I began this blog last July with the hope of drawing attention to "underappreciated philosophy" -- to discussing ideas/philosophers that readers consider to have not gotten enough attention. Unfortunately, although we have had a few submissions -- and a few good discussions! -- the blog has mostly languished.
Because this seems unfortunate to me -- I think there is value in drawing "underappreciated philosophy" to the fore -- I began giving some thought on how I might jumpstart the blog a bit. It then occurred to me that expanding the blog's mission to include "over-appreciated philosophy" might do the trick. Allow me to explain.
Most of we philosophers, I think, have views both about ideas/arguments we think are "underappreciated", but also about ones we think are over-appreciated -- ideas and arguments that are widely discussed, and in some cases even dominate the literature, but which we think shouldn't. I, for instance, have voiced skepticism in the comments section here about arguments about "the meaning of proper names" based on (Kripkean) intuition-mongering about reference. Insofar as not all people share the intuitions, and we seem perfectly capable of engaging in many different (Wittgensteinian) "language games" with proper names -- sometimes using them as rigid-designators, other times as definite descriptions -- I believe the search for "the meaning" of proper names has been, on the whole, a big mistake. Proper names don't have one meaning or referent; they have many. Or so it seems to me. And, of course, I have doubts about other ideas/arguments too (counterfactual theories of causation, compatibilism about free will, material constitution, etc.).
Of course, my doubts about these things could be all wrong. But, what could be more fun (and potentially productive!), I thought, than a forum to debate whether particular philosophical ideas/arguments are "over-" or "under-" appreciated. Hence, I have decided, as an experiment, to change this blog's focus. The aim of the blog is now to solicit and discuss posts from readers arguing that particular ideas/arguments are over- or under-appreciated!
There is, I realize, some hazard in this. I have, as a rule -- in, for instance, developing and moderating the Philosophers' Cocoon -- committed myself to doing what I can to contribute to making our discipline a friendlier, more inclusive place. Although I was "raised" very early on in my career to treat philosophy as a "take-no-prisoners bloodsport", I have long since come to despise that approach to philosophy. I would like to see our discipline become a more friendly and inclusive place, not less, and am committed to doing what I can to play whatever small part I can toward these ends. At the same time, critical thought and discussion -- defending and criticizing ideas/arguments -- is a central part of philosophy, and indeed can, I think, if done properly, play a part in making philosophy more friendly and inclusive. Indeed, I think extending this blog's mission can do this in two related ways. First, by creating a forum for people to make the case that a given idea/argument is under-appreciated, unpopular or underecognized ideas may be brought to the fore. Second, by creating a forum for people to make the case that a given idea is over-appreciated, dominant (and potentially exclusionary) ideas/arguments may be questioned. So, for example, to return to the case of proper names, one of the main reasons I stopped working in philosophy language many years ago is that I didn't feel like skeptical worries about dominant (Kripkean) intuitions were taken seriously. I felt like the literature on proper names had been captured by a group of people with a certain set of intuitions -- intuitions that excluded people (like me) who did not find them at all persuasive.
This, then, is the rationale for the blog's change of name and mission. Discussion and debate of which ideas/arguments are "over-" and "under-"appreciated may be fun, stimulating, and productive. That, at any rate, is my hope. Of course, there is always the possibility for such a project to devolve into unfriendly "bashing" of philosophers, ideas, and arguments. I hope this possibility is not realized here, and if it begins to go that direction, I may choose to end the experiment.
Here, then, are the procedures and ground rules:
- Submissions should be sent to Marcus Arvan at marvan@ut.edu
- Submissions will be posted anonymously unless the author wishes their identity to be known.
- Submissions must be submitted to me non-anonymously from an email address that I can verify to be registered to its submitter.
- Sumbitters may submit (anonymously or otherwise) on behalf of their own philosophical ideas/arguments.
- A submitter can only submit one post per calendar year on a given philosophical idea or argument (multiple submissions on different ideas/arguments by a single author are fine). This is to prevent individuals from repeatedly posting on the same idea/argument repeatedly.
- For moral and legal reasons, allegations of plagiarism or research misconduct (or anything remotely similar) will not be permitted. This is not a place to report that people "stole your ideas." Submissions may only make a case for (A) an idea piece of work being unjustifiably ignored or (B) insufficiently credited to a person by the profession at large.
- Discussion in the comments section must be respectful. I will use my moderating powers to ensure a respectful tone of conversation.
Here goes!