DOCSLIB.ORG

Feminism & Philosophy Vol. 10, No. 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Feminism & Philosophy Vol. 10, No. 1 APA Newsletters NEWSLETTER ON FEMINISM AND PHILOSOPHY Volume 10, Number 1 Fall 2010 FROM THE EDITOR, CHRISTINA M. BELLON ABOUT THE NEWSLETTER ON FEMINISM AND PHILOSOPHY SUBMISSION GUIDELINES AND INFORMATION NEWS FROM THE COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN, ERIN MCKENNA ARTICLES THE WOMEN IN PHILOSOPHY TASK FORCE “Open Letter to the APA from the Women in Philosophy Task Force” JANET A. KOURANY “How Do Women Fare in Philosophy Journals?” CAROLE J. LEE AND CHRISTIAN D. SCHUNN “Philosophy Journal Practices and Opportunities for Bias” SALLY HASLANGER “Preliminary Report of the Survey on Publishing in Philosophy” THOM BROOKS “The View from the Journal of Moral Philosophy” HENRY S. RICHARDSON “The Triply Anonymous Review Process at Ethics” ALISON WYLIE “Hypatia: A Journal of Her Own” © 2010 by The American Philosophical Association ISSN 2155-9708 BOOK REVIEWS Angelica Nuzzo: Ideal Embodiment: Kant’s Theory of Sensibility REVIEWED BY KIM ATKINS Marti Kheel: Nature Ethics: An Ecofeminist Perspective REVIEWED BY KATHRYN J. NORLOCK Sue Campbell, Letitia Meynell, and Susan Sherwin (Eds.): Embodiment and Agency REVIEWED BY MARJORIE JOLLES Mary Friedman and Shana L. Calixte: Mothering and Blogging: The Radical Act of the Mommyblog REVIEWED BY TRISH VAN KATWYK Marilyn Nissim-Sabat: Neither Victim Nor Survivor: Thinking towards a New Humanity REVIEWED BY MELISSA MOSKO John Searle: Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization REVIEWED BY CASSIE A. STRIBLEN Moira Gatens: Feminist Interpretations of Benedict Spinoza REVIEWED BY ERICKA TUCKER Penny A. Weiss: Canon Fodder: Historical Women Political Thinkers REVIEWED BY KRISTIN WATERS CONTRIBUTORS APA NEWSLETTER ON Feminism and Philosophy Christina M. Bellon, Editor Fall 2010 Volume 10, Number 1 affiliations with relevant other professional organizations. Such ROM THE DITOR self-reflective data would also allow those of us interested in F E such matters to fill in further the picture we currently have of the status of women, and all minorities, in this profession of ours. How we long for the day when our national professional This issue of the Newsletter continues our on-going effort to association can tell us about ourselves and thereby to support publish information regarding various dimensions of women’s the many important and progressive efforts of individuals, status in professional philosophy, this time with a focus on groups, and committees to advance philosophy and the publishing in journals. Why publishing in philosophy journals? scholarly and professional undertakings of those who practice it. Well, perhaps in one regard, the answer is obvious. Increasing As we come upon the end of this first decade of the 21st Century, evidence supports the anecdotal experience of our women it would be a wonderful thing indeed for our professional colleagues who express frustration, on the cusp of exasperation, organization to muster the ability to satisfy this expectation for with efforts to get their research published. Women seemed to a fully professional organization. You can learn more about the be rejected at higher rates than men in seemingly anonymous efforts of the group, Women in Philosophy Task Force, by visiting peer review processes, though it is noticeable that women fare their website at http://web.mit.edu/wphtf/Welcome.html. better under doubly anonymous review processes than under The content of this issue of the Newsletter should be both non-anonymous review processes. Is this phenomenon the interesting and surprising, in some regards, not so surprising, result of simply poorer quality philosophical research on the part in other regards. Enjoy. of women? Or, is it indicative of a conspiracy of predominantly male editors to preclude women from the public domain of philosophical research? Or, is it an indication of our mostly Christina M. Bellon, Editor male peers’ biases against feminist or feminist inspired work in the discipline? Or, is it something else as yet indefinable? So long as we only have anecdotal information, supplemented by assessments made several removes from the publishing BOUT THE EWSLETTER ON process, we can only give limited interpretation to our own A N experience. FEMINISM AND PHILOSOPHY In an effort to fill in some of the gaps in the story of journal publishing, we have collected a wonderfully insightful set of analyses of the policies and practices of several major journals The Newsletter on Feminism and Philosophy is sponsored in philosophy. Our contributors consist of editors of those by the APA Committee on the Status of Women (CSW). The journals as well as of women philosophers who have published Newsletter is designed to provide an introduction to recent in their pages, served on their editorial boards, contributed to philosophical work that addresses issues of gender. None of the the development of their policies and practices, and have done varied philosophical views presented by authors of Newsletter comparative analyses of them. The essays included in this issue articles necessarily reflect the views of any or all of the members originate from a CSW panel organized by Janet Kourany, who of the Committee on the Status of Women, including the provides an introduction to the individual pieces collected editor(s) of the Newsletter, nor does the committee advocate here. It should be noted, however, that in the time between any particular type of feminist philosophy. We advocate only the Eastern Division meeting, where the panel was held, to the that serious philosophical attention be given to issues of gender publication of this issue, much revision and elaboration was and that claims of gender bias in philosophy receive full and engaged in by the respective authors. The result is an enriched fair consideration. and thorough presentation of the challenges and successes of publishing both feminist philosophy, in particular, and the work of women philosophers, in general. I have also elected to include the Women in Philosophy Task Force’s open letter petitioning the APA to conduct much SUBMISSION GUIDELINES needed regular data gathering and analysis of the membership, AND NFORMATION including data regarding important demographic variables. This, I it is reasonably argued, is a central function of a professional academic organization. And, as indicated in the 1999 Hanson Report, would provide a vital mechanism for the profession 1. Purpose: The purpose of the Newsletter is to publish to better understand itself in order to plan and move forward, information about the status of women in philosophy and to develop responsively to its membership, and to foster to make the resources of feminist philosophy more widely — APA Newsletter, Fall 2010, Volume 10, Number 1 — available. The Newsletter contains discussions of recent and Board positions over the years. It fails to see how the CSW, developments in feminist philosophy and related work in other and other women in the profession, are choosing to replicate disciplines, literature overviews and book reviews, suggestions the very politics they set out to dismantle. This is my greatest for eliminating gender bias in the traditional philosophy disappointment. curriculum, and reflections on feminist pedagogy. It also The CSW will be taking on the issue of the climate for informs the profession about the work of the APA Committee women in the profession. I am very happy about this endeavor on the Status of Women. Articles submitted to the Newsletter and look forward to the panel at the 2010 meeting of the should be limited to 10 double-spaced pages and must follow Eastern Division. However, we need to be sure this ongoing the APA guidelines for gender-neutral language. Please submit discussion includes a look at ourselves. Are we perpetuating essays electronically to the editor or send four copies of the idea that the production of graduate students is the most essays via regular mail. All manuscripts should be prepared important teaching we can do? Are we replicating the elitism for anonymous review. References should follow The Chicago of scholarship by considering only those who publish in certain Manual of Style. journals as successful and so worthy of our attention? Are we 2. Book Reviews and Reviewers: If you have published a book buying into the politics we claim to want to dismantle as we that is appropriate for review in the Newsletter, please have select our friends to serve on committees with us or send your publisher send us a copy of your book. We are always our students only to certain graduate programs that we have seeking new book reviewers. To volunteer to review books deemed acceptable? I worry we are. (or some particular book), please send the editor a CV and For instance, from the moment I joined the committee letter of interest, including mention of your areas of research I voiced the opinion that if we were concerned about the and teaching. low number of women in the profession we needed to work 3. Where to Send Things: Please send all articles, comments, on increasing the number of women who choose to major suggestions, books, and other communications to the editor: in philosophy at the undergraduate level. I was repeatedly Dr. Christina Bellon, Department of Philosophy, Sacramento dismissed. As our own research showed us that indeed we State University, 6000 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95819-6033, retain women pretty well from graduate school to tenure [email protected]. track hiring, it became clearer that we need to increase the 4. Submission Deadlines: Submissions for Spring issues are number of women who want to enter graduate programs in due by the preceding September 1st; submissions for Fall issues philosophy. The committee has now taken up this idea and are due by the preceding February 1st. I expect some very good work to be forthcoming. We have people ready to post advice on how to increase the number of women majors in various kinds of philosophy programs.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • John Stuart Mill's Sanction Utilitarianism
    JOHN STUART MILL’S SANCTION UTILITARIANISM: A PHILOSOPHICAL AND HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION A Dissertation by DAVID EUGENE WRIGHT Submitted to the Office of Graduate and Professional Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Chair of Committee, Linda Radzik Committee Members, Clare Palmer Scott Austin R.J.Q. Adams Head of Department, Gary Varner May 2014 Major Subject: Philosophy Copyright 2014 David Eugene Wright ABSTRACT This dissertation argues for a particular interpretation of John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism, namely that Mill is best read as a sanction utilitarian. In general, scholars commonly interpret Mill as some type of act or rule utilitarian. In making their case for these interpretations, it is also common for scholars to use large portions of Mill’s Utilitarianism as the chief source of insight into his moral theory. By contrast, I argue that Utilitarianism is best read as an ecumenical text where Mill explains and defends the general tenets of utilitarianism rather than setting out his own preferred theory. The exception to this ecumenical approach to the text comes in the fifth chapter on justice which, I argue on textual and historical grounds, outlines the central features of Mill’s utilitarianism. With this understanding of Utilitarianism in place, many of the passages commonly cited in favor of the previous interpretations are rendered less plausible, and interpretations emphasizing Mill’s other writings are strengthened. Using this methodology, I critique four of the most prominent act or rule utilitarian interpretations of Mill’s moral theory. I then provide an interpretation of Mill’s theory of moral obligation and utilitarianism.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Ethics
    p.1 Introduction to Ethics Place: TBD Time: TBD Instructor: Eric de Araujo Office: TBD Email: [email protected] Office Hours: TBD Texts & Materials An Introduction to Moral Philosophy (2018) by Jonathan Wolff. Readings in Moral Philosophy (2018) by Jonathan Wolff. Readings will come from the above text and anthology. Additional readings might be posted on Carmen. Bring either your textbook or appropriate readings to class. Course Description In this introduction to ethics will think about ethical issues like philosophers. First, we will learn how to reason morally and consider challenges to moral theorizing. Ten we will examine some major ethical theories along with some objections to them.Syllabus Once we understand these, we will discuss some ethical debates on particular topics. Course Goals & Objectives A. You will be able to articulate and evaluate major ethical theoriesAraujo by: Articulating main positions within ethical debates, identifying differences between ethical theories, presenting objections to ethical theories, applying ethical theories to cases, and communicating philosophical views to others. B. You will be able to comprehend and critique others' views by: Identifying the main conclusion ofde others' arguments, identifying the support given for a conclusion, evaluating the arguments of others, representing the logical structure of arguments, and determining what evidence is relevant to a conclusion. CourseC. You will be able to contribute to ethical debates by: Articulating main positions within ethical debates, applying ethical theories to cases, constructing an original argument, identifying the main conclusion of others' arguments,Eric identifying the support given for a conclusion, evaluating the arguments of p.2 others, distinguishing moral and non-moral questions, communicating philosophical views to others, and anticipating and defending views from objections.
    [Show full text]
  • Law and the Metaethics of Discord
    Katja Maria Vogt, katjavogt.com, Columbia University 1 Law and the Metaethics of Discord, NYU Colloquium in Legal, Political, and Social Philosophy, Draft 08-2020 For: Special issue on the Normativity of Law, Ancient Philosophy Today: Dialogoi Law and the Metaethics of Discord Plato’s Euthyphro, I argue, lays out a metaethics that responds to persistent and unresolved value disagreement, and that is a genuine contender for us today. With this proposal, I reject centuries of scholarship, not to speak of countless anthologies and syllabi in ethics and the philosophy of law.1 The Euthyphro begins with three cases of unresolved value disagreement. These cases are to be adjudicated by the law, which turns out to be difficult. Today if an author starts with three examples, we expect that the subsequent text is going to address them. This, I submit, is the structure of the Euthyphro. Against my reading, discussions of the Euthyphro tend to focus almost exclusively on a brief section in which Plato discusses what is now known as the Euthyphro Problem. Socrates asks whether the gods love the pious because it is pious, or whether the pious is pious because it is loved by the gods. In the idiom of contemporary metaethics, the puzzle may seem to be this: is value attitude-independent or is value conferred by attitudes?2 Alternatively, in the idiom of traditional Divine Command Theory, do the gods —or, does God, since Divine Command Theory tends to be monotheistic—recognize value, or is value conferred by divine approval?3 1 Much of the literature on the Euthyphro focuses on two out of fifteen pages of the dialogue, where the so- called Euthyphro Problem is discussed.
    [Show full text]
  • John P. Burgess Department of Philosophy Princeton University Princeton, NJ 08544-1006, USA [email protected]
    John P. Burgess Department of Philosophy Princeton University Princeton, NJ 08544-1006, USA [email protected] LOGIC & PHILOSOPHICAL METHODOLOGY Introduction For present purposes “logic” will be understood to mean the subject whose development is described in Kneale & Kneale [1961] and of which a concise history is given in Scholz [1961]. As the terminological discussion at the beginning of the latter reference makes clear, this subject has at different times been known by different names, “analytics” and “organon” and “dialectic”, while inversely the name “logic” has at different times been applied much more broadly and loosely than it will be here. At certain times and in certain places — perhaps especially in Germany from the days of Kant through the days of Hegel — the label has come to be used so very broadly and loosely as to threaten to take in nearly the whole of metaphysics and epistemology. Logic in our sense has often been distinguished from “logic” in other, sometimes unmanageably broad and loose, senses by adding the adjectives “formal” or “deductive”. The scope of the art and science of logic, once one gets beyond elementary logic of the kind covered in introductory textbooks, is indicated by two other standard references, the Handbooks of mathematical and philosophical logic, Barwise [1977] and Gabbay & Guenthner [1983-89], though the latter includes also parts that are identified as applications of logic rather than logic proper. The term “philosophical logic” as currently used, for instance, in the Journal of Philosophical Logic, is a near-synonym for “nonclassical logic”. There is an older use of the term as a near-synonym for “philosophy of language”.
    [Show full text]
  • Chad Van Schoelandt
    CHAD VAN SCHOELANDT Tulane University Department of Philosophy, New Orleans, LA [email protected] Employment 2015-present Assistant Professor, Tulane University, Department of Philosophy 2016-present Affiliated Fellow, George Mason University, F. A. HayeK Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics Areas of Specialization Social and Political Philosophy Ethics Agency and Responsibility Philosophy, Politics & Economics Areas of Competence Applied Ethics (esp. Business, Environmental, Bio/Medical) History of Modern Philosophy Moral Psychology Education Ph.D., University of Arizona, Philosophy, 2015 M.A., University of Wisconsin - MilwauKee, Philosophy, 2010 B.A. (High Honors), University of California, Davis, Philosophy (political science minor), 2006 Publications Articles “Moral Accountability and Social Norms” Social Philosophy & Policy, Vol. 35, Issue 1, Spring 2018 “Consensus on What? Convergence for What? Four Models of Political Liberalism” (with Gerald Gaus) Ethics, Vol. 128, Issue 1, 2017: pp. 145-72 “Justification, Coercion, and the Place of Public Reason” Philosophical Studies, 172, 2015: pp. 1031-1050 “MarKets, Community, and Pluralism” The Philosophical Quarterly, Discussion, 64(254), 2014: pp. 144-151 "Political Liberalism, Ethos Justice, and Gender Equality" (with Blain Neufeld) Law and Philosophy 33(1), 2014: pp. 75-104 Chad Van Schoelandt CV Page 2 of 4 Book Chapters “A Public Reason Approach to Religious Exemption” Philosophy and Public Policy, Andrew I. Cohen (ed.), Rowman and Littlefield International,
    [Show full text]
  • Cv Langsam.Pdf
    CV Harold Langsam Professor of Philosophy Corcoran Department of Philosophy 120 Cocke Hall University of Virginia P.O. Box 400780 Charlottesville, VA 22904-4780 (434) 924-6920 (Office) (434) 979-2880 (Home) [email protected] Employment: Professor of Philosophy, University of Virginia (2011-) Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Virginia (2001-2011). Assistant Professor of Philosophy, University of Virginia (1994-2001). Mellon Postdoctoral Teaching and Research Fellow, Department of Philosophy, Cornell University (1994-95). Publications: Book The Wonder of Consciousness: Understanding the Mind through Philosophical Reflection (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2011). Reviews: Ethics and Medicine, Mind, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Philosophical Quarterly Articles “McDowell’s Infallibilism and the Nature of Knowledge,” Synthese, http://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02682-4. “Why Intentionalism Cannot Explain Phenomenal Character,” Erkenntnis 85 (2020): 375-389. “Nietzsche and Value Creation: Subjectivism, Self-Expression, and Strength,” Inquiry 61 (2018): 100-113. “The Intuitive Case for Naïve Realism,” Philosophical Explorations 20 (2017): 106-122. “A Defense of McDowell’s Response to the Sceptic,” Acta Analytica 29 (2014): 43-59. “A Defense of Restricted Phenomenal Conservatism,” Philosophical Papers 42 (2013): 315-340. "Rationality, Justification, and the Internalism/Externalism Debate," Erkenntnis 68 (2008): 79- 101. "Why I Believe in an External World," Metaphilosophy 37 (2006): 652-672. "Consciousness, Experience, and Justification," Canadian Journal of Philosophy 32 (2002): 1- 28. "Externalism, Self-Knowledge, and Inner Observation," Australasian Journal of Philosophy 80 (2002): 42-61. "Strategy for Dualists," Metaphilosophy 32 (2001): 395-418. "Pain, Personal Identity, and the Deep Further Fact," Erkenntnis 54 (2001): 247-271. "Experiences, Thoughts, and Qualia," Philosophical Studies 99 (2000): 269-295.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy of the Social Sciences Blackwell Philosophy Guides Series Editor: Steven M
    The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of the Social Sciences Blackwell Philosophy Guides Series Editor: Steven M. Cahn, City University of New York Graduate School Written by an international assembly of distinguished philosophers, the Blackwell Philosophy Guides create a groundbreaking student resource – a complete critical survey of the central themes and issues of philosophy today. Focusing and advancing key arguments throughout, each essay incorporates essential background material serving to clarify the history and logic of the relevant topic. Accordingly, these volumes will be a valuable resource for a broad range of students and readers, including professional philosophers. 1 The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology Edited by John Greco and Ernest Sosa 2 The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory Edited by Hugh LaFollette 3 The Blackwell Guide to the Modern Philosophers Edited by Steven M. Emmanuel 4 The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic Edited by Lou Goble 5 The Blackwell Guide to Social and Political Philosophy Edited by Robert L. Simon 6 The Blackwell Guide to Business Ethics Edited by Norman E. Bowie 7 The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Science Edited by Peter Machamer and Michael Silberstein 8 The Blackwell Guide to Metaphysics Edited by Richard M. Gale 9 The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Education Edited by Nigel Blake, Paul Smeyers, Richard Smith, and Paul Standish 10 The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Mind Edited by Stephen P. Stich and Ted A. Warfield 11 The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of the Social Sciences Edited by Stephen P. Turner and Paul A. Roth 12 The Blackwell Guide to Continental Philosophy Edited by Robert C.
    [Show full text]
  • Mentor Bios 2013
    Mentor Bios – 2013 Workshop Amy Allen is the Parents Distinguished Research Professor in the Humanities and Professor of Philosophy and Women's and Gender Studies at Dartmouth College. Her research interests are in Contemporary Continental Philosophy, social and political theory, and feminist theory. In particular, she works at the intersection of French poststructuralism, the Frankfurt School, and feminism on topics such as power, agency, subjectivity, autonomy, history and normativity. She is the author of two books: The Power of Feminist Theory: Domination, Resistance, Solidarity (1999) and The Politics of Our Selves: Power, Autonomy, and Gender in Contemporary Critical Theory (2008). She is the Co-Editor in Chief of the journal Constellations, series editor of the Columbia University Press book series New Directions in Critical Theory, and Executive Co-director of SPEP, the Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy. Louise Antony is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. She received her B.A. from Syracuse University in 1975, and her Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1982. Prof. Antony has research interests in the philosophy of mind, naturalistic epistemology, feminist theory, and the philosophy of religion. She has edited or co-edited three volumes: A Mind of One’s Own: Feminist Essays on Reason and Objectivity (with Charlotte Witt) and Chomsky and His Critics (with Norbert Hornstein), and Philosophers Without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life. She has contributed to the New York Times blog, “The Stone,” and to the popular website AskPhilosophers.org. Ann Cudd is University Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and Associate Dean for Humanities at the University of Kansas.
    [Show full text]
  • Feminist Philosophy Comprehensive: Reading List
    Feminist Philosophy Comprehensive: Reading List The main part of this list comprises readings that correspond to each of the five sections of the comprehensive exam. The Reference Books at the end of the list provide more background, but they are entirely optional. 1. Core Concepts a. Feminism Mill, J. S. “The Subjection of Women.” In Feminist Theory: A Philosophical Anthology. A. Cudd and R. Andreasen, eds. Malden, MA: Blackwell 2005: 17-26. de Beauvoir, S. “Introduction from The Second Sex.” In Cudd and Andreasen: 27-36. Truth, S. “Ar’n’t I a Woman?” In Theorizing Feminisms: A Reader. Ed. E. Hackett and S. Haslanger. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006. 113. Tuana, N. ‘What is Feminist Philosophy?’ Philosophy in Multiple Voices. Ed. G. Yancy. Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007. Sherwin, S. “Understanding Feminism.” In her No Longer Patient: Feminist Ethics & Health Care. Philadelphia, PA: Temple, 1992. 13-34. b. Sex and Gender Butler, J. “Introduction: Acting in Concert.” In Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge, 2004. pp. 1-16. Fausto-Sterling, A. “The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female Are Not Enough,” The Sciences 33(2), 1993: 20-24. Garry, A. “Intersectionality, Metaphors, and the Multiplicity of Gender,” Hypatia, 26(4), 2011: 826–850. Haslanger, S. “Gender and Race: (What) Are They? (What) Do We Want Them To Be?” Noûs 34(1), 2000: 31-55. Heyes, C. J. “Changing Race, Changing Sex: The Ethics of Self-Transformation,” Journal of Social Philosophy 37(2), 2006: 266-282. Jenkins, K. “Amelioration and Inclusion: Gender Identity and the Concept of Woman,” Ethics 126 (2016): 394–421.
    [Show full text]
  • WILLEM A. DEVRIES Department of Philosophy University of New Hampshire Durham, NH 03824 O: (603) 862-3077 H: (603) 942-7510 [email protected]
    WILLEM A. DEVRIES Department of Philosophy University of New Hampshire Durham, NH 03824 O: (603) 862-3077 H: (603) 942-7510 [email protected] Education: 1975-1981 University of Pittsburgh, Ph.D. 1976-1977 Ruhr-Universität, Bochum, Germany 1973-1975 University of Pittsburgh, M.A. 1968-1972 Haverford College, B.A. Academic Honors and Awards: 2016-17 Visiting Full Professor, University College Dublin 2014-15 Distinguished Professor Award, UNH 2014 Visiting Fellowship, Idealism & Pragmatism: Convergence or Contestation Project, University of Sheffield, England 2004-2005 Fulbright-University of Vienna Distinguished Chair in the Humanities and Social Sciences 2003 Faculty Scholars Program Grant, UNH 2001-2002 Visiting Fellow, Philosophy Programme, School of Advanced Studies, University of London 1996 ACLS Travel Grant 1994-1995 NEH Fellowship for College Teachers 1993 Humanities Center Senior Research Fellowship, UNH 1986-1987 Mellon Faculty Fellowship, Harvard University 1986-1987 Mellon Fellowship in the Humanities, University of Pennsylvania, declined 1985 NEH Summer Seminar for College Teachers, Cornell University 1982-1983 Fulbright Senior Research Fellowship, West Germany 1982-1983 Amherst College Trustee Faculty Fellowship, declined 1982 DAAD Summer Research Fellowship, declined 1978-1979 Teaching Fellow, University of Pittsburgh 1976-1977 Fulbright Doctoral Fellowship, Germany 1973-1976 Teaching Assistant, University of Pittsburgh 1972 High Honors in Philosophy, Haverford College Employment: University of New Hampshire, Professor,
    [Show full text]
  • 'Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy' by Bernard
    Paul Seabright reviews ‘Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy’ ... http://www.lrb.co.uk/v07/n15/paul-seabright/character Back to article page Character Paul Seabright Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy by Bernard Williams Collins and Fontana, 230 pp, £10.95, March 1985, ISBN 0 00 197171 9 Bernard Williams’s new book is the nearest thing to a systematic and comprehensive discussion of moral philosophy we can hope for from someone who thinks a yearning for systematic and comprehensive discussion is the main defect of moral philosophy today. The author identifies ethics as the subject constituted by certain kinds of attempt to answer Socrates’s question: how one should live. As the title suggests, much of the book consists of an attack on the claims of philosophy to provide ethical answers to the question. More precisely (since it never quite explains what is to count as philosophy), it attacks the claims of a certain rationalistic and foundationalist method in moral philosophy, a method broadly though not exclusively associated with Kant. In general, Professor Williams represents his target as an entire dominant trend in Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment philosophy (though occasional grumblings in the footnotes suggest an annoyance at more specific currents, such as evangelical vegetarianism). In his first three chapters he contrasts it with some elements in classical ethical thought, which he thinks closer to providing an attractive account, even though its attempt to ground ethics entirely in considerations about human nature is a failure. But though some of the classical debris is salvageable, Williams is in no doubt that philosophy can provide ethical guidance only by accident: he concludes his book by affirming a substantial ethical individualism, a belief in ‘the continuing possibility of a meaningful individual life, one that does not reject society ..
    [Show full text]
  • Ram Neta Curriculum Vitae
    Ram Neta Curriculum Vitae Department of Philosophy Campus Box #3125, Caldwell Hall University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3125 [email protected] EMPLOYMENT Professor of Philosophy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 2013 – present. Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 2008 – 2013. Assistant Professor of Philosophy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 2003 – 2008. Assistant Professor of Philosophy, University of Utah, 1998 – 2003. Visiting Instructor, Department of Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon University, 1995 - 97. EDUCATION Ph.D. Philosophy, University of Pittsburgh, 1997. A.B., Philosophy, Harvard University, 1988. FELLOWSHIPS, GRANTS, HONORS UNC-Chapel Hill Excellence in Post-Baccalaureate Teaching Award, 2019 UNC-Chapel Hill Center for Faculty Excellence 100+ Course Grant, 2015 UNC-Chapel Hill Institute for Arts and Humanities Academic Excellence Award, 2015 UNC-Chapel Hill University Research Council Award, 2007 UNC-Chapel Hill Junior Faculty Development Award, 2005 UNC-Chapel Hill College of Arts and Sciences Spray-Randleigh Faculty Fellowship, 2003 University of Utah Faculty Fellowship, 2000 Selected for NEH Summer Seminar “Moore and Wittgenstein on Certainty”, UCSD, 1998 Southwestern Philosophical Society prize for “How can there be semantic facts?” 1997 National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship, 1990-1993 EDITED VOLUMES Synthese, special issue on transformative experience (forthcoming) Philosophical Issues: A Supplement to Nous, Volume 25: Normativity, Blackwell (2015) Current Controversies in Epistemology, Routledge (2013) Epistemology: Volumes 1 - 4, Routledge (2012) Thinking Independently: An Introduction to Philosophy, Cognella (2010, revised edition 2012) Arguing about Knowledge, co-edited with Duncan Pritchard, Routledge (2009) RESEARCH ARTICLES “Is there a Dilemma About Commitment?” in Epistemic Dilemmas, edited by Nick Hughes (Oxford University Press, forthcoming).
    [Show full text]