APP Editors’ Note: PoS is a philosopher of science and an associate professor in a non-US subsidiary of a top-ranked US philosophy department.
PoS: Your website is down, I guess professionalism is good for something after all…
Z: Re website functionality: Sorry! It seems to be working fine now.
Re professionalism: You might find this one interesting–
Advice from MIT on Preparing a Philosophy Writing Sample.
It was contributed by one of your senior departmental colleagues in The
Land O Liberty, because s/he liked this one–
PoS: Yeah, not really. Genuinely puzzled by the intended target audience for this sort of stuff. But thanks for sending the links. For what it’s worth, your website still fails for me once in every couple of tries.
Z: Thanks! for that too, and your puzzlement.
Here’s an analogy.
Think of contemporary professional academic philosophy as “normal science,” puzzle solving.
At APP we’re philosophical exiles, outsiders, renegades, who think that contemporary professional academic philosophy is in crisis and are recommending a change of worldview.
In effect, we’re doomed visitors from the future on a mission to save you from yourselves, like something out of La Jetée.
So our intended audience is (i) professionals who sense the crisis, darkly, but “not really,” and (ii) philosophers of the future.
You’re genuinely puzzled because all you’re seeing is ducks, while we’re seeing all the cracks around that picture, and telling you to look for rabbits.
Anyhow, we’re not trying to be popular, not trying to be Daily Nous or Leiter Reports, etc.
We think they’re full of shit!, and an integral part of the crisis.
On the contrary, then, we’re trying to stimulate critical thinking and maybe some subversive action inside professional philosophy.
If it’s quixotic, so be it.
But we accept your point that if we were more professional, we’d probably have some money to hire someone to keep our website perfectly functional…. Oh well.
PoS: —
Z: No worries at all. Enjoy your ducks.
