Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

Feminist philosopher Ann Cudd, incoming Portland State President, gets $10 million "start-up fund" plus housing allowance...

...and everyone else gets cuts.  Not a good look.

Epistemology in the Andes and Amazonia

An interesting project.

I talk about Marx, historical materialism, ideology and "socialism or barbarism"...

...at Robinson's Podcast.

In Memoriam: William J. Talbott (1949-2023)

MOVING TO FRONT FROM MAY 19, 2023:  UPDATED

Professor Talbott was a longtime faculty member at the University of Washington, Seattle, where he was emeritus.   His initial work was in epistemology, but he then wrote influentially in moral, political, and legal philosophy.   I met him many years ago; he was a first-rate intellect.  I will add links to memorial notices as they appear.  Comments are open for remembrances from those who knew Professor Talbott, or those who want to comment on the significance of his work.

(Thanks to Matt Lister and Colin Marshall for information.)

UPDATE:  Professor Talbott's year of birth was 1949 (not 1950 as I originally had it); my thanks to his UW colleague Professor Jamie Mayerfield (in Political Science) for the correction.

ANOTHER UPDATE:   An obituary at the Seattle Times.  And a podcast with Professor Talbott on naturalized epistemology.  (Thanks to Professor Mayerfield for the pointer.)

In Memoriam: Ian Jarvie (1937-2023)

A longtime faculty member at York University, Toronto, where he was emeritus, Professor Jarvie was best-known for his work in philosophy of the social sciences (especially on anthropology) and in film theory.  Comments are open for remembrances from those who knew Professor Jarvie, or for those who would like to comment on the significance of his work.

(Thanks to David Gordon for alerting me to his death.)

In Memoriam: Peter Machamer (1942-2023)

A longtime faculty member of the History and Philosophy of Science Department at the University of Pittsburgh, Professor Machamer was perhaps best-known for his work on Galileo and on the concept of mechanism.    Comments are open for remembrances from those who knew Professor Machamer, or for those who wish to comment on the significance of his work.

The new Cambridge "Elements" series (UPDATED)

These short "booklets" are proliferating across many different subjects in philosophy, and while some have been pretty bad, others have attracted serious authors and look more promising.  The Elements volumes offer one very attractive feature for authors (especially junior authors), which is that the volume is made available for free downloads the first two weeks after publication.  But they have another feature which is very odd and very unattractive for more senior authors:  Cambridge does not pay royalties, just a flat fee ($250 recently).   Despite this, Cambridge University Press charges $20-25 per booklet!   

Which philosophers are mentioned in the most articles at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy?

It wasn't possible (due to false positives) to search smoe (like Berkeley, David Lewis, William James, and Bacon--Berkeley and Lewis would have surely been in the top 30), but for the rest the number of articles in which they appear tracks fairly well some earlier polls run here, though with an obvious skew to the major figures in 20th-century "analytic" philosophy.  I searched only philosophers no longer alive (some living figures would have made the top 30).

1.  Plato (1012)

2.  Aristotle (1001)

3.  Kant (801)

4.  Hume (590)

5.  Descartes (542)

6.  Leibniz (451)

7.  Locke (442)

8.  Frege (395)

9.  Socrates (391)

10.  Aquinas (374)

Viktor DeSantis's war on higher education in Florida...this is what it looks like on the ground

A philosopher at a public university in Florida shares the email their Chair felt the need (no doubt correctly) to send out:

I wanted to give you a heads up about a recent law that has passed our legislature, SB 266, which goes into effect on July 1. For those of you who haven't followed the details, this law intervenes in higher education in a variety of ways that impact us, and I am happy to discuss any of this in more detail in person or over the phone/zoom. If anyone is interested, I can ask someone from the Counsel's office to attend our retreat to share their perspective on this with us. 

Chairs met with some of the university lawyers earlier this week, and they pointed out some of the sections of the law that might be important for us. 

While I would recommend that you familiarize yourself with the entire law, if you are teaching general education, you may want to attend to the section on general education that begins on line 528, with special attention to section c (line 556-561) and D2 (lines 567-571). I'm not sending this on because I anticipate problems, but simply for you to be aware of. 

Section c: "(c) General education core courses may not distort significant historical events or include a curriculum that teaches identity politics, violates s. 1000.05, or is based on theories that systemic racism, sexism, oppression, and privilege are inherent in the institutions of the United States and were created to maintain social, political, and economic inequities."

Simon Blackburn on the biography of Parfit

A more appreciative review of the biography than Mulhall's, and more philosophically substantial as well, including some sharp and what seem to me correct criticisms of Parfit's views.

What is it like to be a philosopher? Eric Winsberg edition

Here.

Stephen Mulhall did not like Derek Parfit's way of doing philosophy...

...so, unsurprisingly, he did not much like a biography of Parfit.  There were a couple of apt criticisms of the philosophy and the philosopher.  For example:

[A]lthough Parfit’s favoured method for pursuing and refining ethical thinking presents itself as open to all whatever their ethical stance, it actually incorporates a subtle but pervasive bias against approaches to ethics that don’t focus exclusively or primarily on the outcomes of individual actions.

And also:

You don’t have to be Nietzsche to see in Parfit’s adult life a particularly stark version of an ascetic ideal that has its historical roots in the religious framework his family inhabited, but which has mutated into a variety of avowedly secular cultural forms, in science, art and philosophy. These ideals attribute a transcendent value to truth and truthfulness, and so to forms of human life that seek it, no matter what costs they impose. To the martyred Galileo and the abused avant-gardiste, we can now add the moral philosopher who cloisters himself within a cloistered institution whose founding purpose was to pray for the faithful departed. All these exemplary figures exhibit a sadomasochistic structure of self-denial, in which most of what makes life worth living is sacrificed to one’s intellectual calling. 

UPDATE:  Dr. Roger Albin writes:

Thanks for linking to Mulhall’s interesting review of the Parfit bio.  Having read Reasons & Persons, I agree with several of his criticisms.  His comment about Parfit’s personality and adult life, however, particularly the “…sadomasochistic structure of self-denial, in which most of what makes life worth living is sacrificed to one’s intellectual calling” remark may be misleading.  At an earlier point in the review, he notes that Parfit’s biographer suggested that Parfit might have had an autism spectrum disorder (though disorder is something of a misnomer).  Based on what I’ve read about Parfit, I’d say this is more than plausible.  But if that is the case, then spending his life in the cloistered environment of All Souls College, and Parfit’s apparently obsessive conduct, would not be “sadomasochistic denial.”  Many of the ordinary demands, pleasures, and uncertainties of conventional life may well have been distressing for Parfit.  His life would be uncomfortably demanding for the great majority of us, but it may well have been the most comfortable for him. 

A celebration of the life and work of Maria Rosa Antognazza on June 14...

...at King's College, London.  (The earlier memorial announcement.)

Poitier meets Plato

MOVING TO FRONT FROM MAY 22--SEE UPDATE

From his 1964 album:

(Thanks to Rob Tempio for the pointer.)

UPDATE:  There is a digital version of the full album here.   (Thanks to Neil Jahren for the pointer.)

 

St. Norbert College philosophy professor strikes it rich...

...on the game show Jeopardy!  A quarter million dollars!

(Thanks to Phil Gasper for the pointer.)

Would you choose to live forever?

Philosopher John Martin Fischer discusses the topic for a popular audience.

One philosopher elected to American Philosophical Society

He is philosopher of science and biology John Dupre at the University of Exeter.

APA announces prizes....

...including the Dewey Lectures, the Gittler Prize, and others.

Humanities (including philosophy) at risk of being totally gutted at the University of Brighton in the UK

The proposed cuts are draconian!  At the prior link, there is also a link to an open letter that readers can sign in support of their Brighton colleagues.

(Thanks to Pascal Brixel for the pointer.)

Students in the UK are still trying to deplatform philosopher Kathleen Stock

MOVING TO FRONT FROM YESTERDAY--UPDATED

It's apparently not enough to have run her out of her job, some of them still can't abide her being invited to speak.  The latest incident was at Oxford.  Philosopher Jeff McMahan (Oxford) kindly shared the very good letter he and other Oxford academics (including many philosophers [e.g., Timothy Williamson, Joel Hamkins, John Tasioulas, etc.]) sent to The Telegraph.  An excerpt (I added bolding to the crucial point):

Professor Stock believes that biological sex in humans is real and socially salient, a view which until recently would have been so commonplace as to hardly merit asserting. Whether or not one agrees with Professor Stock’s views, there is no plausible and attractive ideal of academic freedom, or of free speech more generally, which would condemn their expression as outside the bounds of permissible discourse. Unfortunately, the position of her opponents seems to be that Professor Stock’s views are so illicit that they cannot be safely discussed in front of an audience of consenting and intelligent adults at the main debating society at the University of Oxford. If this were the case, it is doubtful that they could be safely expressed anywhere – a result that, as her opponents are no doubt satisfied to find, would amount to their effective prohibition.

Anyone who disagrees with the bolded bit is really not fit for university life.

UPDATE:  The Oxford Student Union has sent out a message to its members denying that severing its financial relationship with the Oxford Union was related to the invitation to Professor Stock:

Hello Students,

We refer to the recent commentary in the national media regarding the decision of Oxford SU, the student union of the University of Oxford, to suspend its commercial and financial relationship with the Oxford Union, the private members’ club and debating society.

The press coverage erroneously conflates the recent motion passed by the Student Council of Oxford SU in relation to the Oxford Union with the Oxford Union’s decision to invite Dr Kathleen Stock as a speaker. The motion was unrelated to Dr Stock’s intended talk. It did not mention Dr Stock or any other speaker at the Oxford Union, instead citing long-standing concerns relating to alleged bullying, sexual harassment, discrimination and data privacy breaches which affect students. The motion was democratically passed at a meeting of students, following a debate which also did not mention Dr Stock.

It is deeply unfortunate that the media has chosen to imply a connection between the Student Council’s vote and Dr Stock’s talk.  Oxford SU is a charity which exists to promote the interests and welfare of students and to provide social, cultural, and recreational activities and forums for discussions and debate. We are committed to freedom of expression and freedom of speech, and will defend the right of people to have controversial and unpopular ideas debated as an integral part of university life and the student experience.

Draft Minutes from Student Council

 

There should be severe liability for creating "counterfeit people" using AI

Philosopher Daniel Dennett in The Atlantic:

Today, for the first time in history, thanks to artificial intelligence, it is possible for anybody to make counterfeit people who can pass for real in many of the new digital environments we have created. These counterfeit people are the most dangerous artifacts in human history, capable of destroying not just economies but human freedom itself. Before it’s too late (it may well be too late already) we must outlaw both the creation of counterfeit people and the “passing along” of counterfeit people. The penalties for either offense should be extremely severe, given that civilization itself is at risk.

Ruse on Setiya on Kitcher (with Leiter's commentary)

Philosopher Kieran Setiya wrote a fairly critical review of Philip Kitcher's recent book, What's the Use of Philosophy.  A few excerpts:

What Kitcher finds in philosophy today is arid technicality, produced for an audience of insiders. He complains about the fetish for clarity and the needless use of formalism; he objects to a methodology that splices intuitions about fanciful cases with assertions of a priori knowledge (‘sprinkling fairy dust’); he accuses philosophers of not knowing enough about the sciences that pertain to their work and of failing to question whether their projects are worthwhile. What he wants is a philosophy of use to scientists, or which can be applied to social problems. He also wants new synthetic visions, ways of seeing the world that bring together different disciplines with an eye to human flourishing.

Scientists are useful people, but there is more to philosophy than being useful to science or solving "social problems," although I do think philosophy could do a lot more of the former, and has done almost none of the latter.   Genuine philosophers are legislators of value, as one 19th-century German observed (Kant and Hegel were not genuine philosophers on this view, merely "philosophical laborers" who "pressed into formulas" existing values:  see Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, section 211).  Perhaps that latter conception of philosophy falls under Kitcher's idea of producing "ways of seeing the world...with an eye to human flourishing."  Setiya continues:

Kitcher pleads for a ‘reconstruction in philosophy.' 

Git and Pandoc for managing your academic work

Philosopher Richard Yetter Chappell walks you through it!

Spinoza's anti-humanism

Philosopher Yitzhak Melamed, a leading Spinoza scholar, comments.

In Memoriam: Thomas M. Robinson (1936-2023)

Professor Robinson, a longtime member of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Toronto, where he was emeritus, was well-known for his work in ancient philosophy, perhaps most especially his Plato's Psychology (1970).  The Toronto memorial notice is here.  Comments are open for remembrances from those who knew Professor Robinson or for those who wish to comment on the significance of his work.

(Thanks to Professor George Boys-Stones for the pointer.)

Richard Marshall interviews Peter van Inwagen...

...at 3:16 AM.

In Memoriam: Ian Hacking (1936-2023)

MOVING TO THE FRONT FROM YESTERDAY--SOME NICE REMEMBRANCES, MORE WELCOME

Professor Hacking, who was emeritus at Toronto where he taught for more than two decades after stints at Stanford and Cambridge, was one of the most creative and influential thinkers in the history and philosophy of the sciences, broadly construed, over the last fifty years.  The Toronto memorial notice is here.  Comments are open for remembrances from those who knew Professor Hacking, or for those who wish to comment on the significance of his work.

In Memoriam: Albert Borgmann (1937-2023)

A longtime member of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Montana, Professor Borgmann established the field of philosophy of technology in the Anglophone world.  There is an obituary here.  Comments are open for remembrances from those who knew Professor Borgmann, or who wish to comment on the signficance of his work.

(Thanks to Armond Duwell for the information.)

Timothy Williamson talks about the "philosophy of philosophy"...

...at Parker's Pensees.

(Thanks to Aaron Preston for the pointer.)

What if the American Academy of Arts & Sciences returns to honoring faculty *exclusively* for scholarly achievement...

...rather than membership in professional networks (e.g., "Christian philosophers," "decision theorists," "Kant scholars," "friends of Sally"), or demographic diversity.   Over the years, I have been pretty good at identifying those who should be elected on the merits.  For example, on my 2010 list of "sins of omission," most have since been elected, although I'm still astonished that Larry Laudan, one of the major figures in philosophy of science in the last fifty years, did not; and there is still time to make up for some of the other omissions.  (Larry, I suspect, did not kiss up to the right people, but he was a far more important figure in the history of philosophy of science than at least a half-dozen folks who were elected over the last quarter-century.)

Ernest Lepore (Rutgers) talks about philosophy of language, slurs and other topics...

...at Robinson's Podcast.

What philosophical ideas should non-philosophers know about?

Philosopher Iskra Fileva posed this nice question on FB, and I thought it would be interesting to pose it here for a wider audience.  Professor Fileva asked her friends to pick just "three top" ideas, but I'm happy if readers want to propose more than three.  From many years of teaching philosophy to law students (and very good law students I might add), as well as talking to very smart law faculty, here are a few familiar philosophical ideas that I think are valuable for non-philosophers to understand:  the difference between justification and truth, and, relatedly, the difference between an epistemic and a metaphysical claim; the idea of a "natural kind," whether understood in the Kripke-Putnam way, or the earlier Whewell-Mill-Quine way (I prefer the latter); the difference between realism and anti-realism about some domain, and its relationship to ideas of mind- or attitude-independence.   I'm sure there are many others, so welcome reader perspectives on this.  I'd be particularly interested to hear from non-philosophy readers about what philosophical ideas they have found especially useful.  It's also fine to answer this question with an eye to philosophical ideas "ordinary" people might find important in their lives, and not simply those that are helpful in other areas of scholarship or study. 

Someone actually read hundreds of mostly unmoderated blog comments...

...and wrote about what they reveal about the sociology of the philosophy profession.  It took real courage to do this, given the first and fifth laws of cyber-dynamics!  

(Thanks to Cora Diamond for the pointer.)

What is it like to be a philosopher? Valerie Tiberius edition

Here.

Philosopher Rachel Barney (Toronto) discusses the Sophists...

...at Robinson's Podcast.

"Philosophy in the Open" from the Open University

 Philosopher Dan Cavedon-Taylor from the Open University writes:

A new online exhibition is being launched today on the Open University Digital Archive. Philosophy in the Open: The OU Philosophy Media Archive, contains over 30 hours of footage of interviews and debates between some of the most celebrated mid-to-late 20th century British philosophers (readers may be familiar with the Evans and Strawson debate on truth). These videos, many of which were originally broadcast on the BBC, were made in the early days of the Open University to support its teaching in Philosophy. They are a snapshot of a golden age of philosophy in Great Britain, made public here for the first time. 

Interviewees include: 

A. J. Ayer, Renford Bambrough, K. K. Baublys, R. B. Braithwaite, Gareth Evans, Allen Phillips Griffiths, Susan Haack, R. M. Hare, Rodney Hirst, A. J. P. Kenny, Martha Kneale, Stephan Körner, Anthony Quinton, Gilbert Ryle, Dennis Sciama, B. F. Skinner, Charles Taylor, Godfrey Vesey, G. J. Warnock, Alan White, Bernard Williams. 

OU has also commissioned some new essays and videos by contemporary philosophers discussing these older ones.

Logician W. Hugh Woodin elected to the National Academy of Sciences

Here.  He has appointments in both mathematics and philosophy at Harvard.   There are not many faculty in philosophy departments elected to the NAS; the only other living ones are Allan Gibbard (Michigan) and Brian Skryms (UC Irvine).  Past members from philosophy include W.V.O. Quine and Patrick Suppes.

Not all philosophy journal experieces with Wiley have been bad

I reached out to philosopher Ernest Sosa, who has long been involved with three Wiley journals: as Editor of Philosophical Issues, and Editor-in-Chief of Nous and Philosophy & Phenomenological Research.  I wanted to know what his experience had been like, given the unhappy reports that have recently surfaced in connection with Journal of Political Philosophy and Philosophy & Public Affairs.  Professor Sosa replied:  "Our experience with Wiley’s editorial representatives has been uniformly excellent in every way. In particular, we have never experienced any pressure to adjust our editorial policies and procedures to any business objectives. At all three journals we have always enjoyed complete editorial autonomy."  This is encouraging to hear.   Other editors involved with Wiley journals are also invited to comment on their experiences.  Full name required, and valid email address (the latter will not appear).

Saul Kripke Memorial Conference, May 8-9, 2023

The final schedule is here.  More information here about how to register for livestream of the event, and the "Building Access Policy" for those who want to attend in person.

(As an aside, as longtime readers will know, I do not generally post conference announcements, but I make an exception for memorial events for philosophers like this one.)

CHE offers a few more details on the Wiley/JPP fiasco

Following up on the events we first reported on here, CHE offers a couple of new details, in particular:

Christian Barry, one of the co-editors, told The Chronicle that he and the two other co-editors discussed among themselves and with Goodin what they should do. While they strongly disliked how Goodin was treated, they also recognized the work Goodin had poured into the journal and its important role in academe, which felt like it was worth preserving. With Goodin’s blessing, Barry said, they began discussing with Wiley representatives the contours of an agreement to take over editorship of the journal.

The conversation turned to numbers. Ed Colby, a Wiley spokesperson, told The Chronicle in an email that “a moderate increase of two additional articles per year had been proposed” to the co-editors. “Wiley is always looking for sustainable ways to grow our journals in close consultation with our editors, especially as we transition to open access and research becomes more international.”

"Top ten" departments hiring junior faculty with PhDs from outside the "top ten"

University of Southern California hired tenure-track assistant professors this year with PhDs from SUNY-Buffalo, U Mass/Amherst, and British Columbia.   That's striking and quite unusual for a "top ten" program, but demonstrates a clear confidence in judgment and careful reading of files.  Of course, U Mass/Amherst and British Columbia are strong departments at the international level (both top 40 in the Anglophone world), but they rarely place graduates at this level.  Other examples are harder to come by (e.g., Harvard hired Samantha Matherne (PhD, UC Riverside), who works on Kant and post-Kantian philosophy, an area where UCR is excellent), and certainly not three in one year.   Looking over other "top 10" departments in the U.S., the only other case I find of tenure-stream junior faculty without PhDs from "top 10" programs is at Michigan (Emmalon Davis [PhD, Indiana], Sonya Ozbey [PhD, DePaul]), although those junior faculty were hired in different years. 

Petition to "Save the Journal of Political Philosophy"

Here.  Sensible demands and concrete proposals.  Anyone working in political philosophy/theory and cognate areas (including ethics and philosophy of law) should sign.

 

Is there anyone left at Journal of Political Philosophy?

My original correspondent writes this morning:   "Overnight, it seems that nearly all of the board has quit (including me)."   Wiley has really done something remarkable, taking the best journal in its subfield (political philosophy) and destroying it.  What a tragedy.  The only way out, as far as I can see, is for them to restore Goodin with a succession plan approved by the editors.

Comments are open, but once again, a full name is required, as is a valid email address (which will not appear).

More on Wiley as a journal publisher

There's a stunning comment on the earlier thread from Professor Anna Stilz, a political philosopher at Princeton who is the EIC of Philosophy & Public Affairs, that deserves wide notice:

I am also a member of JPP's Editorial Board who wrote earlier today to resign. But I'd like to share my perspective as well as Editor-in-Chief of Philosophy and Public Affairs, another Wiley-owned journal. P&PA has experienced escalating unreasonable demands from Wiley, including a demand that we massively increase the number of articles per year that we publish, essentially abandoning our editorial judgment and our control over the quality of our content. A few years back we only succeeded in getting Wiley to back down from this demand by threatening to file a lawsuit. I have heard from Editors at JPP that they were experiencing similar unreasonable demands from Wiley. That's all to say that whatever difficulties in communication there may have been between Wiley and Bob Goodin, those difficulties weren't occurring in a vacuum. All political philosophers and theorists who care about the health of the journals in our field have an interest in showing Wiley that it can't get away with this. I suggest we need to create sufficient negative publicity around the JPP affair so that any academic with a decent reputation who is approached to edit JPP in the future will feel considerable social pressure to refuse. Wiley will then either have to come back to the Co-Editors of JPP and allow them to run their journal on their terms, or it will own a much less valuable journal going forward.

Comments are open, but will be moderated as always.  Full name preferred, and valid email address required.

Crisis at Journal of Political Philosophy: Wiley (the publisher) ousts longtime editor Bob Goodin (MULTIPLE UPDATES--INCLUDING A REPLY FROM WILEY)

MOVING TO FRONT FROM EARLIER TODAY

A member of the editorial board writes:

Wiley has decided to remove Bob Goodin as Editor as of the end of this year and not replace him with any of the co-editors who were part of the journal's succession plan.  Bob notified the editorial board yesterday, and now several prominent members have resigned [6 as of this morning, including Jeff McMahan and Philip Pettit (an Associate Editor)].  I wrote Wiley for an explanation but they did not give one other than to say that the decision was not taken lightly.  It's a phenomenal journal -- the most influential in political philosophy, I think -- so they are really messing with success. I personally have not decided whether to resign from the board but am following this closely.

JPP's success is, by every account I've heard, due to Goodin's excellent editorial stewardship, and the huge amount of time he personally has invested in offering editorial feedback to authors.  So this is simply bizarre.  Wiley will have to offer a real explanation before this journal goes down in flames.  Comments are open for readers with knowledge about what's going on; comments particularly welcome from current or former Board members.   Full name preferred, and valid email address required (it will not appear).

UPDATE:  Anthony Appiah and Tommie Shelby are also among those resigning from the Board now.  The number is beyond six resignations.

MORE:   Amia Srinivasan (Oxford), an Associate Editor, has resigned, and she tells me she was not consulted before Wiley announced the decision to remove Goodin.  Sally Haslanger and Anne Phillips, also Associate Editors, have also resigned.  Other members of the Editorial Board who have resigned, beyond those already noted, are:  Derrick Darby, Bruce Ackerman, Jon Elster, Victor Tradros, Patrick Tomlin, Jane Mansbridge, Chiara Cordelli, Jonathan Quong, abd Pablo Gilabert.

ANOTHER:  Jeff McMahan kindly shared his resignation letter to Wiley, which is below the fold:

Death may be near, but there's still living to do

Philosopher Paul Woodruff writes about his experience:

My death is close at hand...because of a lung condition called bronchiectasis, and I am on oxygen day and night. But I do not think of myself as dying. I am living each day with as much life as I can put into it. For me, that means going to bed each night planning at least one project for the next day — something worth getting out of bed and living for. As I think of dying, I make each day a time for living, for having something to live for.

What kind of project is worth living for? Not a project I could complete today. Worthwhile projects spread out over time. Writing this small essay and finding someone to print it will take at least a week, and today is only the first day. I will make sure that the last day for this essay will be the first day for something else. Thinking of death, I want to live every day as if it were the first for something.

(Thanks to Michael Sevel for the pointer.)

Trinity College's library will no longer be named after Bishop Berkeley...

...because he owned slaves.  Unlike Aristotle, he did not justify slavery, so one might have thought that would count in his favor.  More seriously, at the time he owned slaves, it was hardly uncommon for individuals of his class.  (Contrast the case of honoring Calhoun!)  Will this de-naming make the world a better place?   Was anyone in doubt in Dublin that chattel slavery was wrong?  Will scholars of Berkeley now apologize for writing about him?

Marx, ever the optimist, thought that things would be very different when we live in a "human" world, in which there are neither chattel- nor wage-slaves, in which people were not locked in life-and-death struggles for existence, and in which the human interest in creative work was allowed to express itself.  That must surely be right, but one might imagine that in such a humane world no one would care about dishonoring those who were otherwise great intellectual innovators because they were creatures of their times, because they acted exactly as their class position required.

No more "logic" requirement at Yale, instead "formal methods"

Philosophers on Twitter have been abuzz with this news:

Yale philosophy has officially replaced the grad program “logic requirement” with a broader “formal methods requirement.” Students can choose which course to take (logic, probability, stats, game theory, etc.)

This seems like a sensible move.  When philosophy of language dominated Anglophone philosophy, logic seemed more important than it probably is today for many areas of the discipline.  Thoughts from readers?

Neurophilosopher Patricia Churchland profiled in El Pais

Here (in English).

Richard Marshall interviews Heinrich Heine...

...at 3:16 AM.