had closed down? I don't think this has been widely publicized online. I only know because I tried to submit a paper to them and the email bounced back. The website gives a phone number, which I called, and was told they had closed.

Comments are open in any case anyone knows what happened.  I had been unaware of its closure.

Academics looking to get out of Florida...

...because of the erosion of tenure and academic freedom;

A survey of professors at Florida universities found that new state government limits on tenure and academic freedom, plus the state’s political climate, have prompted many of them to apply for jobs outside the Sunshine State.

Of approximately 350 faculty working almost exclusively in Florida public institutions, 135 — 39% — reported that since 2022 they have applied for a job in higher education in another state. Popular destinations include California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York.

There are more details of the findings at the link, above.

Blast from the past: Philosophers, eating, ethics--discussion of a poll

Back in 2012.  I would guess the percentage of vegans and vegetarians among academic philosophers is even higher now.

Alex Byrne's "Trouble with Gender" reviewed...

...at The Philosopher's Magazine.  The review concludes with some comments of more general professional interest:

Trouble with Gender is proof that Byrne’s nerve has not failed him. He is one of few philosophers who can exhibit such proof (other monographs that take a broadly sex-realist approach include Material Girls by Kathleen Stock and Gender-Critical Feminism by Holly Lawford-Smith). According to orthodoxy in the philosophy of sex and gender, the sex-based account of woman is not a live option. It is not even allowed as a good approximation to the truth. Rather, it is widely treated as unacceptable to rely on even as a simplifying assumption. From an outsider’s perspective, it is as if physicists had collectively adopted a ban on ever explicitly invoking Newton’s first law of motion. As would probably happen in the physical case, much orthodox theorising about sex and gender thrives on implicitly reasoning in a way which subverts the ban.

University of Wisconsin system adopts a version of the Kalven Report ("institutional neutrality")

Here

(Thanks to Gregory Mayer for the pointer.)

Frick on Singer

These remarks were given by philosopher Johann Frick (now at Berkeley) at a Princeton conference in honor of Peter Singer, and make some interesting points.  For example:

Peter has been an avowed utilitarian for most of his career, and his commitment to utilitarianism no doubt played a major role in leading him to adopt many of the ethical stances for which he is known.

And yet, it is rare that you will find Peter, in his published work, making arguments of the form: “You should believe p, because p is entailed by utilitarianism, and utilitarianism is true”.

Much more commonly, you will find him skillfully appealing to mid-level principles that he expects will command the assent of people with widely divergent ethical outlooks. This genius for making his arguments as ‘ecumenical’ as possible is one of the major reasons for Peter’s success as a public intellectual.

This seems right, although it seems an incomplete account of his success as a public intellectual (surely he has been the perfect public moralist for the neoliberal era?).  Professor Frick also makes some interesting observations about Singer's "esotericism" as a public moralist.  I am not a fan of Singer's philosophical work, but I found this short essay quite interesting and illuminating.  

Oxford's Millican takes up part-time post at NUS

Peter Millican (Hume, epistemology, philosophy of religion, philosophy of AI), Professor of Philosophy at Oxford University, has been appointed as part-time Professor of Philosophy at the National University of Singapore, teaching in Semester 2 until summer 2027. He was previously Visiting Professor there (full-time 2022-23, part-time 2023-24).  NUS is already home to a well-known Hume scholar, Qu Hsueh Ming, so this will make NUS the leading center of Hume studies in Asia.

Alexander Nehamas on Nietzsche, will to power, and eternal recurrence...

...at Robinson's Podcast.

Great moments in (somewhat) obscure rock 'n' roll: Argent, "Keep on Rollin'," 1972

Former Zombies keyboardist Rod Argent's band Argent had one huge hit from their 1972 album All Together Now, but the great second number on that album has disappeared from rock radio:

Feel free to add links to your favorite Argent songs or performances.

Human-to-human bird flu transmission in Missouri?

Oy veh, let's hope there's a more neutral explanation.  And if there's not, let's hope the Biden Administration acts quickly to produce and distribute vaccines.  (Bird flu is unrelated to the coronavirus, but I may have to expand this blog category--I hope not!)

Antitrust lawsuit filed against six major academic publishers...

...including Wiley, Elsevier, Wolters Kluwer,

...on behalf of a putative class or scientists and scholars who allege that these six world’s-largest for-profit publishers of peer-reviewed scholarly journals conspired to unlawfully appropriate billions of dollars that would otherwise have funded scientific research.

As detailed in the complaint, the defendants’ alleged scheme has three main components. First, an agreement to fix the price of peer review services at zero that includes an agreement to coerce scholars into providing their labor for nothing by expressly linking their unpaid labor with their ability to get their manuscripts published in the defendants’ preeminent journals.

Second, the publisher defendants agreed not to compete with each other for manuscripts by requiring scholars to submit their manuscripts to only one journal at a time, which substantially reduces competition by removing incentives to review manuscripts promptly and publish meritorious research quickly.

Third, the publisher defendants agreed to prohibit scholars from freely sharing the scientific advancements described in submitted manuscripts while those manuscripts are under peer review, a process that often takes over a year. As the complaint notes, “From the moment scholars submit manuscripts for publication, the Publisher Defendants behave as though the scientific advancements set forth in the manuscripts are their property, to be shared only if the Publisher Defendant grants permission. Moreover, when the Publisher Defendants select manuscripts for publication, the Publisher Defendants will often require scholars to sign away all intellectual property rights, in exchange for nothing. The manuscripts then become the actual property of the Publisher Defendants, and the Publisher Defendants charge the maximum the market will bear for access to that scientific knowledge.”

The philosopher who shared this, who has a friend at the law firm bringing the suit, tells me that they are interested in identifying more humanities scholars at plaintiffs.  (There is a form at the link, above, for submitting your name.)   Before signing up as plaintiffs, be sure to ask about what you will need to do; my guess is named plaintiffs will be deposed, and might end up testifying at a trial, if it gets to trial.  The first two claims strike me as the stronger ones, assuming proof of collusion can be adducted, but I'm not sure how strong; the third claim seems to me more dubious.  If any antitrust scholars are reading this, shoot me an email if you have a view about the allegations and their prospects.

 

Journal of Political Philosophy, a journal with no editors, is still accepting submissions!

We noted last year the implosion of the Journal of Political Philosophy, and https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2024/01/take-that-wiley-the-new-journal-political-philosophy-emerges-from-the-mess-wiley-made-of-jpp.htmlthe creation by the former JPP editors of a new journal, Political Philosophy.  A reader points out that,

Soon after [the implosion of JPP], Wiley posted a notice on the its JPP webpage saying:

""The Journal of Political Philosophy (JOPP) is currently undergoing changes to its editorial team and reviewing processes. As a result, the journal is experiencing a delay in processing manuscripts. If you submit your manuscript to JOPP, it will be received by our Editorial Office, but publication will be delayed. Thank you for your patience and support.""

In the last few days that has been revised to read:

"" We are actively seeking a new editorial team for Journal of Political Philosophy (JPP). Until a new team comes on board, no editorial decisions can be made on submitted manuscripts. If you have already submitted and have questions about the status of your paper, please get in touch with the Wiley team. Thank you for your patience and support.""

In short, Wiley continues to invite submissions to a journal that has no academic editors to process them.  Any submissions will be in editorial limbo, with no one to accept them, reject them, send them to referees, or anything else.  This has been going on for over nearly nine months, during which (according to one report) some 300 submissions have been made to have been made to Wiley's academically-unattended JPP mailbox. 

Wiley's most recent revision to the JPP homepage says they are "actively seeking a new editorial team" for JPP.  But Bob Goodin was fired as editor in late 2022 (this is what led to the implosion of the journal), so if Wiley still has not found an editor, this should be worrisome to anyone with articles under submission there.  Authors who already have submitted articles to JPP, but who now wish to withdraw them to submit them elsewhere, should write to Rebecca Walter:  rwalter-at-wiley-dot-com.

"Free and Equal: A Journal of Ethics & Public Affairs" has launched

EIC Anna Stilz writes:

I’m pleased to announce that our new diamond open access journal, Free & Equal, has launched and is now open to submissions at https://freeandequaljournal.org/. The journal was founded by the very same editorial team that ran Philosophy and Public Affairs until May 2024, and we look forward to publishing the same wide range of high-quality philosophical articles. Please submit your best work to us, and encourage your friends, colleagues, and students to do the same.

Our mission statement:

Free & Equal: A Journal of Ethics and Public Affairs was created in 2024 by the former editors of Philosophy and Public Affairs, which was founded in 1971 by Marshall Cohen, Thomas Nagel, and T.M. Scanlon. Our name, Free & Equal, expresses our two founding commitments: to free inquiry on equal terms about matters of public concern; and to the free dissemination and equal accessibility of the products of this inquiry. We welcome philosophical discussion of substantive legal, social, and political problems, as well as work that investigates abstract questions relevant to these problems—including work that challenges our founding commitments. Free & Equal provides a venue in which philosophically inclined authors from many disciplinary backgrounds and perspectives can bring their arguments to bear on problems that concern us all.

What is it like to be a philosopher? Skye Cleary edition

Here.