For example, rather than postulating a theory, computing and AI just produce a probability matrix??

Hi so I'm currently getting my degree in economics and I want to pursue a carreer as an academic studying political philosophy with a focus in economics. My question is what should I do after getting my degree, should I go for a masters? If so in which university?

I don't live neither in the US nor Europe so if I were to study there I would have to be an international student.

Thanks in advance

I’m currently studying an ontological table that compares the fundamental categories of being across various philosophers. The table is based on David Alvargonzález’s article Modes and Dimensions of Being (2022), with some additions I’ve made, marked with an asterisk (*).

I’m particularly interested in gathering feedback on the overall implications of this table as it compares these different frameworks for understanding ontology. Here’s the table:

I would appreciate insights on the following:

• What are to you the broader implications of organizing these philosophers in this way?
• Could this framework help clarify modern debates as the hard problem of consciousness?
• Are there significant limitations?

Source: David Alvargonzález, Modes and Dimensions of Being (2022).

Looking forward to your thoughts!

Title

I am a PhD student in the history of science, and it seems like I'm getting a bit burned out with it. I do absolutely love history and philosophy of science. And I do think it is important to have professionals working on the emergence of modern science. Not just for historical awareness, but also for current and future scientific developments, and for insight into how humans generate knowledge and deal with nature.

However, the sheer number of publications on early modern science sometimes just seems absurd. Especially the ones that deal with technical details. Do we need yet another book about some part of Newton's or Descartes' methodology? Or another work about a minor figure in the history of science? I'm not going to name names, but I have read so many books and articles about Newton by now, and there have been several, extremely detailed studies that, at least to me, have actually very little to contribute.

I understand that previous works can be updated, previous ideas critically examined. But it seems that the publications of the past decade or two are just nuancing previous ideas. And I mean nuancing the tiniest details that sometimes leads me to think you can never say anything general about the history of science. Historian A says that we can make a generalisation, so we can understand certain developments (for instance the emergence of experimentalism). Then Historian B says it is more complicated than that. And by now Historian C and D are just arguing over tiny details of those nuances. But the point Historian A made often still seems valid to me. Now there is just a few hundred or thousand pages extra of academic blather behind it.

Furthermore, nobody reads this stuff. You're writing for a few hundred people around the world who also write about the same stuff. Almost none of it gets incorporated into a broader idea of science, or history. And any time someone writes a more general approach, someone trying to get away from endless discussions of tiny details, they are not deemed serious philosophers. Everything you write or do just keeps floating around the same little bubble of people. I know this is a part of any type of specialised academic activity, but it seems that the history of philosophy texts of the past two decades have changed pretty much nothing in the field. And yet there have been hundreds of articles and books.

And I'm sick and tired of the sentence "gives us more insight into ...". You can say this before any paper you write. What does this "insight" actually mean? Is it useful to have more and more (ad nauseam) insight into previous scientific theories? Is that even possible? Do these detailed studies actually give more insight? Or is it eventually just the idiosyncratic view and understanding of the researcher writing the paper?

Sorry for the rant, but it really sucks that the field that at first seemed so exciting, now sometimes just seems like a boring club of academics milking historical figures in order to publicise stuff that will only ever be read by that very same club. And getting money for your research group of course. And it's very difficult to talk to my colleagues or professors about this, since they are exactly part of the club that I am annoyed with.

I'm interested in the thoughts you guys have about this. Is any historian of science dealing with the same issues? And how does the field look to an outsider?

I am 32 years old. Due to many life circumstances that included a cancer diagnosis I didn't have the opportunity to finish my degree. Now, I want to return and finish but it's been almost a decade since I have taken a philosophy course. My goal--god willing--is to teach philosophy or a related discipline at the community college level. I truly believe that the study of philosophy is important for humanity.

I know the job prospects look absolutely grim. I know that my family and friends are gonna question me every step of the way. And I know I could end up working the same jobs I would have without a degree.

But, coming from an underprivileged background and a minority( parents didn't graduate highschool, first generation, poor socio-economics) it would honestly give me a sense of pride to finish some serious academic work. I will finish a masters but not too sure about doctorate. I've been a great student in the philosophy classes I took with nearly all As. I enrolled in a not highly ranked but cheap and close by university. The philosophy program is decent. It's definitely focused on the analytical tradition with wide sweeping courses like Philosophy of Science or American Philosophy and no courses on specific philosophers. I fear that being a person who has interest in German Idealism and Romanticism that I will not be studying too much of what I enjoy reading on my own. Although, I think it will be helpful for me to regularly encounter positions contrary to my beliefs.

For the next five months before the semester begins I plan to refresh my knowledge on logic (I am working through The Logic Book by Bergmann, Moor, and Nelson) and pick a few shorter philosophical works that I can write on. I was also thinking about learning how to read German. I know in my graduate studies I will be given the opportunity to learn. Couldn't hurt to start early right? It's time I put all my effort into something and see what the outcome could be. Possibly I won't have the opportunity to be a PHD student working on German Idealism. More likely than not! Perhaps I'll get into an industry that I'd never imagine I would work in. I have the interest in this and the passion that I think pursuing this could be a risk worth taking. I hope not too take out many loans. And the BA will be mostly paid for.

Thanks for reading!

Title , I've always wondered if ethicists can get a job in the field of human rights and the likes , i.e developing human rights declarations etc

I am wondering is set theory and logic part more of math or of philosophy. Cause for example I think most math uses bimodal logic where statement can only be true or false but philosophy allow in between.

I have a BA in philosophy and political science. I would like to attend graduate school, but am looking for a job in the field in the mean time. I am especially interested in remote jobs that involve writing or teaching about philosophy. Does anyone have any leads or search terms I should use?

Please submit any recruitment type posts for conferences, discords, reading groups, etc in this stickied post only.

This post will be replaced each month or so so that it doesn't get too out of date.

Only clearly academic philosophy items are permitted

Hi Philosophers, my question is two part:

1. Should I take Philosophy of Language before Metaphysics or Epistemology?

2. If I can only take two out of the three courses mentioned, which ones should I take to get the most comprehensive view of analytic philosophy?

Thank you :)

Hi, currently reading up game theory on SEP and I find it highly interesting. Anyone got good reading recommendations / syllabus for learning GT?

Also, would be fun to set a reading group in discord if anyone else is also interested in learning more about GT. Give me a PM if you're interested!

In The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoyevsky famously wrote, “If God is not, then all is permitted.” I want to consider, not that claim, but a similar one: 

(A) If morality is not, then all is permitted. 

Error theorists about morality believe that 

(B) All moral claims are false, because there are no moral facts that could make such claims true.

Let us assume that these error theorists are correct and (B) is true. I sometimes hear it argued that, if (B) is true, then (A) must be false, because 

(C) claims of moral permissibility are moral claims. 

If there are no moral facts, this includes facts about moral permissibility.

This argument has always struck me as suspect. Claims of moral permissibility seem to be moral claims only the very superficial sense that it seems intuitive to lump them into that category. But when we compare claims of moral permissibility with claims of moral wrongness or of moral obligation, it seems to me that the latter actually attribute moral properties to things, whereas the former simply point out the absence of moral properties. To say that an act is morally permissible is to say that it would not be wrong to perform it. And what makes an act morally permissible is that it lacks the property of wrongness, it lacks any wrong-making features or properties. So if the error theorist is correct that no act possesses any wrong-making features, then it seems correct to assert that, if morality is not, then all is permitted—i.e., that (A) is true. Here’s the argument all spelled out: 

(1) If it’s wrong to perform an act, then that act must possess some wrong-making properties. [Premise]

(2) No act ever possesses any wrong-making properties. [Premise, from the error theory]

(3) It’s never wrong to perform some act. [From 1, 2]

(4) If it’s not wrong to perform an act, then that act is morally permissible. [Premise]

(5) All acts are morally permissible. [From 3, 4]

If this argument is sound, does that mean that the error theory implies that some moral claims are true—namely, claims of moral permissibility? That depends on whether we decide to count claims of moral permissibility as moral claims. Suppose we do this, i.e., suppose we accept (C). In that case, we need to revise (B), for it won’t be the case that all moral claims are false. Instead, it will only be the case that 

(B’) All moral claims that attribute moral properties to acts are false, because there are no moral properties that could make such claims true. 

But don’t claims of moral permissibility attribute to certain acts the property of being morally permissible? Well, yes, but this is not itself a moral property; it is the property of lacking the moral property of wrongness. 

Suppose, instead, that we reject (C). In that case we won’t need to revise (B). Thus, we have two options. We can

accept (B) and reject (C), 

or  

revise (B) and accept (C). 

I do not think there is a significant difference between these options. On either one, it will be true that, if morality is not, all is permitted. 

(I have to admit that I haven’t taken modal logic, which makes me a little unsure of whether (3) actually follows from (1) and (2) and whether (5) follows from (3) and (4). What do you guys think? Is this argument valid? Do you agree with my claims about moral permissibility? If not, where do you think I go wrong.) 

(Disclaimer: No, I’m not trying to justify the commission of heinous acts. Personally, I think the error theory is false. And besides, if the error theory is true, it probably doesn’t make sense to talk about justifying certain acts, whether heinous or not.)

As a Ph.D student of philosophy I have a rough draft wich I can't find anyone in my institution with related expertise to consult about it. There are some other academics who can help me but I hadn't any prior contact with them. How should I approach them?

Part I understood: Let us suppose at present that the different motions and figures, bulk, and number of such particles affecting the several organs of a senses produce in as those different sensations which we have from the colours and smells of bodies, for example, that a violet, by the impulse of such insensible particles of matter of peculiar figures and bulks, and in different degrees and modifications of their motions, causes the ideas of the blue colour, and sweet, and of that flower to be produced in minds.

I think he is explaining the point that our perception of the world is formed by the way our brain receives input and interprets info through neutrons -i.e. we see a flower, neutron stuff happens (pardon my fallible word choice for i am not a neurologist or even a science student) and we interpret that the flower is blue - Please tell me if this interpretation of Locke is wrong :D

Part I did not understand: It being no more impossible, to conceive, that God should annex such ideas to such motions, with which they have no similitude; than that he should annex the idea of pain to the motion of a piece of steel dividing our flesh, with which that idea hath no resemblance.

What does this bit mean?

Apologies guys, english ain’t my first language and so sometimes I have trouble with even slightly complex thoughts.

I tried to search for this so that I wasn't repeating a question that I hope has not been asked a ton.

I'm starting a PhD in Adult Learning and Leadership and my research interest is at the intersection of cognitive development, specifically within epistemology (e.g., reflective judgment development by King and Kitchener) and social identity development. Basically, I'm interested in exploring epistemic bubbles and echo chambers in relation to social justice education. I do not have a philosophy background and would like to get a good base understanding of epistemology, perhaps an introduction to the paradigm shifts that have taken place over the past centuries. Most of the work I've read has to do with decolonial philosophies, like Fanon, Quijano, Mignolo, etc, but I feel like maybe I'm missing out on some of the basics.

Any suggestions would be super helpful, thank you!

The ones I know are THE ART OF WAR THE ART OF SEDUCTION THE ART OF PERSUASION THE ART OF LAZINESS

Is this a sort of cultural issue where certain views are discriminated against? I’m not sure here as younger philosophers seem to bring these types of stances back around. Is it a possible case of knockdown arguments just being ignored to keep debates going or to deny awful implications?

Philosophy & Public Affairs is/was one of the premier journals in social and political philosophy. It always ranked immediately behind Ethics, which is by far the most prestigious.

Given the mass resignation of the editorial board of Philosophy & Public Affairs in 2024, what is its reputation now?

Thanks.

Edit: Typo in title: it should say "mass" not "masse."

Hi fellow philosophers. I was hoping someone could give me direction in independently publishing articles, or presenting at philosophy conferences.

I’m 24 m in Canada and I graduated with a double honours in philosophy and biology. Philosophy is my passion and my writing is very dear to me. I’m about to get published in a journal but the process was very daunting and hard to navigate as someone who isnt in academia anymore.

Are there credible websites or online journals I can submit too? Or ways I can present at a conference? I really want to nurture this side of myself and any and all tips help! I’d love to find a community of those who are writing about cutting edge things in AI, biology, feminism etc.

Any and all info helps :) thank you so much.

Please submit any recruitment type posts for conferences, discords, reading groups, etc in this stickied post only.

This post will be replaced each month or so so that it doesn't get too out of date.

Only clearly academic philosophy items are permitted

Certainly engagement with the existing legacy is important especially when today each subfield is more specialized than ever, but do you not ever get the impression that writers & readers both tend to rest on understanding the past materials, rather than creatively constructing something original out of it? Seems like it’s only handful (Badiou, Žižek, etc.) that try to go beyond commentaries of other philosophers, is it because no one would read it unless you already have a big name? Most scholars must have entered philosophy with their most personal existential questions in the beginning, why don’t we see more ‘philosopher-philosophers’ that talk about such themes? Or do you think the philosophiology-philosophy distinction (as I’d like to call it) is rather nonexistent altogether?

Hey guys, new to the sub. I hope everyone is well today. I have to write a comparative analysis on Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica and Erasmus’ the Praise of Folly, but I’m having a super hard time finding good academic sources outlining their ideas etc. everything I’ve been able to find wants me to pay for the articles. Any help? Google Scholar doesn’t seem to be doing me any good. Sorry if I’m breaking any rules with this post.

I remember a lecturer friend showing me some index/rating scale published philosophy academics include on their profile when they get big.

From what I remember, they take some incredibly prolific philosopher and cross-reference how many citations the person getting ranked gets from people who have cited this prolific guy and the people who cite those people and so on... (?)

An ideas? Thank you in advance

The Rion: An Ancient Dialogue for Our Times – tobybetenson.com

I don't know who on earth would be interested in it, but I'm curious to see if anyone on here might be?

Title. Plus, is it important to know the language of philosophers that you specifically plan on studying? Personally, all the philosophers I have wrote about are English/German, but I know conversational basic French. I am not sure whether to attempt to learn German, try and get better at French, or not worry about it. I plan on applying to Masters/Phd philosophy programs.