Richard, I like your articles, but I'd like to see more back and forth with your opponents.
Have you considered trying to do a podcast with a deontological partner? Perhaps semi-regularly? I know you had a video with Michael Huemer once, but I'd like to see more of that and with more philosophers. Discussion would be more useful than outright debate.
Just to throw out one name, I think Eyal Zamir is good deontological theorist, but surely there are many.
I'm not sure how best to woo philosophers onto a podcast, but Robinson's Podcast seems to have been remarkably successful at this. Admittedly, he mostly just lets them talk and doesn't push back much.
It's a neat idea! I much prefer the written word, but sadly few philosophers seem interested in engaging with my written arguments to date. So I guess it could be worth seeing whether I'd have more luck with podcast invitations? The friction of organizing such a thing is a bit off-putting at the moment, and I wouldn't want it to distract from my research. (Blogging just tends to happen in spare time when I have an idea I feel especially strongly motivated to share -- it doesn't take any effort.) But I could see myself pursuing this in future sometime; maybe after finishing my next book.
You could higher an assistant to manage logistics and maybe paywall to pay for part of it. I wouldn't mind personally paying for part of such an assistants salary.
I wonder if Daily Nous or something would open a conversation thread about why we don't see more informal dialogue (via podcasts, blogs, or otherwise). Do people think it wouldn't be useful? Or they just don't have time?
In moral/political phil, I'd guess some role is played by a certain pessimism that one's ideological opponents are too far gone. For example, a lot of non-utilitarians think utilitarians are obsessed with simplicity and hyper-foundationalist epistemology. They would tell you to go read Quine and Wittgenstein.
In the same way, when I tried to share my critique of Leif Wenar's article with colleagues who had enthusiastically shared it, I got zero response. Just crickets. It's hard for me to avoid the conclusion that most -- even amongst academic philosophers! -- just aren't very interested in truth-seeking or intellectual responsibility. In their "off the clock" time, they're not really philosophers any more. Just vapid tribalists like the rest of humanity.
> I much prefer the written word, but sadly few philosophers seem interested in engaging with my written arguments to date. So I guess it could be worth seeing whether I'd have more luck with podcast invitations?
While face to face verbal conversations have their benefits and advantages, I think philosophy is best practised in back and forth writing, as one can (or at least has a chance to) practice it using purely System 2 cognition. Thoughts?
I think it's a shame there's so little meta aspect to philosophy, it's the most powerful thinking system on the planet, yet is essentially impotent.
Richard, I like your articles, but I'd like to see more back and forth with your opponents.
Have you considered trying to do a podcast with a deontological partner? Perhaps semi-regularly? I know you had a video with Michael Huemer once, but I'd like to see more of that and with more philosophers. Discussion would be more useful than outright debate.
Just to throw out one name, I think Eyal Zamir is good deontological theorist, but surely there are many.
I'm not sure how best to woo philosophers onto a podcast, but Robinson's Podcast seems to have been remarkably successful at this. Admittedly, he mostly just lets them talk and doesn't push back much.
It's a neat idea! I much prefer the written word, but sadly few philosophers seem interested in engaging with my written arguments to date. So I guess it could be worth seeing whether I'd have more luck with podcast invitations? The friction of organizing such a thing is a bit off-putting at the moment, and I wouldn't want it to distract from my research. (Blogging just tends to happen in spare time when I have an idea I feel especially strongly motivated to share -- it doesn't take any effort.) But I could see myself pursuing this in future sometime; maybe after finishing my next book.
Thanks for the suggestion!
You could higher an assistant to manage logistics and maybe paywall to pay for part of it. I wouldn't mind personally paying for part of such an assistants salary.
I wonder if Daily Nous or something would open a conversation thread about why we don't see more informal dialogue (via podcasts, blogs, or otherwise). Do people think it wouldn't be useful? Or they just don't have time?
In moral/political phil, I'd guess some role is played by a certain pessimism that one's ideological opponents are too far gone. For example, a lot of non-utilitarians think utilitarians are obsessed with simplicity and hyper-foundationalist epistemology. They would tell you to go read Quine and Wittgenstein.
Yeah, of course I've tried to explain why this caricature of utilitarians is off-base -- https://rychappell.substack.com/p/bleeding-heart-consequentialism -- but the anti-utilitarians don't seem to care.
In the same way, when I tried to share my critique of Leif Wenar's article with colleagues who had enthusiastically shared it, I got zero response. Just crickets. It's hard for me to avoid the conclusion that most -- even amongst academic philosophers! -- just aren't very interested in truth-seeking or intellectual responsibility. In their "off the clock" time, they're not really philosophers any more. Just vapid tribalists like the rest of humanity.
> I much prefer the written word, but sadly few philosophers seem interested in engaging with my written arguments to date. So I guess it could be worth seeing whether I'd have more luck with podcast invitations?
While face to face verbal conversations have their benefits and advantages, I think philosophy is best practised in back and forth writing, as one can (or at least has a chance to) practice it using purely System 2 cognition. Thoughts?
I think it's a shame there's so little meta aspect to philosophy, it's the most powerful thinking system on the planet, yet is essentially impotent.