August 31, 2009
3 Quarks Daily Prize in Philosophy
September 22, 2009, NOTE: The winners have been announced here.
September 11, 2009, NOTE: The list of nine finalists can be seen here.
September 8, 2009, NOTE: The list of twenty semifinalists can be seen here.
Dear Readers, Writers, Bloggers,
In May of this year we announced that we would start awarding four prizes every year for the best blog writing in the areas of science, philosophy, politics, and arts & literature. We awarded the science prizes, judged by Professor Steven Pinker, on June 21st. We have decided to do the prize in philosophy next, and here's how it will work: we are now accepting nominations for the best blog post in philosophy. After the nominating period is over, there will be a round of voting by our readers which will narrow down the entries to the top twenty semi-finalists. After this period, we will take these top twenty voted-for nominees, and the four main daily editors of 3 Quarks Daily (Abbas Raza, Robin Varghese, Morgan Meis, and Azra Raza) will select six finalists from these, plus they may also add upto three wildcard entries of their choosing. The three winners will be chosen from these by Professor Daniel C. Dennett, who, we are very pleased, has agreed to be the final judge. Professor Dennett will also write a short comment on each of the winning entries.
The first place award, called the "Top Quark," will include a cash prize of one thousand dollars; the second place prize, the "Strange Quark," will include a cash prize of three hundred dollars; and the third place winner will get the honor of winning the "Charm Quark," along with a two hundred dollar prize.
* * *
(Welcome to those coming here for the first time. Learn more about who we are and what we do here, and do check out the full site here. Bookmark us and come back regularly, or sign up for the RSS feed.
* * *
The winners of the philosophy prize will be announced on September 22, 2009. Here's the schedule:
Today:
- The nominating process is hereby declared open. Please nominate your favorite blog entry in the field of philosophy by placing the URL for the blogpost (the permalink) in the comments section of this post. You may also add a brief comment describing the entry and saying why you think it should win.
- Entries must be in English.
- The editors of 3QD reserve the right to reject entries that we feel are not appropriate.
- The blog entry may not be more than a year old from today. In other words, it must have been written after August 23, 2008.
- You may also nominate your own entry from your own or a group blog (and we encourage you to).
- Guest columnists at 3 Quarks Daily are also eligible to be nominated, and may also nominate themselves if they wish.
- You may also comment here on our prizes themselves, of course!
August 31, 2009
- The nominating process will end at 11:59 PM (NYC time) of this date, so there is only a week to submit nominations.
- The public voting will be opened immediately afterwards.
September 7, 2009
- Public voting ends at 11:59 PM (NYC time).
September 22, 2009
- The winners are announced.
One Final and Important Request
If you have a blog or website, please help us spread the word about our prizes by linking to this post. Otherwise, just email your friends and tell them about it! I really look forward to reading some very good material, and think this should be a lot of fun for all of us.
Best of luck and thanks for your attention!
Yours,
Abbas
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 12:35 AM | Permalink
Comments
Rather that keep this post always on top (as you did with your last contest), please stick it on the margin somewhere, so that new content is always visible. Think of the user, please.
Posted by: elbrucce | Aug 24, 2009 11:24:48 AM
Okay, I won't keep this post on top, but you can always get to it by clicking on the prize announcement banner at the top of the right-hand column.
Thanks for the suggestion.
Posted by: Abbas Raza | Aug 24, 2009 11:39:36 AM
I'm not sure I like the idea of being judged by Dan Dennett (that's, like, my blind-refereeing nightmare), but I could use the cash so I'm going to go ahead and nominate myself:
http://www.jehsmith.com/1/2009/03/the-fundamentals-of-gelastics.html
Posted by: Justin E. H. Smith | Aug 24, 2009 12:15:17 PM
I am pleased to nominate Larval Subjects.
http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/
Posted by: Frances Madeson | Aug 24, 2009 2:27:38 PM
Frances,
You need to nominate a particular blog post, not a whole blog.
Thanks.
Abbas
Posted by: Abbas Raza | Aug 24, 2009 3:31:54 PM
My frequency of error just went up! I'll try and narrow it down. Thanks for the refinement.
Posted by: Frances Madeson | Aug 24, 2009 4:03:33 PM
I could have solved Justin's dilemma by making a deal to nominate each other. I really liked his topic and treatment.
But it is too late so I will nominate myself as well.
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2009/03/penne-for-your-thought.html
Posted by: Jerry Dworkin | Aug 24, 2009 4:16:20 PM
Justin,
You only need to worry about Dan if you make it to the finalists. You gotta' make it past me first!
Heh, heh... :-)
Posted by: Abbas Raza | Aug 24, 2009 5:55:14 PM
http://underverse.blogspot.com/2009/05/refuting-it-thus.html
Professor Dennett judging Chris Schoen! Should this piece make the finalists it will be by no means proof of God, but mischievous forces certainly.
Posted by: Jesse | Aug 24, 2009 7:33:48 PM
Well, this is freaky. Not having read as far as the comments, I had been searching the 3QD attic (what a nightmare...) for Justin Smith on laughter and Jerry Dworkin on pasta. I knew I'd find them somehow. Googling ultimately worked. Then I saw I could have saved myself half an hour of searching. Nominations as follows. Please read and vote!
http://www.jehsmith.com/1/2009/03/the-fundamentals-of-gelastics.html
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2009/03/penne-for-your-thought.html
There are brilliant writers in the 3QDisphere who do not write for our blog, but for their own blogs. However, they contribute hugely to the quality of the discourse around here. One such is Chris Schoen. Jesse already nominated him above. I'd be very happy if he won, so I'm nominating the post Jesse did.
http://underverse.blogspot.com/2009/05/refuting-it-thus.html
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Aug 24, 2009 8:58:07 PM
K, blatant self-promotion here...
http://thenecromancer.wordpress.com/2008/09/19/create-your-own-mythology/
Posted by: The Necromancer | Aug 24, 2009 9:00:35 PM
I thought it was "Charmed Quark"
Posted by: cay | Aug 25, 2009 12:48:49 AM
How to find zombies intuitively implausible (if you didn't already):
http://www.strangedoctrines.com/2009/02/thirdworld-zombies-and-anaqualiac-reference.html
Posted by: Michael Drake | Aug 25, 2009 9:56:43 AM
"Rather that keep this post always on top (as you did with your last contest), please stick it on the margin somewhere, so that new content is always visible. Think of the user, please."
My personal view is that the contest post should remain on top, at least during the nomination period, preferably for the entire length of the program, and for some days after the winners are announced. The contest is as much an important marketing event for 3QD, as it is a recognition of exceptional, substantive writing.
The common sense view is that sustained exposure becomes a damn nuisance. Little about good advertising and marketing is a product of common sense, and much of it is counterintuitive. But it is a mature science.
We need it for the new people we try to bring to the site, and to sustain brand loyalty. Among the goals of the contests should be, in my opinion, the continuing increase of people making nominations, the numbers of unique nominations, the numbers of people voting, and the numbers of other sites cross-posting the announcements.
I can only nominate once, and vote once. If it's for my own work, in both instances, then we will not have gone very far.
Posted by: Norman Costa | Aug 25, 2009 10:42:22 AM
Norman is right -- this competition should be front and center for the very short period it pertains to affairs here. Last night I did a mailing to several thousand people, as well as putting a link on Facebook and asking some of the best networkers I know to help. A few who have written back to me said they couldn't find the right info when they came here.
My feeling is that this is a medium where you make it very easy for new visitors to find what they came for. If they are visiting by request, and looking for something special that takes some doing, they'll click away. In the instance of my email campaign, not everybody clicks on the link I send to the competition page.
With all due respect to elbrucce's preferences, above first entry, I think most readers will understand that we don't want to underplay this competition, but to encourage every reader to think whether something they saw here or elsewhere in the last year might be appropriate. A graphically distinct note to regular readers, right at the top, about scrolling one post down to ever-changing content, should cue them that life goes on here.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Aug 25, 2009 11:09:49 AM
Vetting by you could be the sweetest of deaths, Abbas. It's Dan's mighty frivolity-felling sword that gets my knees knocking.
Posted by: Justin E. H. Smith | Aug 25, 2009 11:48:58 AM
More on Zombies
http://hypertiling.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/unheimlich-realism-and-zombies/
Posted by: David_T. | Aug 26, 2009 7:16:50 AM
I have seen that someone suggested this blog before, but not a specific post.
This one was published just todaty and it looks like a great candidate.
http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/object-oriented-ontology-and-scientific-naturalism/
Posted by: Fabio Cunctator | Aug 26, 2009 12:19:25 PM
I strongly encourage readers to select from blogs that actually traffic in real philosophy. Here for example is a list of "Top 10 Philosophy Blogs" as chosen by Brian Leiter, a well known philosopher from U Chicago. http://www.blogs.com/topten/top-10-philosophy-blogs/
Posted by: Jonathan | Aug 26, 2009 1:12:50 PM
'Reflecting on relativism' argues that (a certain kind of) moral relativism is incoherent:
http://www.philosophyetc.net/2008/10/reflecting-on-relativism.html
Posted by: Richard | Aug 26, 2009 1:18:22 PM
Joshes Green and Knobe on Moral Intuition. I don't know whether your rules allow video content.
Posted by: James | Aug 26, 2009 1:23:50 PM
I nominate the following post:
Eddy Nahmias at GFP on determinism:
http://gfp.typepad.com/the_garden_of_forking_pat/2009/05/defining-determinism-and-such.html#more
Posted by: tnadelhoffer | Aug 26, 2009 1:26:31 PM
I wonder what Jonathan means by "real philosophy". From his comment it seems it's anything that Brian Leiter things is "real philosophy" (i.e. philosophy run by management consultants). Philosophers have a name for that kind of argument.
Posted by: steve | Aug 26, 2009 1:27:08 PM
Something from Public Reason.
http://publicreason.net/2009/02/23/on-public-reason-and-justificatory-liberalism/#more-373
Posted by: Mats | Aug 26, 2009 2:33:50 PM
There's no apparent limitation on the number of blog posts one can nominate. With the most honorable of intentions, I will nominate a few posts from my own blog. Here is the first, which I think is well-reasoned, clearly written, and relevant to socio-political as well as philosophical interests.
http://specterofreason.blogspot.com/2009/02/whats-wrong-with-noma.html>What's Wrong With NOMA
Posted by: Jason | Aug 26, 2009 2:42:24 PM
Here is another from my blog. In this one, I stake out an original perspective on a heated topic: the inclusion of Intelligent Design in public science education.
http://specterofreason.blogspot.com/2009/02/wise-on-intelligent-design-in-classroom.html>Wise on Intelligent Design
Posted by: Jason | Aug 26, 2009 2:45:56 PM
In this post, I provide a semi-formal, original argument that knowledge of God is, by definition, a delusion.
http://specterofreason.blogspot.com/2009/02/proof-that-god-is-delusion.html>Proof that God is a Delusion
Posted by: Jason | Aug 26, 2009 2:48:01 PM
This very small post generated 155 substantive comments about the meaning of a Daodejing (Tao Te Ching) passage. And I think we pretty much figured it out!
http://manyulim.wordpress.com/2008/10/20/little-fish-little-fish-swimming-in-the-water/
Posted by: Manyul Im | Aug 26, 2009 3:08:06 PM
In this post (a public version of a correspondence with Professor Torin Alter), I attempt an original argument against Frank Jackson's infamous knowledge argument.
http://specterofreason.blogspot.com/2009/03/phenomenal-knowledge-and-knowledge.html>Phenomenal Knowledge and The Knowledge Argument
Posted by: Jason | Aug 26, 2009 3:32:40 PM
Here I sum up a Wittgensteinian attitude towards morality as it intersects with atheism.
http://specterofreason.blogspot.com/2009/04/atheism-and-morality.html>Atheism and Morality
Posted by: Jason | Aug 26, 2009 3:34:24 PM
I nominate Dave Shoemaker's post entitled "Scanlon on Moral Responsibility & Blame" at http://peasoup.typepad.com/peasoup/2009/05/scanlon-on-moral-responsibility-blame-part-1.html.
Posted by: Doug Portmore | Aug 26, 2009 3:37:20 PM
http://www.andrewcullison.com/2008/09/emotions-and-moral-skepticism/
Outlines an argument against moral skepticism from the plausible thesis that certain kinds of emotions are rational/irrational.
Posted by: Andrew Cullison | Aug 26, 2009 3:37:40 PM
Here is an original, Wittgensteinian analysis of Descartes' famous cogito.
http://specterofreason.blogspot.com/2009/05/descartes-contra-wittgenstein.html>Descartes Contra Wittgenstein
Posted by: Jason | Aug 26, 2009 3:38:06 PM
In this post, I discuss the history of the philosophy of science in terms of an ongoing tension between science and religious authority.
http://specterofreason.blogspot.com/2009/07/brief-history-of-philosophy-of-science_20.htmlA Brief History of the Philosophy of Science
Posted by: Jason | Aug 26, 2009 3:41:35 PM
In this post, I criticize Sean Carroll's recent discussion of naturalism for Discover Magazine.
http://specterofreason.blogspot.com/2009/07/discovery-demonstration-and-naturalism.html>Discovery, Demonstration, and Naturalism
Posted by: Jason | Aug 26, 2009 3:44:25 PM
This post just makes the deadline, having been written on August 25th, 2008. In it, I explain why I reject Daniel Dennett's and Richard Dawkin's "teapot agnosticism" in favor of a stronger version of atheism.
http://specterofreason.blogspot.com/2008/08/why-i-am-not-teapot-agnostic.html>Why I Am Not A Teapot Agnostic
Posted by: Jason | Aug 26, 2009 3:47:48 PM
Here I argue for an understanding of science as the formalization of discovery. I include an analysis of the relationships between science, mathematics, logic, and philosophy.
http://specterofreason.blogspot.com/2008/11/understanding-science-mathematics-and.html>Understanding Science, Mathematics, and Philosophy
Posted by: Jason | Aug 26, 2009 3:59:33 PM
In this post, I argue for what I call the Default View: the view that all aspects of human experience are open to scientific discovery. I approach this by arguing that evidence is an inherently public concern.
http://specterofreason.blogspot.com/2008/09/nature-of-evidence.html>The Nature of Evidence
Posted by: Jason | Aug 26, 2009 4:01:20 PM
This will be my last self-nominated post. In it, I harshly criticize an argument against methodological naturalism made by Christian apologist and philosopher, Robert A. Delfino.
http://specterofreason.blogspot.com/2008/11/on-junk-philosophy-and-naturalism.html>On Junk Philosophy and Naturalism: A Criticism of Robert A. Delfino
Posted by: Jason | Aug 26, 2009 4:07:47 PM
With an appropriate blush, I would like to nominate my own post, "Immanent Spirituality," which appeared last October on The Immanent Frame.
http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2008/10/31/immanent-spirituality/
Shortly afterwards, Andrew Sullivan put an excerpt from it and a link to it on the Daily Dish:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/being-and-time.html
It argues that our existence must be finite in order to be meaningful (against the critique of eschatologists who believe that our existence is meaningless unless infinite). Finding this belief already in Borges, and especially Nietzsche, it then offers an interpretation of his doctrine of Eternal Return that respects the importance of finitude to meaning.
This year I sent a version with footnotes (and a few revisions to meet my critics) to the call for papers for the 2009 meeting of SPEP. (To those unfamiliar with The Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy, it is the second largest organization of professional philosophers in this country). Now as an academic paper, "Immanent Spirituality" won the prize for the best submission by a junior scholar.
I don't know whether it should win your contest, but when it appeared online it generated discussion among a wide audience, and has since moved far more easily than I ever hoped between the blogosphere and academic philosophy.
Posted by: Patrick Lee Miller | Aug 26, 2009 4:13:12 PM
Jason, your posts aren't very good, stop nominating them.
Posted by: Observer | Aug 26, 2009 4:18:44 PM
As I noted, I've stopped. But thanks for the feedback, Observer.
Posted by: Jason | Aug 26, 2009 4:23:41 PM
Some work in normative ethics:
http://yeahokbutstill.blogspot.com/2008/08/ethics-of-honour.html
Posted by: Nick Smyth | Aug 26, 2009 4:28:25 PM
I interviewed a number of philosophers over at my own blog including Jeffrey Malpas, Graham Harman, Stuart Elden and others. I'll nominate the Malpas interview because he is quite well known:
http://anotherheideggerblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/interview-with-jeffrey-malpas.html
It is worth noting that this series of interviews is now being published as a book.
Anyway good luck to everyone and this is a great idea and a pretty good reason to keep on blogging.
Paul.
Posted by: Paul Ennis | Aug 26, 2009 4:59:00 PM
The End of Philosophy
A bit unconventional, but perhaps worthy of consideration nonetheless.
Posted by: Ryan | Aug 26, 2009 5:06:09 PM
Here's a post from "Methods of Projection." It's a spirited defense of Wittgenstin which I found both entertaining and penetrating:
http://methodsofprojection.blogspot.com/2009/03/wittgenwanker.html>Wittgenwanker
Posted by: Jason | Aug 26, 2009 5:07:54 PM
Also, this on Graham Priest's Theory of Change is certainly worth consideration.
Posted by: Ryan | Aug 26, 2009 5:08:15 PM
Humbly, I offer one of my posts...
http://biophilic.blogspot.com/2009/07/altruism-through-genocide.html
or, for something less positive:
http://biophilic.blogspot.com/2008/10/holy-gibberish.html
Posted by: Burk Braun | Aug 26, 2009 5:34:58 PM
Post:
http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives/2009/02/an-opinionated.html#more
This is an opinionated play-by-play of the exchange between Plantinga and Dennett at this year's Central Division of the APA.
The following are among the reasons I am nominating it:
1) It records an event between two enormously influential philosophers with diametrically opposed viewpoints at the American Philosophical Association.
2) It is not just a recording, but an opinionated one, with interesting additions and thoughts.
3) The ensuing discussion was comprised of comments from well known professional philosophers.
4) The topics include an interplay between philosophy of religion, evolutionary biology, epistemology, and philosophy of mind.
5) There is also interesting discussion about the current state of philosophy for religious believers.
Posted by: Andrew Moon | Aug 26, 2009 7:58:40 PM
I will nominate some of my own posts:
http://evolvingthoughts.net/2009/06/24/definitions-of-atheism/
on various definitions of atheism and agnosticism;
http://evolvingthoughts.net/2009/06/08/the-doctrine-of-double-truth/
of the origins and use of the doctrine of double truth;
http://evolvingthoughts.net/2009/05/19/philosophy_and_evolution/
on the philosophical concerns to be had with evolution;
http://evolvingthoughts.net/2009/04/03/information_and_metaphysics/
on, well, information and metaphysics;
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2009/03/darwin_atheism_and_the_catholi.php
on silly claims made at a Catholic conference about evolution;
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2009/02/laws_theories_and_models.php
on laws, theories and models for a 6th grade science teacher;
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2008/09/darwin_god_and_chance.php
On whether a theist has to say there is no such thing as chance.
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2008/09/aristotle_on_the_mayfly.php
Aristotle on the mayfly, and why he was a good scientist;
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2008/11/class_war.php
on the nature of equivalence classes in taxonomy and classification;
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2008/11/the_ontology_of_biology_2_how.php
on why theoretical objects aren't the totality of a scientific theory's domain, followed closely by a post on phenomenal objects in science:
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2008/11/the_ontology_of_biology_3_phen.php
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2009/02/myth_5_darwin_thought_evolutio.php
against the charge by theologians that Darwinian evolution is about accidents and chance.
I'm sorry to be so prolix and immodest.
Posted by: John Wilkins | Aug 27, 2009 12:08:06 AM
I'd like to nominate "Art, Design, Iconoclasm, and Politics: The Obama “Socialist Joker” Poster" by anotherpanacea.
http://www.anotherpanacea.com/2009/08/art-design-iconoclasm-and-politics-the-obama-socialist-joker-poster/
Posted by: Steven Maloney | Aug 27, 2009 12:21:14 AM
http://continentalcritics.blogspot.com/2009/07/analysis-belaboured.html
This is my article.
Posted by: Bahram Farzady | Aug 27, 2009 12:27:17 AM
I would like to self-nominate my post entitled "The Availability Heuristic and the Inborn Aging Process" available at:
http://colinfarrelly.blogspot.com/2009/05/availability-heuristic-and-inborn-aging.html
Cheers,
Colin
Posted by: Colin Farrelly | Aug 27, 2009 1:00:45 AM
Good rule: if you think that not one, not two but TWELVE of your own blog postings are all contenders for the best philosophy posts that year then you are probably just wasting peoples time.
Posted by: Thomas | Aug 27, 2009 5:34:08 AM
I do not expect to win any prize. My wildest hope is that voters and judges would look at the post nominated and then feel tempted to look at one or two more posts. So, I nominate my latest post: "Against much erudition": http://khashaba.blogspot.com/2009_08_01_archive.html
Posted by: D. R. Khashaba | Aug 27, 2009 7:31:43 AM
I am pleased to nominate this post by Levi Bryant at Larval Subjects.
http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/speculative-realism-and-the-unheimlich/#more-2237
Good luck to the judges. It appears by the high quality of the nominees you'll have some tough decisions ahead.
Posted by: Frances Madeson | Aug 27, 2009 8:41:31 AM
I'd llike to nominate this entry (on Searle's Chinese Room) from the excellent Zompist blog: http://www.zompist.com/searle.html
Posted by: Aaron Baker | Aug 27, 2009 9:35:03 AM
Incidentally, I have no connection with zompist.com. It's run by Mark Rosenfelder, probably best known as a top-notch amateur linguist and generator of constructed languages.
Posted by: Aaron Baker | Aug 27, 2009 9:37:46 AM
I am pleased to nominate this post by Levi Bryant at Larval Subjects:
http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/speculative-realism-and-the-unheimlich/
Posted by: Frances Madeson | Aug 27, 2009 10:20:18 AM
I am pleased to nominate this post by Levi Bryant at Larval Subjects:
http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/speculative-realism-and-the-unheimlich/
Posted by: Frances Madeson | Aug 27, 2009 11:18:17 AM
A well-written piece at the intersection of video games and philosophy
http://msuphilosophyclub.blogspot.com/2009/04/idealism-and-closure.html
Posted by: Josh | Aug 27, 2009 12:03:55 PM
Have a look at:
Blackburn True and other Hot topics:
http://tomkow.typepad.com/tomkowcom/2008/05/blackburn-tru-1.html
on the metaphysical springs of all politics and.
The good, the bad and Peter Signer
http://tomkow.typepad.com/tomkowcom/2009/04/the-good-the-bad-and-peter-singer.html
because somebody had to say it.
Posted by: tomkow | Aug 27, 2009 1:01:14 PM
A Twittour of Western Philosophy--all you need to know about the greatest Western philosophers in twenty 140 character-or-less nuggests!
http://60-secondphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/08/twittour-of-western-philosophy.html#links
Posted by: Brian Atwood | Aug 27, 2009 3:13:46 PM
I nominate this post:
http://possiblyphilosophy.wordpress.com/2008/09/02/uncertainty-in-the-many-worlds-theory/
Posted by: Helen Davies | Aug 27, 2009 3:20:17 PM
The older I get, the more I forget, and the more I wonder: can you be blamed for forgetting?
http://kazez.blogspot.com/2008/10/can-you-blamed-for-forgetting.html
Posted by: Jean Kazez | Aug 27, 2009 4:30:49 PM
Sure, I'll give it a shot.
http://hownottowinawar.wordpress.com/2009/08/21/on-ideology/
This is a post on the concept of ideology, described by Habermas and Raymond Geuss. (Before you get scared off, Geuss is an analytic philosopher who does heroic work making sense of critical theory stuff, with alarming clarity and poignancy.) It's a longish essay, and contains traces of wit, and so naturally it is not suitable for publication. I hope readers like it; and if you don't like it, I hope you find it exasperating; and if not exasperating, then I hope you find it interesting; and if not interesting -- well then you can console yourself with the knowledge that it's the kind of boring that is free.
Posted by: Benjamin Nelson | Aug 27, 2009 5:00:12 PM
I nominate my co-blogger Dana McCourt's 3-parter on Spinoza and Leibniz:
1. All noble things are as difficult as they are rare
2. The best of all possible worlds
3. Why should we be loyal to reason if it pushes us into the abyss?
Posted by: Eric Rauchway | Aug 27, 2009 8:02:29 PM
Here is a post from my blog, a blog in which I casually think-out-loud articles that I'm reading.
Nietzsche's Causal Essentialism
Posted by: Narziss | Aug 27, 2009 10:58:18 PM
I respectfully request that some blogger write a post in which they offer a philosophical argument for a set of criteria by which to identify blogs that actually traffic in real philosophy, and that said criteria be based on substantive content rather than institutional affiliation. That'd totally win, too.
Posted by: Nate | Aug 28, 2009 3:25:29 AM
Not so much self-promotion as the demotion of another.
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=416
And maybe this
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=1148
Posted by: James Garvey | Aug 28, 2009 8:06:43 AM
Although it seems out of line with the comments here, I want to nominate a blog posting that I did not write.
Pete Mandik's Brain Hammer is an outstanding blog about philosophy, cognitive science, art, and lots of other things. Here is a particularly good posting:
http://petemandik.blogspot.com/2009/06/bandwidth-and-capacity-in-human.html
Posted by: tony chemero | Aug 28, 2009 10:26:09 AM
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=405#comments
nominated
Posted by: amos | Aug 28, 2009 10:46:35 AM
Always cracks me up:
http://philosophersanon.blogspot.com/2009/06/public-philosophy.html
Posted by: Ben Ostrowsky | Aug 28, 2009 12:40:49 PM
I'm surprised that no-one has yet nominated anything from Professor Graham Harman's superbly thought-provoking blog, 'Object-Oriented Philosophy'. Choosing a single post from such a veritable embarrassment of riches was no easy task, but I've finally gone for the following:
http://doctorzamalek2.wordpress.com/2009/05/31/english-stylists-and-related-matters/
Here Harman not only explains why style is "the most important thing in philosophy", why "emotion is underrated as a cognitive tool", and why analytic philosophers "tend to be such abysmal" writers, but also provides some tantalizing glimpses into the nature of his own "object-oriented" metaphysical system:
"Style is philosophically important because it says things without saying them. This is meaningful to me because I think objects touch other objects without touching them; that’s the core of my position in metaphysics."
Posted by: John C | Aug 28, 2009 1:34:44 PM
Can someone please nominate a post by hilzoy, aka Hilary Bok? My understanding is that she has now retired from blogging (mainly due to now living AO, i.e. After Obama). I've pretty much stopped reading blogs, apart from secretly reading Brian Leiter, but for the years I read Hilzoy I never failed to be in awe at the extraordinary depth, philosophical lucidity, and moral power of her posts. So, someone please make up for my laziness and select an entry (there must a load of great ones) within the eligible time period.
Posted by: DC | Aug 28, 2009 1:46:39 PM
Salaam Mr. Abbas,
I would like to nominate my August 24, 2008 post, "The Super-Tribe and the City of Gods: Post-Human Christianity and Primitive Islam — the Real Clash of Civilizations?"
It's straight to the point and gives a transhumanist interpretation of Christianity, Islam, and the ongoing difficulties between these two religio-cultural spheres: http://schwartztronica.wordpress.com/2008/08/24/primitive-islam-and-post-human-christianity-the-real-clash-of-civilizations/
Khuda hafiz!
Posted by: Christopher Schwartz | Aug 29, 2009 8:54:45 AM
If you're so needy as to nominate yourself, please have the decency to nominate yourself just ONCE.
Posted by: WTF | Aug 29, 2009 1:18:07 PM
I'd like to self-nominate two posts. The first is from the Garden of the Forking Paths (a free will/moral responsibility group website):
http://gfp.typepad.com/the_garden_of_forking_pat/2009/02/to-hell-with-the-tnr-principle-1.html
The second is from my stint as a guest blogger on The Splintered Mind:
http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2009/06/alternatives-to-burning-armchair.html
Both posts benefit tremendously from the comments that follow...
Tamler
Posted by: Tamler Sommers | Aug 29, 2009 4:08:41 PM
I am sorry my excessive self-nominations offended anyone. I assumed that, if people were not interested in reading my entries, they would be ignored, and nobody would be hurt. I had no idea the nominations would be treated as an offense. Again, I apologize.
I propose the following. If the editors do not mind, please reject (or even delete, if that is deemed appropriate) all of my previous "Specter of Reason" self-nominations. (My "Methods of Projection: Wittgenwanker" nomination should still stand, as that is not a self-nomination.) In their place, please accept the following three nominations:
http://specterofreason.blogspot.com/2009/02/wise-on-intelligent-design-in-classroom.html>Wise On Intelligent Design
http://specterofreason.blogspot.com/2009/07/discovery-demonstration-and-naturalism.html>Discovery, Demonstration, and Naturalism
http://specterofreason.blogspot.com/2009/08/language-of-consciousness.html>The Language of Consciousness
Regards,
Jason
Posted by: Jason | Aug 29, 2009 5:48:16 PM
I might as well throw this one into the ring as well:
http://hownottowinawar.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/light-em-up-baber/
It's in reply to a Comment is Free piece written by HE Baber, and in the comments section of my reply Baber and I get into a nice discussion.
Posted by: Benjamin Nelson | Aug 29, 2009 7:27:00 PM
http://www.minervashowl.com/minervas-howl/2009/6/14/on-retrospective-prophecy.html
Posted by: David Payne | Aug 30, 2009 10:17:47 AM
I nominate Doug Portmore's "Constraints: Agent-focused or Victim-Focused," from PEA Soup: http://peasoup.typepad.com/peasoup/2009/02/constraints-agentfocused-or-victimfocused.html
Posted by: David Shoemaker | Aug 30, 2009 1:31:26 PM
I self-nominate:
http://the-brooks-blog.blogspot.com/2009/08/medicare-and-us-debate-over-health-care.html
Posted by: Thom Brooks | Aug 30, 2009 2:38:00 PM
Please omit Amos's nomination (but thank you!)--
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=405#comments
I already self-nominated that entry, which was posted at two blogs. This is the right url:
http://kazez.blogspot.com/2008/10/can-you-blamed-for-forgetting.html
Posted by: Jean Kazez | Aug 31, 2009 12:13:27 AM
Jurisprudence and what constitutes legal wisdom in the selection of Justice Sotomayor:
http://engagepodcast.blogspot.com/2009/06/empathy-equity-and-wise-latina-judge.html
Posted by: Joseph Orosco | Aug 31, 2009 2:25:33 AM
I nominate one of my own posts - http://pervegalit.wordpress.com/2009/07/13/braver-reading-group-chapter-5-early-heidegger-fundamental-ontology/ .
The context of the post was an on-line reading group on Lee Braver's "A Thing of This World: A History of Continental Anti-Realism" ( http://pervegalit.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/a-this-of-this-world-by-lee-braver-reading-group/ ) . If there were a reward for a set of connected posts, I would nominate the reading group.
Braver's book uses work on realism/anti-realism in analytic philosophy (Dummett, Putnam, Davidson, Devitt, McDowell. . .) to tell a history of continental philosophy from Kant through Derrida. The reading group was a chance for analytic and continental philosophers to has things out. In the post I tried to explain Heidegger's key insight (which I now think actually originated in Schopenhauer) as well as the problems that arise over his lingering neo-Kantianism.
Posted by: Jon Cogburn | Aug 31, 2009 9:52:40 AM
Two self-nominations
http://onemorebrown.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/the-contestability-of-q-p/
http://onemorebrown.wordpress.com/2009/05/07/ut-vos-es-bellator-victus-mortuus-tempus-fugit/
Posted by: onemorebrown | Aug 31, 2009 1:21:47 PM
ooopppsss...strike the second one! This is the one I meant to submit!!
http://onemorebrown.wordpress.com/2009/04/25/back-to-normal-ish/
Posted by: onemorebrown | Aug 31, 2009 1:24:33 PM
I nominate Olivier Morin’s "Descartes’ skull" posted at the blog of our http://cognitionandculture.net/" rel="nofollow">International Cognition and Culture Institute on January 12, 2009
Posted by: Dan Sperber | Aug 31, 2009 6:25:07 PM
I nominate this post from the most recent Philosopher’s Carnival:
http://thespaceofreasons.blogspot.com/2009/08/counterexample-to-setiya.html
One of my profs assigned part of the Setiya book for a class last semester and I thought his views were interesting. But I think this post presents one of the most original arguments against Setiya I’ve come across.
Posted by: Paul Dingo | Aug 31, 2009 7:05:14 PM
I'm no philosopher by any means, but am interested in the prospect of participating in this event, so here, I submit, very humbly, my self-nomination(in line with the tradition of what seems to be the majority of nominations here) @ http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2008/12/the-temporal-prospects-of-humanity.html. Its mainly just a compilation of the various viewpoints of different thinkers to deliver an extended perspective on a certain 'ahistorical trait of human beings' that I've tried to highlight in the essay.
Posted by: Manisha Verma | Aug 31, 2009 10:46:25 PM
Here's an interesting entry in contemporary metaphysics:
http://substantialmatters.blogspot.com/2009/02/how-many-regions-of-spacetime-actually.html
Posted by: Jonathan | Aug 31, 2009 10:52:30 PM
I will like to nominate my post, Dilworth's Functional Consonance
SUMMARY:
It is undeniable that we are sometimes mistaken about the observable world; that our perceptual experience occasionally gets things wrong. However, it is widely held that we cannot be mistaken about how things perceptually seem to us. John Dilworth offers a broadly functionalist account of why this is so. In my post, I raise an objection to Dilworth’s account. Specifically, I argue that Dilworth is committed to two inconsistent claims: (1) that it is logically impossible to have two conflicting dispositions and (2) that being disposed to engage in classification behaviour is a necessary condition for perceiving that X is F. I argue that the conjunction of (1) and (2) fails to accommodate cases in which different sensory modalities present an agent with conflicting information with respect to the same property.
Posted by: Avery Archer | Aug 31, 2009 11:12:19 PM
I'd like to nominate Avery Archer's blog entry "A Counerexample to Setiya" where he argues, convincingly, that Setiya's claim that ($) "When someone is acting intentionally, there must be something he is doing intentionally, not merely trying to do, in the belief that he is doing it" is a necessary truth about intentional action is mistaken. He does this by offering an interesting counterexample to ($). Archer then goes on to consider two possible lines of reply to the counterexample, and argues that both replies are either moribund or not available to Setiya given other aspects of his account of intentional action.
Posted by: Christopher Whalin | Sep 1, 2009 12:01:10 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.