CFP: What is Liberty Studies?

What should undergraduate college students be learning about liberty? That's a great question, one posed by the The Center for Liberty Studies at the first Liberty Studies Conference. Below is the CFP for the conference.

First Conference on Liberty Studies

What is Liberty Studies?

5 - 6 April 2008

The College of New Jersey
Ewing, New Jersey

Call for Papers

The first annual Liberty Studies Conference, sponsored by The Center for Liberty Studies, will be held this April 5 - 6 at The College of New Jersey in Ewing New Jersey. The theme of our conference is "What is Liberty Studies?" This conference will put forth various ideas of what would constitute Liberty Studies by starting a debate and discussion concerning what undergraduate students ought to be learning about liberty. We are looking to disseminate substantive ideas that professors can consider for their own classes and home institutions.

Papers are welcome on any topic in liberty and from any discipline. We are looking for submissions that are accessible to a wide audience. Bibliographies and works cited should be limited to those works that either will be directly used in the classroom or are deemed important for instructor reference. Reading time of papers should be approximately 20 minutes. Accepted papers will be published in the new online Journal of Liberty Studies.

Abstracts of no less than 250 words are due by January 15th. Email submissions to conference@libertystudies.org Early submission is encouraged.

For more information about Liberty Studies and The Center for Liberty Studies, please visit our website at www.libertystudies.org

This year we are holding our conference in conjunction with the 35th Conference on Value Inquiry "Values and Medicine". For information on the Conference on Value Inquiry go to www.valueinquiry.net

A Question of Political Philosophy

Last night, in Phil of Bio, I made the comment that Nazism is a form of Marxism (most obviously so in that 'Nazism' is an abbreviation of National Socialism, more correctly Nationalsozialismus). It could have been my imagination run amok or it could have in fact happened that when I did so, I heard sneers and gasps of disbelief.

My question is this. If Nazism is not in fact a form of Marxism, (or outgrowth, or direct product, or interpretation), then what is it?

It seems to me that once we make the claim that all property is to be distributed (evenly, or not) by some entity (governmental in the case of fascist Germany), it's only what most people colloquially call a 'semantical game' that we distinguish one form of distribution from another, i.e. 'Fascism' from 'Communism' from 'Socialism', etc.

Hitler and the crew chose to rob from a particular racial or ethnic group. How does that really distinguish them, in any meaningful sense, from Stalin, Chairman Mao, Trotsky, Lenin, or any of their more contemporary heirs (e.g. GW Bush, Gordon Brown, Vladimir Putin).

Maybe not a burning question in 21st century analytic philosophy, but a question nonetheless.

Smooches

The elephant in the room/that one awkward moment

Imagine this. We're sitting in class and then it comes out. We've all dreamed about it. We've fantasized about it. We've laughed to ourselves over it. We've had grand visions with surreal detail: the flushed cheeks of those around us; the embarrassed laughter; the horrified expressions of onlookers. It had been building and bubbling up to the surface ever since the beginning, only to explode now in an enormous release of tension that stifled the room in choked gasps of disbelief. Emitting such outbursts in public is as taboo as it gets and is then forced into the confines of collective mental oblivion, hence the elephant in the room. But there it is, staring you in the face like an evil, brown cloud of smog hovering languidly over a congested city. Morally speaking, why is it that we simply cannot do such things? What makes it wrong? Everybody feels it from time to time. To deny that would be like denying our own humanity. So why can't we, you know? Why can't we just go ahead and fart in public? It's part of our Biology, isn't it?

The Infamous, Much-Derided Monism Paper

Hello ASUPHI Bloggers,

I just finished the latest version of the monism paper. It's not really a defense of monism at all anymore, but it is an outgrowth (a tumor or a festering boil perhaps) of the orginal paper.

I'd be interested in getting some comments from y'all. I tried to attach it here, but apparently the blog only allows you to link to a webpage, and I lack the energy, inclination, and technical skill to do so. If anyone is interested in reading it, let me know, and I will send you a copy.

Hugs and kisses,

Scott

Spheres

HT Objects and Arrows


Watch a sphere turn inside out here.

Most Important Philosophical Question(s)

SUPHI hasn't been that active, so I thought I'd throw this question to the blog and see if it spurs any interest.

What do you take to be the most important philosophical question (or questions)? And, of course, why do you think that?

Hello!

Hi everyone! I probably don't know everyone on here yet... I'm Pamela, a first-year PhD student at ASU. I'll try to contribute here from time to time, and I also keep a blog here. Anyway, just introducing myself. Be back later! :-)

Multiplying Quizzes beyond necessity

Here's one that a friend sent me. My results are a little surprising, but not that much. I wouldn't have expected that Existentialism would be so high, but the rest of it seems roughly in order.

You scored as Existentialism, Your life is guided by the concept of Existentialism: You choose the meaning and purpose of your life.

“Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.”
“It is up to you to give [life] a meaning.”
--Jean-Paul Sartre

“It is man's natural sickness to believe that he possesses the Truth.”
--Blaise Pascal

More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page...

Existentialism 100%
Strong Egoism 90%
Justice (Fairness) 85%
Hedonism 80%
Kantianism 55%
Utilitarianism 25%
Nihilism 5%
Apathy 0%
Divine Command 0%

What philosophy do you follow? (v1.03)
created with QuizFarm.com

Ethical Philosophy Selector

I am sure most of you have taken this quiz or something similar. Try it again and post what you get!

Ethical Philosophy Selector

Here's my Top Ten...surprised?

1. Aristotle (100%)
2. Ayn Rand (97%)
3. John Stuart Mill (94%)
4. Epicureans (91%)
5. Aquinas (86%)
6. Plato (81%)
7. Nietzsche (78%)
8. Thomas Hobbes (78%)
9. David Hume (73%)
10.Jean-Paul Sartre (73%)

I'm smrat

You are al stoopid

Ban Drugs in Sports?

For those interested, I pose this as a question for discussion. Is it appropriate for sports leagues to ban the use of particular types of supplements or chemicals?

As a libertarian, I think a private league can set such a policy with legal and political impunity. The question I am wondering about is if there are good (and enough) reasons for a league to set such a policy. (leaving aside public relations reasons or do-it-yourself-before-government-steps-in reasons)

My skepticism towards such policies arises namely out of its apparent arbitrariness. Why are some substances banned, but not others? Why steroids and HGH, but not protein shakes and other diets/supplements that allow for great muscle growth and recover time? Most would, I think, argue that the former are dangerous and set bad examples for youth. Yet, the former under physician care can be used safely, no doubt with risk. The 'children' argument has some weight, but again, targeting these substances and not others seems arbitrary. It can be unhealthy for a teenager to live on a diet of protein shakes and bars, but that is not brought up as a justification to ban these.

Certainly there is a continuum here from highly risky to less risky, from highly advantageous to only moderately so. The question seems to be at what point one thinks the risk is too great or the advantage too great (and thus unfair).

Another thought: is there a difference between using said substances to maintain condition and recover from injury versus using them a performance enhancement?

And why the focus on substances and not other performance enhancing activities? Excessive training can be unhealthy (and thus fall into the category of bad example) and give one a performance advantage. Some trainers and conditioning approaches are far superior to others and so provide for performance advantages. Why not also ban chiropractors and physical therapists from aiding in injury recovery and prevention? Why does MLB allow for voluntary Tommy-John surgery but not taking a pill that might accomplish similar results?

Thoughts?

Sophie's World

I am sure that many of you have been asked about Sophie's World. People find out you are a philosopher and they want to know what you think of this book. I finally decided to read it, hoping it would get me in the frame of mind for the start of the school year. Here's my brief review:

For the most part, the history of philosophy offered in Sophie’s World is sound, though of course often overly simplified. Such simplification is expected and acceptable in a book of this size and for its intended audience. It is at its best in the classical and medieval periods. As we get into the 18th and 19th centuries, there are some disappointing and questionable choices. There is altogether too much attention given to Marx and Freud, while nothing is remarked about John Stuart Mill or John Locke (his political thought). A reader might get the impression that existentialism was the dominant philosophy of the 20th century and not the analytic tradition that actually does dominate, for better or for worse, the Anglo-American world. The thinkers of great importance for this tradition: Moore, Russell, Wittgenstein, are not mentioned at all. This absence is ultimately forgivable because the book was written by a Scandinavian for a Scandinavian audience. Still, the reader should be aware that philosophy in the English speaking world goes in a very different direction than the direction that Alberto takes Sophie.

The story itself is not all that interesting. There is little in the way of characterization and the mystery and fantasy elements are too forced. Sophie can be annoying in the way a 15 year old know it all can be annoying. The adults, other than Alberto, are hardly more developed than the adults of Charlie Brown. And for all the fantastic elements in the book, the hardest to believe is that Sophie’s mother lets her daughter gallivant around with a 50-year old stranger.

I do not think this is not a book for a seasoned philosopher or really any adult reader. It is just a bit too childish. I would probably recommend it, however, for a young adult interested in learning about philosophy. But, then again, if that young adult were precocious enough to be interested in philosophy at that age, I would rather just hand him something by Plato or Aristotle.

Interviews with Ayn Rand

Here are Youtube links to two interviews with Ayn Rand, one with Mike Wallace and the other with Phil Donahue.

Mike Wallace interview part 1:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-pHxlwFgOc
Part 2:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wsr768hdk4
Part 3:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5poUSQ4L8pY
Phil Donahue interview part 1:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRDgIXn2IWs
Part 2:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZ7ZSzvVBGo
Part 3:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAExHnF1BoY
Part 4:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLQTPEKiPzI
Part 5:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80SgFKWO0KM

ASU Salaries

Check out the salaries for your favorite ASU professor/ teaching assistant/ employee.

Philosophy Journal Ranking

Hat Tip: Lemmings



Here, courtesy of the European Science Foundation and HERA, is a 2007 list of Philosophy Journals, with grades of A, B, or C.

Update: Check here for some selection info, and here for more info on ERIH. A similar list for Philosophy of Science, and all the remaining lists.

Graduate Student Conference in Political Theory

Hat tip to PEA Soup for this:

Harvard University
Graduate Student Conference in Political Theory
Nov. 30 - Dec. 1, 2007

Details below the fold...

The Department of Government (FAS) at Harvard University will host a conference for graduate students in political theory and political philosophy from November 30-December 1, 2007. Papers on any theme or topic within political theory--from the history of political thought to contemporary normative and conceptual theory--will be considered. Roughly seven papers will be accepted.

Each presentation should last no longer than 45 minutes, so please limit your paper submission to 20 double-spaced pages. Please format it for blind review: the text should include your title but also be free of personal and institutional information; and a separate cover page should include your title, a brief abstract (100 words max.), and your name, e-mail address, and institutional affiliation.

The keynote address will be given by Professor Joshua Cohen (Stanford); a Harvard faculty member will deliver opening remarks; and discussion panels comprised of Harvard faculty and graduate students will accompany each accepted paper. Time permitting, each presenter will have a chance to answer questions during a general discussion period after each panel discussion.

Food and housing will be provided by the Government Department and its graduate students. Unfortunately, Harvard will not be able to provide funds for transportation.

Submissions are due via e-mail (in PDF) on August 31, 2007. Acceptance notices will be sent on September 30, 2007. Papers will be refereed by juries composed of current graduate students in the Government Department at Harvard.

Questions, comments, and submissions should be sent to: .

For more information, please visit the conference Web site at: http://people.fas.harvard.edu/~tontipl/theorycon07.html.

The Evil Competition: Nazis and Communists

(I am reposting this from my blog because I thought folks here might be interested.)

Stephen Browne has an interesting post , distributed as a column by The Atlasphere, that wonders why Nazis are the epitome of evil while the Soviets and Communist Chinese have body counts that are orders of magnitude larger. Hitler is the ultimate way to call some one evil, but Stalin, Lenin, or Mao are not. This is something that I have wondered myself. I am disgusted by the college students I see wearing t-shirts with Che, Mao, or Lenin on them. Are they just stupid and ignorant or something much worse?

I posted a comment to Stephen Browne's blog along the following lines (I forgot to copy and paste it and the comment is awaiting approval, so I am rewriting from memory).

I wonder if part of the reason that the Nazis are seen as worse, as more evil, than the Soviets, etc., is the systematic, methodical plan to kill entire races of people. The communists had their camps and mass executions, but they generally only murdered their perceived enemies and those that were deemed beyond 'rehabilitation' or 'reeducation'. They didn't target, to my knowledge, people solely because they were Jewish, gay, gypsie, etc.

Another aspect of this is that the Nazis had no qualms about murdering children. They actively targeted and killed children of all ages. (1.5 million Jewish children were murdered by the Nazi's during the Shoah). To my knowledge, the communists usually didn't target children for execution. (not to imply that children weren't murdered by the Soviets/Chinese/etc.)

I think for many people in comparing the Nazis with the Soviets/Chinese/etc. considerations of intentions and goals are trumping the body counts.

Ultimately, both the Nazis and Communists were and are evil. There is a certain point where trying to make distinctions like "more evil" no longer makes sense.

Virginia Tech Graduate Philosophy Conference 2007

This was recently forward to the ASU graduate students.

Call for Papers

on the conference topic of

The Philosophy of Mind


The Virginia Tech Graduate Philosophy Club and Philosophy Department invite submissions from current or upcoming graduate students to be considered for inclusion in our conference on Philosophy of Mind. This topic is broadly construed, and we welcome all papers that include and utilize of a conception of mind or its features in order to make advances in any philosophical field.

Submissions are due September 17th, 2007, and must meet the following guidelines:

Prepare a paper and cover letter as separate documents in Word, OpenOffice, or PDF format; send these together to charwood@vt.edu .

The cover letter must include the paper title, as well as your name, academic status, university affiliation, and contact information (including email).

The paper must be prepared for blind review (no name or identifying content); it must also include the title and a short abstract.

The content of the paper must fit within a 25-30 minute presentation. Alternative-format presentations that extend beyond paper readings are encouraged, but not required.

So why are we doing this, again?

For any of us who think they might be writing something original or new in their thesis/dissertation:

Online Philosophy Conference

Anyone "go" to this conference? What do you think of the format?

The second annual Online Philosophy Conference (OPC2) is now in its second week. Please distribute this information (e.g., forward this email) as widely as possible to your colleagues and students, so that they can take advantage of this great opportunity to attend a high-quality philosophy conference for free. The conference website is here: http://experimentalphilosophy.typepad.com/2nd_annual_online_philoso/

There are two videotaped keynote addresses, one by Ernie Sosa and one by Jeff McMahan, and papers presented by (last week) Delia Graf, Shaun Nichols, Meredith Williams, and Juan Comesana, and (this week) Jonathan Dancy, Gillian Russell, Derk Pereboom, John Fischer, and Caspar Hare. Each paper includes commentary by one or two philosophers and then a comment thread open to the general audience, with presenters responding online.

We hope that you will participate in the conference and that you enjoy it!

Sincerely,
Thomas Nadelhoffer and Eddy Nahmias
OPC2 Organizers

Rockford Bound

I am very pleased to announce that I have been offered and have accepted the job at Rockford College. Rockford is a small, private liberal arts college in Rockford, Illinois. It's about 90 miles NNW of Chicago.

I'll be teaching a 4-4 load from a mix of different classes. The fall slate is Intro to Philosophy and upper-division sections of Ethical Theory and Business Ethics.

Update (5/2/07 at 6:11 PM): Rockford has posted this flyer announcing the appointment.

Aesthetics, music, and the subway station

After all the heaviness of the VTech tragedy, I came upon this 'test' of sorts. They cite a few philosophers in the article. I thought some of you might find it interesting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040401721.html

What's Wrong with Contemporary Philosophy?

Here's an interesting article that attempts a diagnosis of contemporary philosophy and why it seems not to progress or hold much external sway.

http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/articles/What'sWrong.pdf (Hat tip Stephen Hicks)

I am sympathetic to the points made in the article, in particular regarding analytic philosophy. Analytic philosophy has, in its current academic form, largely become irrelevant, esoteric, and insular. What used to be -- and still is billed as such -- the quest for asking and answering "The Big Questions" has become overly concerned with technical terminology and peculiar puzzles.

Can you really imagine Aristotle at the Lyceum worrying about whether it is a logical possibility for a cat to give birth to an elephant? I recall several times thinking in a seminar: "if we resolved this _fill in the blank_ puzzle, definitely and once for all, what difference does it make?"

What do others think?

I Want To, I Don't Want To

The subject of this posting is ‘moral stalemates.’ I think moral stalemates are kind of interesting. I consider these to be occasions in which there is a moral conflict between two (or more) parties and all parities have legitimate claims to their respective moral positions. Take for example, the following case:

Two people have a disagreement as to what television show to watch. Let us say that the specific disagreement is concerning a particular television show X; one party wants to watch the show and the other does not. Both moral claims, the right to watch show X and the right not to watch show X, are justified by the fact that both parties are autonomous individuals with the right to determine their own life choices and the fact that they both have legitimate right of ownership to the television in question. The fulfillment of each moral claim also entails consequences of equal moral worth; one party will not have its legitimate moral claim fulfilled. How do we resolve this moral conflict?

Now, it could be suggested that the party who does not want to watch show X has the moral upper hand because by subjecting this party to a television program that they do not want to watch amounts to torture, and torture is never a good thing. Now, granting this, my intuition is that the other party has the same recourse. They can claim that denying their right to watch show X also amounts to torture. Now what?

It may be possible to rely on the old maxim that ‘you can’t always get what you want’ and evaluate the consequence following from the one party not getting what they want, the denial of this party’s particular moral claim, as being less of a loss to one’s autonomy than denying the other party the right not to do what they do not want to do. Now this is where I start to waiver.

A part of me wants to say that this is a convincing argument. It seems that there is something different about positive rights and negative rights, but I’m not sure exactly what that might be. However, if the difference simply amounts to the fact that we can’t always get what we want, this seems to be irrelevant to the weight of the moral claim to positive rights. That all our claims to positive rights do not go fulfilled seems irrelevant as to whether or not they should.

Furthermore, if we buy the ‘you can’t always get what you want’ solution, using the same logic, we can say that ‘you can’t always get what you don’t want’ and suggest then that the consequence of denying someone their claim to negative rights amounts to a loss equivalent to that of the one being denied claims to positive rights. Given this, it seems that each party has equally weighted claims to either positive rights or negative rights, resulting, once again, in a moral stalemate.

Of course, one may suggest that the other party need not be forced to watch a television show they don’t want to watch, he or she can just leave the room. However, the point here is about resolving the moral conflict resulting from conflicting legitimate moral claims. The other party may leave the room, and by doing so the moral conflict no longer becomes an issue, yet the question of whether one moral claim trumps the other still remains.

Peanut Butter and Darwin

I found this and recognized it as presenting a ground-breaking, obvious knock-down argument against evolution. I don't know anything about the site on which I found the video, but the video itself is pretty amazing. I'll never open peanut butter (or for that matter, jelly) again.

Causal Judgments

I'm looking for some intuitions (just your immediate reaction) concerning the following cases (some of you have seen something like them already):

Case 1
Some person is riding through a European city in the Pope-mobile with the Pope's version of the Secret Service standing near. The Pope-mobile, as we all know, is a vehicle secured with bulletproof glass intended to protect the Pope from being shot. As the vehicle is slowly wading through a sea of devotees a gunshot rings out. One of the nearby servicemen jumps in front of the bullet and catches it in his chest before it gets to the glass. Now, being part of the Pope's security detail, the servicemen always know who is inside the vehicle. And in this case the servicemen know that the person in the Pope-mobile is an impostor Pope. Did the serviceman prevent the impostor Pope from getting shot?

Case 2
Some person is riding through a European city in the Pope-mobile with the Pope's version of the Secret Service standing near. The Pope-mobile, as we all know, is a vehicle secured with bulletproof glass intended to protect the Pope from being shot. As the vehicle is slowly wading through a sea of devotees a gunshot rings out. One of the nearby servicemen jumps in front of the bullet and catches it in his chest before it gets to the glass. Now, being part of the Pope's security detail, the servicemen always know who is inside the vehicle. And in this case the servicemen know that the person in the Pope-mobile is the Pope. Did the serviceman prevent the Pope from getting shot?

Your intuitions?

Character Identity

I don't know when you guys will get sick of stuff relating to fiction, but here is a paper I wrote last semester. I spent more time on this and put more thought into it, and, accordingly, it is far more complicated and (probably) convoluted. Anyway, I'd love some comments on it, especially if your intuitions differ significantly. (No matter what, my intuitions are right, but I'll enjoy hearing yours!) This paper is Can Sherlock Holmes Fight Crime with James Kirk? or Conditions for Character Identity. It is an attempt to discover, surprisingly enough, the necessary and sufficient conditions for character identity.

At the very least, I hope it contains no typos. At the very most, I hope it makes sense.

The New Kiekegaard

Cow and Boy is a relatively new strip and has quickly risen to one my favorites. It's got a Calvin & Hobbes feel, but instead of a stuffed tiger, it's a talking cow.

Thoughts on Moral Responsibility

Hi all, I've been working on an idea regarding the structure of moral responsibility and have been thinking about some cases that I'm not sure how to characterize.

My idea is that moral responsibility comes down to the notions of blame and praise. When we blame someone this is a form of rational criticism. We are criticizing the agent for not acting on what they had most reason to act on. When we praise someone we are lauding them for acting according to what they had most reason to do. So judgments about moral responsibility come down to judgments about the reasons for which an agent acted.

My worries involve two types of cases that appear to be structurally identical but that yield differing intuitions.

Example 1: We have one mother who loves and cares for her children because she wants to, she does it freely and willingly. There is also a second mother who cares for her children but not because she loves them but because she feels it is her duty. She has a strong desire to do other things but overcomes these desires and takes care of her children. It seems that we would be inclined to praise the first mother more than the second.

Example 2: Consider two former drug addicts. The first stopped using drugs because he judged that it was the wrong thing to do, he had most reason to stop using drugs and was able to quit cold turkey. The second drug addict struggles much more. He too judges that he has most reason to stop using the drug. But he has a strong desire to continue using the drug. He overcomes these desires and stops using the drug. It seems here that the second drug addict is more praiseworthy than the first.

So the cases are supposed to be structurally similar. The weird thing is that I have opposite intuitions despite this. In example 1 I am inclined to praise the mother who truly loves her kids and cares for them willingly and without struggle. In example 2 I am more inclined to praise the second addict because he has overcome the struggles of his addiction in a way that the first addict has not.

What do you guys think? Do you share these intuitions? If so, how should we account for this?

Discussion Question: Origins

I am often amazed at the different ways that individuals have come to philosophy. Some from a novel or movie, others through religion, many through a philosophy course, and even a few from coming across and reading actual contemporary philosophy on their own.

So I am curious: What inspired your desire to learn more about and study philosophy? Was it a book(s)? What book(s) and why? Did you arrive here from some other path?

Daily Dinosaur Comics

For those of you not already in the know, you really should check out Daily Dinosaur Comics. It's a hilarious comic that is not really related to philosophy (it is, instead, related to dinosaurs). However, the guy who writes it clearly knows his stuff and brings up philosophic issues quite regularly.

Piled Higher & Deeper

I am a big fan of comic strips and so when I came across this one, I was thrilled. Piled Higher & Deeper is a comic strip that follows the lives of several graduate students at a university. It finds humor in all aspects of graduate student life, and so I think you'll enjoy it:
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php

There is a particular funny story line that is a take off on The Matrix:
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=138

The Ontology of Stephen Colbert

I thought I'd share something short I wrote a few months ago just on a whim. I never could come to a successful conclusion about the problem I raise, and it still bugs me. I think it is a rather important problem for the metaphysics of fiction even if it just seems like a little quirky joke. I'd certainly love any comments or suggestions you may have. Anyway, the paper is "Talking to Stephen Colbert."

Imagination

I'm trying to research the nature of the imagination. Anyone know of any good articles about it? I got _Imagination, Philosophy and the Arts_ (ed. Matthew Kieran and Dominic McIver Lopes) from the library, but I could certainly use suggestions of where else to look.

Ideas for use

I thought I'd rattle off some ideas for blog postings:

1. Your papers (a la Cecilea's first post).
2. Pose a discussion question; might be related to a seminar or just a question that you are looking for feedback and input on.
3. Raise an interesting problem or counter-example for discussion.
4. Provide a summary and/or quick take on an article/book (philosophically related) you just read (either for class, research, or for fun)
5. Links to interesting philosophical discussions/sites elsewhere.
6. Announcements about conferences or events: philosophy or grad student related.
7. Philosophy/grad student related humor.
8. Philosophy/grad student related news.
9. Announcement about your own philosophical achievements: did you get a paper accepted at a conference or journal?

Any other ideas?

For idea #1, we need to use an off-site file hoster. You can use your own personal website if you have one or use http://www.fileden.com. It's a free file hoster and appears to be legitimate and reputable. After hosting the file elsewhere, you can link to it from your post.

Contributor list

I shrunk down the contributor list to only people who have responded to the invite to join, rather than everyone who has been invited. Hopefully folks will respond soon. I will add each individual to the contributor list once he/she accepts the invite.

Just Wondering How This Works...

Okay, I'm trying to figure out how this stuff works. I have never blogged prior to this. So, I'm going to try to post a paper I wrote in the Spring of 2006. If all goes well, the paper title should link to the paper as a PDF file. The paper is titled, "Aristotle, Possible, Two Concepts of Time and Two Epistemic Assumptions", if anyone is interested.

Greetings

Welcome to the ASU Philosophy Graduate Students group blog. This is place for graduate students to post ideas, papers, presentation drafts, etc. for discussion and comments by our fellow graduate students. It is open to the public to read, but only members of the blog can post and comment. If you are a member of the ASU Philosophy department and would like to participate please let me know: shawn (dot) klein (at) asu (dot) edu.

Each post should have a label appropriate to post topic. For example, let's say I have a paper on Philippa Foot's arguments against moral subjectivism and non-cognitivism. Well, some appropriate labels would be: Philippa Foot, non-cognitivism, meta-ethics. Let's keep Ockham's razor in mind and not multiply labels beyond necessity. Try to use labels already in use.