About a year ago, several family members, friends, and philosophical luminaries gathered at All Souls College to remember and celebrate the life of the great moral philosopher, Derek Parfit. Those twenty videos, with the production assistance of several members of the Parfit family, have been posted here, and they include remembrances by the moral and political philosophers Tim Scanlon, Frances Kamm, Jeff McMahan, Martin O’Neill, Larry Temkin, Roger Crisp, John Broome, Brad Hooker, Jonathan Dancy, Jonathan Glover, Rahul Kumar, Julian Savulescu, and others.
Here. It’s a true mess, with lots of flights into the city cancelled, and now many members at one main hotel downtown unable to get across the river to the convention center to attend and participate in today’s sessions.
It appears the final GOP bill will not make tuition remission for graduate students taxable.
Sen. Mike Rounds, Republican of South Dakota, told Bloomberg: “Folks who are in grad school will feel pretty good about the final result.”
Daily Nous has the full story here.
Imprint is an impressive open access journal. Its mission statement is vital reading. The journal deserves our support. Consider helping them out.
I’ll cut and paste their Mission Statement below. It offers a vision of what the future of journals in philosophy could be like if we banded together to help out journals such as Phil Imprint and together work to transfer prestige to such journals. (more…)
I want to gesture towards some considerations that tell against initiating sexual relationships with people you hold real professional power over. Perhaps such relationships are already agreed on all hands to be quite problematic. If so, this post will just urge new (to me) reasons for settled conclusions. If not, perhaps these considerations might tip the balance for some.
Likely you have heard by now that LOTS of people have been posting “Me too” on Facebook and Twitter. Most of these posts contain something like this by way of explanation: “If everyone who has been sexually harassed or assaulted wrote ‘Me too’ as a status, we might give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem.”
It is radical but my idea is that one submits to ranking houses (which could remain the existing journals). Every paper submitted will be published online and ranked. You may submit a paper only once. You fix it up in light of (presumably more careful and more numerous) referee reports, but then it is published with a numerical ranking. Advantages include 1) less refereeing overall and so, potentially, more careful refereeing from people who more closely specialize in the area. 2) much quicker time from submission to publication, eliminating pressure to choose where to submit on strategic grounds, 3) encourages people to finish papers before submitting them, rather than treating submissions as entering a lottery 4) as is the difference between just in and just out of a journal is enormous–this system allows one to get credit for “very close to making it into Phil Rev”. Call this the Wine Spectator Model.
Eric Schwitzgebel writes:
Here are four things I care intensely about: being a good father, being a good philosopher, being a good teacher, and being a morally good person. It would be lovely if there were never any tradeoffs among these four aims.
Explicitly acknowledging such tradeoffs is unpleasant — sufficiently unpleasant that it’s tempting to try to rationalize them away. It’s distinctly uncomfortable to me, for example, to acknowledge that I would probably be better as a father if I traveled less for work. (I am writing this post from a hotel room in England.) Similarly uncomfortable is the thought that the money I’ll be spending on a family trip to Iceland this summer could probably save a few people from death due to poverty-related causes, if given to the right charity.
Today I’ll share two of my favorite techniques for rationalizing the unpleasantness away. Maybe you’ll find these techniques useful too!