It’s been a great year at the new PEA Soup, and we’re using the First Annual PEA Soup awards to celebrate. Nominate your favorite articles, discussed papers, comments, and contributors from the past year for $4,000 in cash prizes. Nominations are due June 30th (that’s a week from today), so don’t forget to submit!
You can nominate your pieces here.
Love this idea? Nominate it for the Annual PEA Soup Awards!
Welcome to our discussion thread on David Sobel’s From Valuing to Value: A Defense of Subjectivism, recently reviewed by Ben Bramble for NDPR. We have invited Sobel and Bramble to provide any comments they’d like on either the book or the review, and we hope other readers of PEA Soup will chime in with thoughts on either the book or the review as well.
Love this idea? Nominate it for the Annual PEA Soup Awards!
Welcome to our discussion thread on Owen Flanagan’s The Geography of Morals, recently reviewed by Regina Rini for NDPR. We have invited Owen and Regina to provide any comments they’d like on either the book or the review, and we hope other readers of PEA Soup will chime in with thoughts on either the book or the review as well.
Love this idea? Nominate it for the Annual PEA Soup Awards!
Welcome to the next installation of our ongoing forum for discussion of recent books in moral/political philosophy, alongside the reviews of them in NDPR, which provides authors a chance to respond to their reviewers (and for the reviewers to respond back). Today we open discussion on Jason Brennan’s book Against Democracy, which was recently reviewed by Tom Christiano (Arizona) in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews (NDPR). Blurbs from both the book and the review below the fold. Please join in on the discussion. Feel free to post thoughts on the book, the review, or Jason’s response to the review, which will appear below.
Love this idea? Nominate it for the Annual PEA Soup Awards!
It appears the Philosophical Gourmet Report is returning. The last installment was in 2014-5. We are now in the midst of a 3-year gap in rankings, which is the longest gap, I think, since the thing got going in the 90s. We may not have such a long gap again. So I got to thinking this might be a time to reflect on people’s experiences of doing without such a ranking for a while. What were the costs, if any? What were the benefits, if any? Or perhaps this was too short of a gap to serve as a useful test of life without rankings?
There are now many more surrogates for ranking than ever before. In large part as a result of pressure from the Report, most departments now provide detailed placement information. In addition most faculty at graduate programs list their CV and research interests. That, combined with a sense of what the top journals in the field are, and the availability of citation information, grad attrition information, etc. mean that people without rankings would be much less in the dark about where to go to grad school than I was back when dinosaurs roamed the plains and we lacked a widely consulted ranking of grad programs in philosophy in the 80s. (more…)
Love this idea? Nominate it for the Annual PEA Soup Awards!
Just a quick announcement to let you all know of some exciting upcoming discussions on the Soup about recently published books and book reviews. Next Thursday (June 8), we will host a discussion of Owen Flanagan’s Geography of Morals, in light of Regina Rini’s recent NDPR review of it. And in upcoming days and weeks we will host discussions of Jason Brennan’s Against Democracy (reviewed by Tom Christiano), Christine Tappolet’s Emotions, Values, and Agency (reviewed by Benjamin De Mesel), and Julie Rose’s Free Time (reviewed by Eric Rakowski). We hope you all will join in on these discussions.
Love this idea? Nominate it for the Annual PEA Soup Awards!
Much is made these days of ideological bubbles and commitment cocoons (OK, I made up that one), in which people stick to their beliefs regardless of any “evidence” or “reasoning” otherwise. But, let’s admit it, it’s hard to change your mind about something you’ve been committed to solely based on your assessment of reasons. This is true even for — perhaps especially for — professional philosophers.
It might be worth hearing, then, about your true conversion stories and the role contrary reasons played for you: What moral/political view were you committed to — perhaps even published about — that you abandoned solely in the face of good reasons otherwise? Were the reasons available to you all along and you just saw them in a newly salient light, or were they new reasons to you? Have you “backslid”? Have you gone on to publish on the contrary view? (See my conversion story below the fold.)
Love this idea? Nominate it for the Annual PEA Soup Awards!
