Our books

Become a Fan

« Tantalizing New Evidence for "A New Theory of Free Will"? | Main | Slow and steady »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

elisa freschi

Isn't the problem rather one of 1) honesty of purposes and of 2) the purpose of philosophy in general?
Re. 1) I have no problem with setting explicit boundaries to one's investigation, after all, we always do it (explicitly or, which is much more dangerous, implicitly) and no one raises objections against highly specialized papers dealing only with the application of a certain argument to a related field and not questioning any of its presuppositions (not to speak about the fact that direct realism is mostly the unquestioned background of such articles). In short: boundaries are allowed, but they must be acknowledged.

2) Philosophy should not (this seems to be your more stimulating point) be nothing but a specialised discipline. It should leave the doors open for radical questions and all-reaching investigations. We do not expect physics or astronomy to do it (apart from some valuable exceptions you mention), but philosophers do have to investigate about ALL sort of possibilities. This seems to me a very valuable point, but (as the article on heuristics recently discussed on this blog proves) it is not every philosopher's core concern. I would keep on highlighting this possibility/this need, without expecting everyone to fulfil it. What do you think?

Moti Mizrahi

Thanks a lot for the plug, Marcus.

Of course, your words are music to my ears :)

In addition to my papers on intuition mongering, I think I was trying to articulate somewhat related worries here: http://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/blog/2012/08/searching-for-truth-under-a-lamppost.html

and here: http://thinkjustdoit.blogspot.com/2012/05/phi-3000-intuition-takes-me-there.html

T. Parent

Posted over at newsapps, but then remembered we're talking about it here too! My two cents:


Jeremy Pierce

It's not as if he's doing this in a vacuum. He has papers addressing this issue head-on, and in part he's relying the work of others, e.g. Alston. It's more that he's tired of defending a view he finds utterly obvious and whose opponents strike him as defending insanity, when it's clear to him that past conversations haven't made any headway.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Job-market reporting thread

Current Job-Market Discussion Thread

Job ads crowdsourcing thread

Philosophers in Industry Directory