Why don't more moral/political philosophers have a substack or blog about their topic and engage with comments? [Three others I know of are Michael Huemer, Eric Schitzgibel, RICHARD PETTIGREW. "New Work in Philosophy" is another but has very little engagement. Huemer also doesn't really engage comments.]
Why don't more moral/political philosophers have a substack or blog about their topic and engage with comments? [Three others I know of are Michael Huemer, Eric Schitzgibel, RICHARD PETTIGREW. "New Work in Philosophy" is another but has very little engagement. Huemer also doesn't really engage comments.]
One possibility is that utilitarians have a stronger motive to evangelize than proponents of "agent-relative" views under which getting others to act ethically is not necessarily a priority.
But is it true in general that utilitarian philosophers have more blogs about ethics than non-utilitarians?
As an outsider, sometimes I wonder if the formal editorial process is the only place moral/political philosophers engage across the aisle (since it's by force). But the turnaround time of formal journals is much too slow to facilitate efficient dialogue. I think blogs could help with that.
I also find it odd that more philosophers don't blog! And I agree more engagement would seem an obvious boon for the discipline.
Some people say to me things like, "I just don't have that many ideas." Others might be more focused on just doing the sort of work that's professionally rewarded. (Though this raises the question of why philosophers aren't professionally rewarded for (i) having a proven track record of regularly generating lots of interesting ideas & engagement, and (ii) demonstrated passion for their work. It's probably hard to formalize this for purposes of tenure & promotion. But if someone like Huemer or Schwitzgebel ever applied for a job at my institution, I'd be very swayed by the knowledge that they have lots of interesting ideas and like to discuss them -- I would expect that to make them a better colleague. If my evaluative dispositions were more widely shared, it seems like that could provide some professional incentive...)
Why don't more moral/political philosophers have a substack or blog about their topic and engage with comments? [Three others I know of are Michael Huemer, Eric Schitzgibel, RICHARD PETTIGREW. "New Work in Philosophy" is another but has very little engagement. Huemer also doesn't really engage comments.]
One possibility is that utilitarians have a stronger motive to evangelize than proponents of "agent-relative" views under which getting others to act ethically is not necessarily a priority.
But is it true in general that utilitarian philosophers have more blogs about ethics than non-utilitarians?
As an outsider, sometimes I wonder if the formal editorial process is the only place moral/political philosophers engage across the aisle (since it's by force). But the turnaround time of formal journals is much too slow to facilitate efficient dialogue. I think blogs could help with that.
I also find it odd that more philosophers don't blog! And I agree more engagement would seem an obvious boon for the discipline.
Some people say to me things like, "I just don't have that many ideas." Others might be more focused on just doing the sort of work that's professionally rewarded. (Though this raises the question of why philosophers aren't professionally rewarded for (i) having a proven track record of regularly generating lots of interesting ideas & engagement, and (ii) demonstrated passion for their work. It's probably hard to formalize this for purposes of tenure & promotion. But if someone like Huemer or Schwitzgebel ever applied for a job at my institution, I'd be very swayed by the knowledge that they have lots of interesting ideas and like to discuss them -- I would expect that to make them a better colleague. If my evaluative dispositions were more widely shared, it seems like that could provide some professional incentive...)