Dick Cheney ordered the CIA to not inform Congress of certain operations

Don't take my word for it: see here. Yet further evidence that what the intelligence services were being manipulated by politicians.

JOB: Sheffield

NEW TWO-YEAR POSTDOC POST with AHRC CULTURE & MIND PROJECT

There is a new two year postdoc available with the AHRC Culture and the Mind project, based in the Department of Philosophy, at the University of Sheffield. The post holder will be expected to carry out original research on a topic related to the AHRC Culture and the Mind project, an interdisciplinary research project at the intersection of philosophy, anthropology, and psychology. The post holder must have completed a PhD in Philosophy or a related discipline. Applicants from disciplines other than Philosophy are very welcome provided that they are able to fully engage with life in the Philosophy Department and undertake the other responsibilities of the post.

For further information about the post, please see the AHRC Culture and the Mind homepage and follow the link for more information:
http://www.philosophy.dept.shef.ac.uk/culture&mind/

Informal inquiries should be directed to Stephen Laurence at:
S.Laurence@sheffield.ac.uk

Closing date for applications: 7 August 2009

Think you've heard it all before?

Then take a look at this bizarre case in Saudi Arabia. Wow. I'm now tempted to sue a local leprechaun for continually moving his gold everytime I follow rainbows to his latest hiding place . . . .

Many congrats to the Newcastle University class of 2009!

Today is graduation day for Politics students at the University of Newcastle. (In the UK, different subjects graduate on different days so not all students share the same graduation ceremony.) I am looking forward to the ceremony due to start in less than one hour --- in the same room that Newcastle awarded Martin Luther King an honorary degree --- and will be sorry to such a terrific class leave!

Problems raised concerning new "use in mathematics" A-level

Details here. Readers may recall my previous defence of liberal arts in the UK (see also here, here, and here). I continue to find it incredible that students may complete their secondary education without having studied literature, mathematics or science . . . at all. Moreover, I find it even more incredible that so few students receive any substantive lessons in grammar.

I mean, its like, y'no, crazee.

Defending the trial by jury

Some readers may not have seen an earlier piece I wrote in the Times Higher (UK) defending the jury trial. This piece can be found here. My edited collection, The Right to a Fair Trial, will be published by Ashgate in September.

Many thanks to Balliol

I must thank the incredibly helpful staff at Balliol College, Oxford's library, especially Penelope Bullock and Alan Tadiello. Over the past year, I have been consulting their collection of papers by Thomas Hill Green in preparation of a few articles and a book project. It has been a real pleasure to work at Balliol and I am most grateful for their continued encouragement and help.

S. Matthew Liao on a defense of intuitions

. . . can be found here in a terrific paper. Very highly recommended!

Call for Editors: Journal of Applied Philosophy

The Journal of Applied Philosophy is seeking to appoint a co-editor to work alongside the current editor, Suzanne Uniacke. The position will receive an appropriate honorarium and the appointment will initially be for three years. Expressions of interest in the position should be made, by 1st September 2009, to the Chair of the Management Committee of the Journal, Professor David Archard, from whom further information about the position can also be obtained. d.archard@lancaster.ac.uk

http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0264-3758&site=1

The Philosophers' Carnival

. . . is here.

Barry and Valentini on "Egalitarian Challenges to Global Egalitarianism"

. . . can be found here in the Review of International Studies (subscribers-only). An abstract:

Many political theorists defend the view that egalitarian justice should extend from the domestic to the global arena. Despite its intuitive appeal, this ‘global egalitarianism’ has come under attack from different quarters. In this article, we focus on one particular set of challenges to this view: those advanced by domestic egalitarians. We consider seven types of challenges, each pointing to a specific disanalogy between domestic and global arenas which is said to justify the restriction of egalitarian justice to the former, and argue that none of them – both individually and jointly – offers a conclusive refutation of global egalitarianism.


Very highly recommended!

CFP: Jurisprudence Review

Call for Papers: Jurisprudence Review, A Student-Sponsored Publication at the Washington University in St. Louis School of Law

The Review welcomes papers in the arenas of legal and political philosophy that contribute to the field of American, International or Comparative Jurisprudence. The Review is the only student-run, in-print jurisprudence journal in the United States.

If you are interested in being considered, please submit: article, abstract, CV and a brief cover letter. All submissions should be in Microsoft Word format, with citations conforming to The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (18th ed., 2005) and The Chicago Manual of Style (15th ed., 2003).

Please email submissions to the Executive Articles Editor, McCall Carter. at: mccarter@wulaw.wustl.edu

Newcastle University scientists are in the news again

Details here.

Cricket can be a dangerous game

. . . not least given an umpire recently died during a match. The tragic news is here.

Look who is in the news?

The Times Higher reports here -- an excerpt:

=============
"[. . .] Thom Brooks, reader in political and legal philosophy at Newcastle University, said: "While I am always delighted to hear ministers praise the importance of the arts and humanities, I am sceptical about how this will all come out in the wash."

He questioned why the Government had protected science and technology in the last research assessment exercise at the expense of research in the arts and humanities. "It is one thing to praise, but quite another to fund," he said. [. . .]"
=============

I couldn't have said it better myself . . . .

Plants can recognize each other?

The fascinating details are here.

Bhikhu Parekh on "Logic of Identity"

. . . in the current issue of Politics, Philosophy, and Economics (subscription-only) here. An abstract:

Identity refers, among other things, to what distinguishes an individual and makes him or her this person rather than some other. It has two closely related dimensions: personal and social. Personal identity refers to the individual's fundamental beliefs and commitments in terms of which he orientates himself to the world and defines his place in it. Social identity refers to those relations with which the individual identifies and which he regards as an integral part of himself. Social identity is inherently plural. How an individual balances and prioritizes different identities is a result of the dialectic between her self-understanding and social and political environment.

Very highly recommended!

Bad news for new graduates

The BBC reports here:

"There is further evidence of a tough graduate jobs market with a survey showing vacancies down 13.5% on 2008.

Research among the top 100 employers identified by graduates shows that the only area with significant growth was the armed forces - up 11%.

As numbers of jobs have shrunk, firms have been getting more applicants for each - a third more than last year.

High Fliers Research, which carried out the survey, said employers had cut recruitment targets by 28%.

Employers have recruited 14,370 graduates to join their payrolls - against an original target of 19,951. Last year, there were 16,614 graduates recruited."

This is even further worrying given that the class of 2009 would have paid the raised top-up fees. It will be interesting to see how this plays out . . .

Andy Murray is on a roll

. . . and will now play in the semi-final. I think he may well win it all . . .

Bhikhu Parekh on the UN and the Responsibility to Protect

. . . from his speech in the House of Lords (link here):


"My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, for securing and introducing the debate. I extend a particularly warm welcome to my noble friend Lady Kinnock of Holyhead. She brings to this House great experience, wisdom and courage as well as a fine record of commitment to the cause of justice.

I endorse the United Nations report on the responsibility to protect. It identifies four major evils and tries to tell us how to anticipate and deal with them. These evils are genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. I have nothing against the doctrine of responsibility to protect. In fact, I endorse it wholeheartedly. However, as the document is formulated, there are important gaps. I will briefly highlight five of them, and hope that the Minister will feed them into the appropriate channels.

First, those four evils overlap. It is not easy, for example, to distinguish between genocide and crimes against humanity or between genocide and war crimes. Equally importantly, these evils arise differently. Some arise because the state is evil. Others arise because the state has collapsed. In one case, the state is responsible, in the other, the absence of the state is responsible. These two situations need to be distinguished because they call for two kinds of responses. The United Nations document tends to homogenise them and fails to appreciate the need for different strategies.

Secondly, we need to evolve a global consensus on what obligations and responsibilities the outside world has. We tend to assume that the West, or the world at large, has the responsibility to intervene in situations of this kind. There are major powers that take a different view because they have suffered at the hands of the West's doctrine of intervention. China, for example, places great responsibility on the doctrine of sovereignty and does not think that it is its business to interfere when evils of this kind occur. The Chinese have made that very clear in their official policy documents. To some extent, India has tended to take this view as well, because it does not want outside powers to interfere in Kashmir or with lots of other internal problems.

The United Nations document makes the mistaken assumption that there is already a universal consensus on intervening in situations of this kind. That is arrogant and presumptuous. We must develop a global consensus by encouraging a dialogue between the western and Chinese points of view. Both make important points. Unless we do so, we will be working at cross purposes.

The third point that needs some attention is the document's total absence of mention of the need to restructure the United Nations. The United Nations as it is constituted, its structure and procedures, reflect the world of the late 1940s. It is dominated by the Security Council, where five members have the right of veto. The United Nations is seen as just another stage for its members to pursue their national interests. It should become a genuinely global forum where members deliberate in a calm and disinterested manner and reflect the viewpoint of humanity at large. If the United Nations is to carry moral and political authority it will need to be far more representative than it is. Muslim voices and the voices of other developing countries need to be given greater prominence. I should also have thought that the United Nations would benefit greatly if it had a standing commission keeping a global watch on the world at large and alerting the world community to potentially dangerous situations.

Fourthly, in situations of the four evils that we talked about, military intervention sometimes becomes necessary. No one can deny that. But military intervention cannot be the first course of action. When it is undertaken, it needs to be guided by an appropriate ethics, which is absent.

There should be clear guiding principles as to when it should be undertaken to ensure consistency in international action. It should be authorised by the United Nations and well judged, because military intervention works in certain situations and not in others. It would not work in Myanmar or Burma today and it would not have worked against Zaire under Mobutu. When the legality of military intervention is in doubt, as it was in the case of Iraq, we should make it a point of law to refer to the International Court of Justice, which would have helped us greatly in the case of Iraq. The purpose of military intervention should be not to run the country or discipline the natives and sort them out but rather to restore normalcy and hope that over time the country, now handed over to its citizens, will be able to manage its own affairs.

My fifth and final point is to do with the need to explore non-military forms of intervention. We have got into a binary opposition: either we abstain and do nothing, or we move in with armed forces. Is there no other way; no middle space that we should be exploring? I should have thought that there are half a dozen ways that we could move in such situations. Countries involved in these four evils could be expelled from international bodies, or recognition given to them in international law can be withdrawn temporarily. We could involve other agencies in civil society—for example, the churches, which wield enormous power. I am struck by the fact that the Buddhist monks endorsed the murder of Pol Pot or that the Vatican itself stayed quiet in relation to Rwanda. [. . .]

My Lords, I want to end by saying that we need to explore non-military forms of intervention."

Bhikhu Parekh on "Private and Public Spheres in India"

. . . recently published in CRISSP (e.g., Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy), subscription-only link is here. The abstract:

"In the traditional Indian way of life, the social realm consisting of the joint family, the kinship network and the caste plays a dominant role, and colonises both the private and public spheres. This is challenged by the increasingly influential ideas of personal autonomy, equal citizenship and a democratically constituted public realm. The tension between the two provides a clue to much of contemporary Indian political life. India cannot successfully cope with it without redefining the boundaries between private and public spheres and developing appropriate norms for them. "

Highly recommended!

Publishing Advice for Graduate Students

I will be re-drafting my "Publishing Advice for Graduate Students" in light of the excellent comments I have received each year from the seminars and workshops I have given on publishing. This paper can be found here. My abstract is:

"Graduate students often lack concrete advice on publishing. This essay is an attempt to fill this important gap. Advice is given on how to publish everything from book reviews to articles, replies to book chapters, and how to secure both edited book contracts and authored monograph contracts, along with plenty of helpful tips and advice on the publishing world (and how it works) along the way in what is meant to be a comprehensive, concrete guide to publishing that should be of tremendous value to graduate students working in any area of the humanities and social sciences. "

I have been particularly amazed at how popular the piece has become with nearly 4,000 downloads since I first posted this in January 2008.

Over the next week I will be visiting the Palace of Westminster and an exciting conference in Belfast . . . so my blogging may not be as regular over the next week as usual. (Things will return to normal in early July.) However, in the meantime, I would be very grateful for any comments readers had on how the piece might be improved. I regularly update this advice -- an earlier piece posted in December 2005 has now been downloaded over 2,700 times --and I am keen for the advice to remain one of the best on the web, not least given its popularity. As you will see, I also happily acknowledge the great feedback I've had over the years. So, if you have some ideas, then I would be particularly interested to hear of them soon.

The new piece on publishing will be posted this summer.

Studentships at York

Two Graduate Teaching Scholarships
Department of Philosophy, University of York

The Department of Philosophy is growing rapidly at all levels. As part of this development the department wishes to expand its team of Graduate Teaching Assistants by offering two scholarships to support PhD students in their studies, and provide career development opportunities for those planning an academic career.

Anyone intending to apply who has not already applied to the Department’s PhD programme must do so separately before the closing date for these scholarships.

Successful candidates will be expected to teach up to 6 hours a week of seminars and tutorials to first-year undergraduates during term-time, to mark student work and assist in monitoring the academic progress of first-year students. Training will be provided.

Two scholarships of £6,000 pa plus fee waiver at the home rate are available from 1st October 2009 and will last for three years, subject to satisfactory performance and academic progress.


How to apply

Further details are available from: Dr Nick Jones, Director of the First Year
Programme, Department of Philosophy, University of York, YO10 5DD. nj509@york.ac.uk

To apply, send a full curriculum vitae detailing educational history and any relevant experience to the above address, to arrive no later than Friday 17th July. Shortlisted candidates will be notified on Friday 24th July and interviews held on Friday 31st July.

Please ask two referees to write directly to Dr Nick Jones as above before 24th July.

We can't all be philosopher-kings

Readers may know of my sympathy for unelected experts holding key positions in politics (for two of many examples, see here and here, also here). I think that canonical texts, such as Plato's Laws and Hegel's Philosophy of Right, are correct to claim both that the people's elected representatives should have a veto on the exercise of political power, but that there is a place for experts in government. Plus, I agree with Joseph Schumpeter that democracy is rule by the politicians, not rule by the people. We also agree that an expert bureaucracy is a necessary component of any modern government, democratic or otherwise.

I begin with this preface not to pick a battle with the vast majority of democratic theorists who may disagree (and disagree strongly) with me. Instead, it is to point out that even those of us who are symapthetic to unelected experts holding key positions readily admit the major problems.

Enter the latest case study: Iran. The BBC reports today:

======================
"[. . .] Earlier, Iran's Guardian Council said it had nearly finished examining the allegations of vote-rigging and had found no irregularities.

"We have had no fraud in any presidential election and this one was the cleanest election we have had," a spokesman for the election watchdog, Abbasali Kadkhodai, told the Irna news agency.

"I can say with certainty that there was no fraud in this election." [. . .]" Full details here.
======================

There are a variety of views claiming that there most definitely were irregularities with this election (see here or here).

It is hard to believe that no irregularities of any kind were found anywhere with this election --- even if one is satisfied with the end result. The extreme measures undertaken by the Iranian government only seems to heighten the suspicions of so many.

In the end, we can't all be philosopher-kings. Members of Iran's Guardian Council certainly are not.

How I best remember Michael Jackson

. . . through the interpretation of Weird Al, that is.

The United States defeats Spain 2-0 in football

If only England could play as well as the US . . . Details here.

JOB: Manchester

Lectureship in Politics (Political Theory)
School of Social Sciences Politics
Closing date: 07/07/2009Reference: HUM/90779

Applications are invited for the above continuing lectureship in Politics, specializing in Political Theory, tenable from 1 September 2009. The successful candidate will join the Politics discipline area and be attached to the Manchester Centre for Political Theory (MANCEPT). We are looking for demonstrable evidence or potential evidence of research excellence in Politics. Applicants must have, or be about to complete, a relevant PhD and have research and teaching interests in the core areas of contemporary analytic political theory including theories of justice (including global justice), equality, rights and responsibility. Applicants must have experience of providing high quality teaching at undergraduate and/or postgraduate level and will teach undergraduate and postgraduate modules in Political Theory, supervise dissertations and make appropriate teaching contributions across Politics, as required.

Salary
£32,458 - £35,469 p.a. (Grade 6) / £36,533 - £44,931 p.a. (Grade 7)

Informal enquiries
Name: Professor Alan Hamlin, Head of MANCEPTTel: + 44 (0) 161 275 4906
Email: alan.hamlin@manchester.ac.uk

OR
Name: Professor Inderjeet ParmarTel: + 44 (0) 161 275 3056
Email: inderjeet.parmar@manchester.ac.uk

Further details: http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/jobs/academic/vacancy/index.htm?ref=158532

Journal of Moral Philosophy 6(3) (2009)

JOURNAL OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY:
An International Journal of Moral, Political, and Legal Philosophy
(ISSN 1740-4681)

Volume 6, Number 3 (2009)

ARTICLES

Alex Friedman, 'Intransitive Ethics', pp. 277-97

David Lefkowitz, 'Partiality and Weighing Harm to Non-Combatants', pp. 298-316

Gerald Lang, 'Luck Egalitarianism, Permissible Inequalities, and Moral Hazard', pp. 317-38

Heath White, 'Fitting Attitudes, Wrong Kinds of Reasons, and Mind-Independent Goodness', pp. 339-64

Leo Zaibert, 'The Paradox of Forgiveness', pp. 365-93

REVIEW ARTICLE

Robert Stern, 'The Autonomy of Morality and the Morality of Autonomy', pp. 395-415

All issues of the Journal of Moral Philosophy are available on Swetswise here and IngentaConnect here.

Subscription information can be found on our Brill website here.

Please direct all enquiries regarding article or discussion submissions to the Editor, Thom Brooks (Newcastle).

Please direct all enquiries regarding review articles and books for review to the Reviews Editor, Fabian Freyenhagen (Essex).

What would you do if you learned that there was "a tiny chance" that Earth might collide with Mars or Venus?

You have about one billion years to come to a conclusion! Details here.

What really happened at Roswell?

The BBC reports here.

Professor Sir Liam Donaldson appointed as Chancellor of Newcastle University

Details here. He replaces Lord Patten of Barnes.

JOB: Leeds

University of Leeds
Faculty of Arts
Department of Philosophy

Lecturer
As part of its strategy of supporting research leave, the Department of Philosophy is seeking to appoint a temporary Lecturer for one year, beginning 1 September 2009. The post arises in the first instance out of the need to cover the study leave of members of staff. The lectureship covers undergraduate and postgraduate teaching and supervision in the following area:

§ History and Philosophy of Science (particularly history and philosophy of technology)

For this appointment you will have a PhD (awarded or nearing completion) in an appropriate area of History and Philosophy of Science, relevant experience of teaching within the discipline and will be developing a publication profile appropriate for submission in the next REF exercise.
You will also be able to demonstrate effective teaching skills and a range of delivery techniques and assessment methods.

For general information see http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/

Lecturer University Grade 7 (£31,513- £35,469 p.a.)

Informal enquiries to Professor Steven French, tel +44 (0)113 343 3279, email s.r.d.french@leeds.ac.uk.

To apply on line please visit http://www.leeds.ac.uk and click on ‘jobs’. Application packs are also available via email recruitment@adm.leeds.ac.uk, tel +44 (0)113 343 5771.

Closing date Friday,10th July

It is expected that interviews will take place on Thursday, 30th July

Studentship: Birmingham

The School of Philosophy, Theology and Religion at the University of Birmingham offers a last minute scholarship for an MPhil(B) student in Philosophy of Religion, Religious Studies or Theology.

The scholarship covers the cost of Home/EU fees (£3,390) and a maintenance grant of £9,280. Please note that the scholarship is only for a student with a 1st class honours degree in a relevant area.

If you are interested please contact me (Y.Nagasawa@bham.ac.uk), Philip Goff (p.goff@bham.ac.uk) or David Cheetham (d.cheetham@bham.ac.uk) AS SOON A POSSIBLE (ideally by the end of today). We need to find a qualified candidate extremely urgently.

Special meeting called at Queen's University

Details are here.

UPDATE: The latest is here.

If you want something done

. . . then always ensure you speak in the right ear of others. Curious details here.

JOB: Sheffield (2)

Sheffield's Philosophy Department seeks to make two fixed term appointments.

In order to replace Prof. Bob Hale, who has been awarded a Leverhulme Major Research Fellowship, the Department has advertised a lectureship (fixed term), from October 1st 2009.
AOS is open, but an ability to teach philosophy of mind to second year undergraduates and/or political philosophy may be an advantage.

In order to replace Prof. David Owens, who also holds a Leverhulme Major Research Fellowship, the Department seeks to appoint a Teaching Associate. This post will run from September 2009 to January 2010. In this case, our needs are for someone able to teach phenomenology and either Kant, Hegel or political philosophy (all to third year undergraduates).

Further details of the post, including information on how to apply, can be found here:
http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/jobs/academic.html

The Sheffield Department is one of the strongest in the UK, in both teaching and research.
For more information see: http://www.shef.ac.uk/philosophy

Informal inquiries should be directed to Rob Hopkins (r.hopkins@shef.ac.uk). Applications should be made via the University's job website, listed above. The closing date for applications for each post is July 10th.

Prof. Robert Hopkins
Head of Department
Philosophy
University of Sheffield
Sheffield S10 2TN
0114 222 0572
Tel. 0114 222 0572 (personal)
0114 222 0571 (secretary)

Workshop on Pluralism and Innovation

INTERPRETATION: PLURALISM AND INNOVATION

A discussion panel with
Joseph RAZ
Timothy ENDICOTT
Roger SCRUTON
Nicos STAVROPOULOS

Wednesday 24 June, 4.30pm (drinks from 4pm) (venue to be confirmed)

Our speakers will focus on and explore chapter 12 of Professor Raz’s latest book, Between Authority and Interpretation: On The Theory of Law and Practical Reason (OUP 2009). The book offers the first collection of all Raz’s work on interpretation, providing a definitive overview of his contribution to understanding the nature and role of interpretation in law and the humanities.

The event will take place in LECTURE THEATRE II (Law Faculty, St Cross Buliding), on WEDNESDAY, 24 JUNE 2009 (WEEK 9), at 4.30 PM, with a SMALL RECEPTION from 4 PM. Please let us know whether you plan to attend this event (RSVP oxfordjdg@gmail.com).
We look forward to welcoming you in week 9.

Kind regards,

Raquel van der Wijk

JOB: UCL

Teaching Fellow in Political Philosophy (part-time, 25% FTE)

The Department of Political Science and School of Public Policy, ranked 6th in the UK in the 2008 RAE, is the centre of teaching and research in all fields of politics, including international relations, political theory, human rights, public policy-making and administration.

UCL wishes to appoint a part-time Teaching Fellow in Political Philosophy to run the course "Contemporary Political Philosophy 1" for postgraduate students on Masters programmes within the Department of Political Science, particularly the MA in Legal and Political Theory, and the Department of Philosophy MA in Philosophy. The course aims to provide an understanding of the central debates in contemporary political philosophy about the questions of authority, political obligation and the justification for democracy (a separate course, Contemporary Political Philosophy 2, taught by Jo Wolff in Philosophy, deals with issues of distributive justice, equality and the liberal-communitarian debate).

The position includes some additional teaching on the postgraduate course "Democracy, Citizenship and Constitutions", which examines the nature and value of democracy. Further details of the programmes and courses available in the Department of Political Science are available
here: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/spp/teaching/masters-programme/.

Applicants should possess a PhD in politics or political philosophy or an appropriate discipline (those nearing completion of a PhD will also be considered) and previous experience of teaching in a related subject at postgraduate level is desirable.

The appointment is offered on a part-time basis from 1st September 2009 to 31st January 2010. The salary is on the UCL salary scale at Grade 7, point 33 (£32,458 plus £2,781 London Allowance per annum) at 25% pro rata, i.e., £8,810 per annum including London Allowance.

Further details of the post and the application process are available at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/spp/jobs or from n.henson@ucl.ac.uk <mailto:n.henson@ucl.ac.uk>

*Closing date: Monday 6th July, 2pm*

It is anticipated that interviews will be held on Monday 27th July.

JOB: Southampton (2)

Lecturer in Global Politics -- details here.

Teaching Fellow in Global Politics (two year fixed term) -- details here.

JOB: York

The Department of Politics at the University of York is advertising an open lectureship in political philosophy. Details can be found here.

JOB: KCL

Research Assistant
Department of Philosophy
King's College London
http://www.jobs.ac.uk/jobs/JX234/

JOB: Bristol

Teaching Fellow in Philosophy
School of Arts
University of Bristol
http://www.jobs.ac.uk/jobs/QV107/

Templeton Research Fellows Program

Templeton Research Fellows Program

The John Templeton Foundation (JTF), the Society of Christian Philosophers (SCP), the University of Oklahoma and Oxford University are pleased to announce the Templeton Research Fellows program for 2010-2011. The Templeton Research Fellows program is designed to promote extended international exchange at Oxford University with philosophers of religion and scientists. This one-year fellowship is intended to advance new research in the philosophy of religion and to further the professional development of Fellows.

The Templeton Research Fellows Program offers fellowships devoted to (i) philosophy of religion or (ii) philosophical theology or (iii) interdisciplinary research areas between philosophy of religion and the natural sciences (with preference given to projects targeting the intersection (a) between philosophy of religion and philosophy of logic/mathematics or (b) between philosophy of religion and philosophy of physics and cosmology).

We invite recent Ph.D.’s and more advanced scholars in the fields of the philosophy of religion, the philosophy of science, the philosophy of mathematics and logic, and the philosophy of physics or scientific cosmology to apply for a year-long fellowship, in residence, at Oxford University for the opportunity to engage in sustained contact with some of the world’s foremost philosophers, scientists, historians of science, theologians, and other specialists in religion.
Two scholars will be chosen for the 2010-2011 year of the program. Junior Fellows receive a $50,000 fellowship award (plus benefits), as well as travel and research-related expenses. Senior Fellows receive a $70,000 fellowship award (plus benefits), as well as travel and research-related expenses. There will also be funds available to attend post-fellowship conferences and to lead post-fellowship workshops.

Click http://www.societyofchristianphilosophers.com/news-and-events/ for a complete description of the fellowship program.

Should you have any questions about the program and application process, please e-mail either the Program Administrator, Joshua Seachris, at jseachris@ou.edu, or the Program Director, Linda Zagzebski, at lzagzebski@ou.edu.

English lessons "could improve"

. . . in England and the rest of the UK. Details here, and not surprising.

Philosophers Anonymous brings philosophy to life once more

. . . with this amusing story here.

Fabian Freyenhagen and the Forum for European Philosophy

Forum for European Philosophy Event

Provocations

Thursday, 18 June, 7.00-8.30pm
Institut Français, 17 Queensberry Place, South Kensington, SW7

Adorno on How to Live the Wrong Life
Fabian Freyenhagen, Department of Philosophy, University of Essex

All events are free and open to all without registration. For further information contact Juliana Cardinale: 020 7955 7539 J.Cardinale@lse.ac.uk

Forum for European Philosophy
Room J5, European Institute
London School of Economics, WC2A 2AE
http://www.philosophy-forum.org/

I strongly encourage any readers in the London area to attend.

The Philosophers' Carnival

. . . is here.

I must say that I have never before been described in this way:

=================
"So, in a hallucinatory state, I wandered even further through the North wing of the carnival. As I reached the center arena I noticed a man shouting out fantastical stories. Thom Brooks, at the top of his voice, paraded about with a cane and a straw porkpie hat. He spoke with the cadence of a 1940s newsreel narrator. “See the Wonders of Siam. Conjoined since birth. I’ll tell you all about it. I found them working for pence a day in the United Kingdom. See the jointly appointed twins.”

• Why not joint appointments in the UK? discusses the value of joint appointments in academia, which promote and recognize interdisciplinary work, and questions why they have not been implemented as much in the U.K."
=================

Very clever and well done!

The Queen's Honours List

. . . was bad news as usual, despite the fact that many academics were named in this round. Nevertheless, there were no honours for anyone in Philosophy or Politics as usual.

The good news is the following:

* Andrew Ashworth (Law, Oxford) has been awarded a CBE

* Christopher Rowe (Classics, Durham) has been awarded an OBE

The full list is here.

The best way to solve your problems

. . . is to go to sleep. Details here.

Friends of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP)

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) is undertaking a new initiative and this announcement, to members of the American Philosophical Association, outlines its potential benefits. Using grant money from the Hewlett Foundation, we have developed software to organize and administer a membership organization called the "Friends of the SEP Society". By paying modest dues to join the Society, members will be able to download nicely formatted PDF versions of SEP entries. The membership dues for the Society will be used to support SEP operations.

The new Friends of the SEP Society has both public and "members-only" web pages linked into the home page:
https://leibniz.stanford.edu/friends/

The public pages at the URL listed above offer a free sample PDF and a link ("PDF Library") which will take you to a preview page of each of the other PDFs that are available. To obtain download access to our PDF Library (other than the sample), you must become a member and log in.

We hope that members of the profession who both value the careful layout of our PDFs and applaud our efforts to make high-quality academic content freely available worldwide will support our endeavors by joining the Society. Three different kinds of membership are available:

* Associate Member/$10 per year: offers the right to download
every PDF in the SEP PDF Library, but limited to 5 different
entries/day

* Student Member/$5 per year: same priveleges as Associate
Member, but offered to students

* Professional Member/$25 per year: offers the right to
download every PDF in the SEP PDF Library, with no daily
download limits

The SEP project has undertaken this new initiative because it hasn't quite reached its overall goal of raising a $4.125 million endowment. Although Stanford University discharged its commitment to raise $1.125 million in private donations towards our overall goal, the world-wide library community wasn't quite as successful: they have raised $2.3 million towards their original $3 million goal. While we are hopeful that we will eventually raise the remaining $700,000, in the meantime the SEP budget is underfunded by about $35,000/year (= 5% on $700,000). Our library partners have endorsed our new initiative as a means of supplementing the SEP's income.

We should note that the PDFs now available in our PDF Library were generated from the entries in the (March 21) Spring 2009 Archive of the SEP. So the PDFs corresponding to SEP entries published after March 21, 2009 won't be available until the (June 21) Summer 2009 Archive. At each new quarterly SEP Archive, we will generate new PDFs for those entries that were published or altered since the previous archive.

It is also important to mention that there are some restrictions on what you can do with these PDFs. These restrictions were put in place to forestall actions that would undermine our initiative and we believe that you will find them reasonable. The most important restriction is that you are not allowed to distribute the PDFs electronically over the Internet, by sending them around via email, by linking them into a class website or your own homepage, etc.

A complete statement of our policies is located at:
Terms of Service: https://leibniz.stanford.edu/friends/info/terms/
Copyright Policy: https://leibniz.stanford.edu/friends/info/copyright/
Privacy Policy: https://leibniz.stanford.edu/friends/info/privacy/

You may find the following Frequently Asked Questions and Help pages useful:
FAQ: https://leibniz.stanford.edu/friends/info/faq/
Help: https://leibniz.stanford.edu/friends/info/help/

The Frequently Asked Questions page explains, for example, what you have to do if you want to include a PDF of an SEP entry in a course reader. Though we encourage the use of the PDF version, you still have to get the author's permission (as with the HTML version) .

We hope you find the PDF versions of SEP entries worthwhile! Please note that the software supporting the Friends of the SEP Society is now in beta release. We hope that you will write to us if you encounter any problems while using the site. Please conduct all communications about the Friends of the SEP Society through the email address "friends@leibniz.stanford.edu" (you can simply use the "Reply-To" field on this message).
All the best,


The SEP Editorial Team
-------------------------------------------------
Edward N. Zalta Principal Editor
Uri Nodelman Senior Editor
Colin Allen Associate Editor
Paul Daniell Software Engineer
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
CSLI/Cordura Hall editors@plato.stanford.edu
Stanford University ph. 650-723-0488
Stanford, CA 94305-4115 fx. 650-725-2166
-------------------------------------------------

European Epistemology Network Conference 2009

*European Epistemology Network Conference 2009*
Date: 4 July 2009 – 5 July 2009

The European Epistemology Network provides a platform for cooperation and exchange among epistemologists and those interested in the theory of knowledge in Europe.

A central event is the annual conference at which a number of papers on current issues in epistemology are presented and discussed. The 2009 conference will be hosted by the Formal Epistemology Project and the Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Science and the Arts in Brussels on July 4-5.

The conference venues are

Saturday, 4 July 2009
Stevinzaal, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Science and the Arts, Hertogsstr. 1.

Sunday, 5 July 2009
Franqui Room, University Foundation, Egmontstr. 11.


Registration is not necessary and attendance is free of charge. However, participants who wish to attend the conference lunches and/or dinner are requested to send an email to christoph.kelp@hiw.kuleuven.be before *20 June 2009*.

*Conference Schedule*
Saturday, 4 July 2009

10.00 – 11.30 Igal Kvart (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
‘Counterfactuals and Knowledge’

11.30 – 11.45 Coffee Break

11.45 – 13.00 Igor Douven (University of Leuven)
‘Proper Bootstrapping’

13.00 – 14.30 Lunch

14.30 – 15.45 Martijn Blaauw (Free University of Amsterdam)
‘Tba’

15.45 – 16.00 Coffee Break

16.00 – 17.30 Quassim Cassam (University of Warwick)
‘Knowing and Seeing: Responding to Stroud’s Dilemma’

19.30 Conference Dinner at ‘t Ogenblik
Sunday, 5 July 2009

10.15 – 11.30 Erik Olsson (University of Lund)
‘What is the Problem of Generality?’

11.30 – 11.45 Coffee

11.45 – 13.00 Klemens Kappel (University of Copenhagen)
‘Is Epistemic Expressivism Incoherent?’

13.00 – 14.30 Lunch

14.30 – 15.45 Christoph Kelp (University of Leuven)
‘A New(ish) Problem for Closure’

15.45 – 16.00 Coffee

16.00 – 17.30 Jonathan Adler (New York University)
‘Contextualism, Fallibility, and the Value of Knowing’

SWIP UK panels

Please find below details of the programme. There will also be a SWIP UK meeting, at which more information about the activities of SWIP UK will be available, on Sunday 12th, 13.00-14.00.

SWIP UK panel session at the Joint Sessions, 2009 Sunday 12th July, 14.00-16.00

Dr Sandrine Berges
University of Bilkent (Turkey)
‘Why women hug their chains: Wollstonecraft and adaptive preferences’

Kathy Butterworth
University of Kent
'The Possibility of a Decentred Autonomous Subject’

Dr Mari Mikkola
University of Lancaster
‘Illocution, Silencing & the Act of Refusal’

Dr Steinvör Arnadottir
Stirling
‘A Response to the Corpse Problem’

For further information, please contact Dawn Phillips, at
Dawn.Phillips@warwick.ac.uk or Jules Holroyd at jh671@cam.ac.uk
SWIP UK Webpage: http://www.dur.ac.uk/swipuk/
This panel is part of the Joint Sessions: registration for the Joint
Sessions as usual is required. See http://js2009.webapp2.uea.ac.uk/

Shakespeare and the Law Conference

. . . at the University of Chicago, with videos, here.

California to no longer purchase textbooks

. . . and, instead, it will use online materials. Details here. Is this the future?

The Point

I am delighted to inform readers of a new publication, The Point. It is a new twice-yearly Chicago-based print journal that aims to provide rigorous but accessible reflections on contemporary life and culture. The first issue is out now.

The first issue of The Point contains extended essays on David Foster Wallace, internet narcissism, ethical consumerism and self-help guru Eckhart Tolle; a symposium entitled 'what is politics for?', drawing on Plato, Dewey, Arendt and Niebuhr to illuminate American politics; a review section including pieces on the Creation Museum, female slackers and Gatz; and a supplement on liberalism, with contributions from Mark Lilla and Slavoj Zizek, in which Lilla asks how liberals should treat their illiberal opponents, while Slavoj Zizek asks how radicals should treat hypocritical liberals.

The Chicago Reader has covered their launch in an article that explains their goals very well:
http://blogs.chicagoreader.com/news-bites/2009/06/02/point-something-new-read-chicago/

For a taste, readers may be interested in the piece "Obama: Philosopher-King?" found here: http://www.thepointmag.com/obama1.html

Women perform best at university

Details here.

S. Matthew Liao from Oxford to NYU

I am delighted to confirm that my dear friend S. Matthew Liao (bioethics, ethics, moral and political philosophy) has accepted an offer of Associate Professor in Bioethics and Philosophy from New York University. He is current Deputy Director in the Program on the Ethics of the New Biosciences in the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Oxford.

Liao is one of the most exciting philosophers I know and this is wonderful news about a wonderful philosopher. Congrats, Matthew!

The UK's Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills is no more

One item that did not make big headlines is the ministerial shake up of British higher education. Two years ago, the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills was created and headed by John Denham. On the one hand, many were pleased that higher and further education had received a higher miniterial profile. On the other hand, many remained concerned at the link with "innovation" and "skills" which -- for some -- may have suggested that universities existed primarily to serve the needs of business rather than intellectual development that may or may not serve business needs.

Well, the sceptics have further reason to remain concerned. The Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (Dius) has now been scrapped. In its place, we will have the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Note that the difference in name is that "Universities" is removed and "Business" is added . . . and added first. The minister in charge? None other than Lord Mandelson. According to the BBC here:

=====================
"[. . .] "to build Britain's capabilities to compete in the global economy".

Number 10 said it would invest in a higher education system committed to widening participation.

The role would include "maintaining world class universities, expanding access to higher education, investing in the UK's science base and shaping skills policy and innovation".

"It also puts the UK's further education system and universities closer to the heart of government thinking about building now for the upturn," the statement said. [. . .]"
=====================

Those who feared that the government viewed universities as primarily geared towards serving business may have those fears further confirmed. One consequence is the concern that those working in the arts, humanities, and social sciences will all be treated as second-class citizens: note the language of "investing in the UK's science base" suggesting any added investment will be directed to the physical sciences alone. A further consequence is additional emphasis on applied research rather than blue skies research.

There are other conserns as well. The former Dius focussed solely on England because of devolution in the UK. Yet, Lord Mandelson's business portfolio appears to remain UK-wide. Thus, the new Dbis appears to be an awkward hybrid where some of its powers are UK-wide and some relate to England alone. It is unclear how this split in remit will be managed, at least according to the BBC here.

My view? This is further disappointing news.

Anti-Semitism Symposium

Oxford University Chabad Society cordially invites you to a symposium"Anti-Semitism: Philosophical, Historical, and Literary Perspectives"

Hosting:
Dr. Brian Klug, lecturer in philosophy, St Benet's Hall "The Concept of anti-Semitism"

Dr. Peter Claus, Historian, Pembroke College, Oxford University "Get back to
Palestine: Mosley and anti-Semitism in the East End of London in between the Wars"

Dr. Beth Tovey, lecturer in Old English literature, Magdalen College, Oxford University "Anti-Semitism in Old-English literature"

Stephen J. Ross, DPhil candidate, English faculty, St John's College, Oxford University "T.E. Eliot & anti-Semitism"

Guy Sela, DPhil candidate, Law faculty, Keble College, Oxford University "Anti-Semitism and Condemnation"

Sun, 7 June, 7pm. At Slager Jewish student centre, 61 George St. RSVP/Info:
info@oxfordchabad.org All Welcome.

You're hired!

Perhaps today should have been a day of bold new appointments in PM Gordon Brown's reshuffle of his cabinet. Yet another minister has stepped down amidst calls within the Labour Party for Brown to step down. One positive change was adding Alan Johnson as Home Secretary. Most others have kept their positions in what appears as a very minor --- too little, too late? --- reshuffle.

The one item that has caught some attention is the appointment of Sir Alan Sugar --- the star of the reality television show The Apprentice with his catch phrase "you're fired!" --- as the new enterprise tsar. It is widely expected that Brown will nominate him to join the House of Lords. Details here.

Thus, the Prime Minister turns to reality tv to help save his political skin. My only surprise is he did not sound out Simon Cowell as entertainment tsar --- after all, why stop at Sir Alan (or should we prepare to call him "Lord Sugar")?

I cannot help but think this is not going to improve Brown's position. An opportunity lost. Now let's all await the headline we know is on the horizon --- thanks to Simon Kirchin for noting this to me --- "Brown: you're fired!"

UPDATE: How bad a night was it for Labour? Try this: they no longer control a single county council in England. Details here.

British Academy recommends compulsory GCSE in foreign language for university admissions

. . . which is a fantastic idea. Details here.

I would hope that things would go even further. If this were to be a reality, then students would be taught formal grammar for a foreign language, but lack substantive formal grammar training in English. The one genuine surprise I have had since moving from the US to the UK is how little grammar students tend to be taught.

Anyone care for "vampire" this evening?

. . . which is a dish of fried blood, onions, and spices 'making a come back'. Curious details here.

Thick Concepts conference

Note - second advert. There is a late booking fee after Friday 5th June.

THICK CONCEPTS
Friday 3rd - Sunday 5th July 2009
University of Kent, UK
Sponsors: The Analysis Trust, The Mind Association, The University of Kent.

Speakers include: Jonathan Dancy, Daniel Elstein, Allan Gibbard, Edward Harcourt, Chris Hookway, Simon Kirchin, Adrian Moore, Michael Smith, Alan Thomas, Pekka Vayrynen, and Nick Zangwill.

Registration for this event has now opened.

Details available here (including open session details, provisional timetable, travel directions, etc.):

http://www.kent.ac.uk/secl/concepts

Bookings can be made via credit card or by downloading a form and posting.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to get in touch.

Best wishes,

Simon
--------------------------------------
Simon Kirchin, Senior Lecturer
Philosophy, SECL,
Cornwallis NW Building,
University of Kent,
Canterbury, CT2 7NF, UK

0044 (0) 1227 827585

President, British Society for Ethical Theory
http://www.bset.org.uk/

JOB: Southampton

Research Fellowship in Philosophy at Southampton University

£27,183 - £33,432 per annum

Applications are invited for a Research Fellowship in Philosophy. The Fellowship will be for the 2009-10 academic year in the first instance. Applications are especially welcome from candidates pursuing research in areas that will allow them to forge research links with colleagues in other areas of the University, such as the Schools of Medicine and Law.

You will show evidence of excellent research potential, but will also be willing and able to take the initiative in developing projects that will consolidate the profile of Philosophy in the University and more widely. In addition to pursuing your own research, you will also work with colleagues, including colleagues from other parts of the University, to develop bids for future research funding.

You will be well-supported in your career development by mentoring and advice on publishing etc, and some funding for conference attendance will be provided.

The Research Fellowship is open to all candidates who are, by the closing date, within three years of receiving their doctorate. Account will be taken of career breaks within the context of Equal Opportunities.

You should be able to take up post by 01 September 2009, or by 1 October 2009 at the latest.

Candidates should apply via the below on-line application process. In addition to a CV and list of publications, they should provide an outline of up to 1K words on their proposed project, which includes a timeline for completion within the twelve-month appointment, and which also explains how their project fits with and would contribute to research strategy.

Informal enquiries should be directed to the Head of Philosophy, Dr Alex Neill (a.d.neill@soton.ac.uk).

The closing date for completed applications is 10 June 2009 at 12.00 noon. Interviews will be held in late June/early July. Please quote reference number 3448-09-L in all correspondence.

For further details, see
http://www.jobs.soton.ac.uk/soton/jobboard/JobDetails.aspx?__ID=*9300F3F1C2E84FA5

New Directions in Bioethics Conference

UCL's Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre and Centre for Philosophy, Justice and Health are pleased to announce a forthcoming workshop -- New Directions in Bioethics on 29-30 June.

This is a workshop rather than a full-blown conference, so numbers of participants will be limited. Registration is free of charge. To register, please contact James Wilson, james-gs.wilson@ucl.ac.uk

For further details see the conference website, http://www.ucl.ac.uk/cpjh/new-directions-in-bioethics

WORKSHOP PROGRAMME:
DAY ONE: June 29
09.30 – 10.00 Coffee and Registration
10.00-10.45 Stephen Wilkinson (Keele), Saviour Selection and Organ Donation
10.45-11.30 John Worrall (LSE), Ethics and Epistemology in Clinical Trials
11.30 – 12.00 Coffee
12.00-12.45 Iain Brassington (Manchester) What’s Wrong with the Brain Drain?
12.45 – 2.00 Lunch
2.00 – 2.45 Milena Nuti (Birkbeck), Appeals to intuition: methodological implications
2.45 – 3.30 Stephen John (Cambridge) What went right in the case of MMR?
3.30 – 4.00 Tea
4.00 – 6.00 Roundtable discussion: Should the UK have a National Bioethics Advisory Body?
Panellists: Martin Wilkinson (Auckland), Harald Schmidt (Nuffield Council on Bioethics), Jonathan Wolff (UCL), Adam Hedgecoe (Cardiff)
7.00 Conference Dinner

DAY TWO: June 30
10.00-10.45 David Hunter (Keele) Not just Justice – alternative justifications for the provision of health care
10.45-11.15 Coffee
11.15 -12.00 Ainsley Newson (Bristol), Title TBC
12.00 – 12.45 Janet Radcliffe-Richards (Oxford), Title TBC
1.00 – 2.00 Lunch
2.00 – 2.45 Marcel Verweij (Utrecht), Infectious disease control and the harm principle
2.45 – 3.30 Martin Wilkinson (Auckland), The conscription of organs
3.30 – 4.00 Tea
4.00 – 4.45 Soren Holm (Cardiff), Should we completely rethink the basis for research ethics?
4.45 – 5.30 Tom Douglas (Oxford), Scientific Isolationism: Are there reasons not to pursue dual-use research?
5.30 Close

The end of the electric guitar?

Philosopher James Alexander writes this piece in the Times Higher Education recently (in a series entitled "Off piste: A fortnightly series in which academics step outside their area of expertise"). I am particularly drawn to this passage:

==============
"[. . . ] It might be noticed that I mention only English guitarists, with one exception. Lists of the greatest guitarists of all time by magazines such as Rolling Stone are laughable. There is hardly one classic electric guitarist to have come from America. Blues, jazz, country, etc, indeed - and they have mastered the art of the Paganinistic solo in grand masters such as Steve Vai and Joe Satriani. But these are not guitarists with the right spirit, able to serve and transcend music at the same time.

It is in England that an odd mixture of pluck, determination and ignorance came to fruition between 1960 and 1970. There is no guitarist worth listening to who started playing after that time: the inauthenticity is too evident. And this is simply because the musical moment had passed. The Sixties was the era of the guitar: and the Sixties happened in London. [. . .]"
==============

On this passage:

1. Steve Vai and Joe Satriani lack "the right spirit" and do not "serve and transcend music at the same time"

Some guitar enthusiasts divide guitarists between (a) the technically superior and (b) those with "more feel" (whatever this means). Those who favour (a) often think less of (b) and vice versa. The view of those who often support (b) is that technical brilliance is virtuosity, but not good musicianship. This appears to be at work here: Vai's and Satriani's sins are apparently being limited to technical prowess rather than producing music that is enjoyable to listen to.

I find this a real stretch, and especially with Vai. Anyone who has followed his career from at least as far back as his work with Frank Zappa through to his solo material surely can tell this is a genuine musical talent. Some will always prefer some material to others, but "Call It Sleep" and even "Salamanders in the Sun" are outstanding tracks --- and, normally with Vai, one is amazed that a guitar can make so many different sounds. Indeed, Vai wins my vote as one of the guitarist who has transcended what has happened before perhaps more than most others. It's odd to say his guitar playing is so amazing, his sound so fresh, and his style so unique that most guitarists are unable to play his songs, thus, he's a worse player than Eric Clapton.

2. There are no classic electric guitarists who are American

Really? How about Jimi Hendrix for a start, perhaps the single greatest classic electric guitarist of them all?

3. "There is no guitarist worth listening to who started playing" after the 1960's

I strongly disagree with this judgement as well. First, Eddie Van Halen completely transformed rock guitar in previously unknown ways with the first Van Halen album. Some may prefer other bands, but surely Eddie Van Halen's classic work is most definitely worth listening to. Secondly, again, Steve Vai. He makes his guitar sing, even talk. His work with Zappa was incredible and clearly well worth listening to as well. Thirdly, there is Frank Zappa himself -- in my view, the greatest guitarists of them all and some of the most exciting music to be found. We can list more: what of Allan Holdsworth? What of the Allman Brothers or Lynyrd Skynyrd? What of Thin Lizzy? What of KISS? Some will prefer some over others. However, all are well worth listening to, each did something new and original, and each help further innovate modern guitar playing whether it's "Blue Skies" or "Gimme Three Steps" or "Strutter" or even "The Boys are Back in Town," etc.

Mustaine coffee

After I was told about it, I had to see it to believe it. Wow! Details here and I will looking for it now!

Of local interest: New Greyhound cd available at JG Windows

My old friends in the rock band Greyhound have released a new cd, The Art of Seeing, available at J. G. Windows in Newcastle. You can also order copies here. (Do tell them the Brooks Blog sent you.) I have just received my copy and enjoying it thoroughly, as expected!

The cd will be launched on 17th July at the Cumberland Arms . . . with a possible special guest appearance by someone readers may know!

Justin Fisher on MP expenses

. . . in the Times Higher Education here.

More on the way soon...

Over the last week or two, it has been end of term here at Newcastle. My marking is now finished and I will be back to more substantial blog posts shortly including some new work on global justice and the environment, as well as on Dworkin's legal philosophy.

A very British story

Details here.

The Philosophers' Carnival

. . . is here.

Sonia Sotomayor - the new US Supreme Court Justice?

Barack Obama has now made his selection of Sonia Sotomayor for the US Supreme Court. (Details here.) If nominated, then she would become the first Hispanic on the Court.

Why not joint appointments in the UK?

Today, academics in the United Kingdom are under increasing pressure to engage in further interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research. Research Councils more regularly favour projects and proposals that bring together two or more academic disciplines. We find that greater funding is ever more available for ‘bridging’ teams from different disciplines together in order to stimulate new lines of enquiry and collaborative research enterprises. As a result of these developments, it has become ever more difficult to justify working solely in a single disciplinary subject with funding applications, evoking a variety of concerns from many academics.

In addition, the landscape has changed as any number of universities has been restructured with departments disappearing as they become swallowed up into new schools that bring together several different disciplinary subjects. Part of the justification that many universities have offered for this move is that these schools might best facilitate increased interdisciplinary teaching and research, or at least between the subjects that are now brought together under a single school. Moreover, local funding for projects and seminar series are also widely available at many universities, but normally only if this funding would bring benefit to at least two schools or more, covering a wide array of disciplines.

Whatever the merits of the school structure and other recent developments, the commitment of universities, research councils, and government to encouraging greater collaboration between academic disciplines is nowhere in question. It is then rather puzzling why we find joint appointments virtually nowhere in British universities. What can explain this? Indeed, if the goal sought after by all universities, research councils, and others is greater collaboration between academic disciplines, then why ensure that all academic appointments are only in a single discipline (or school)? A new system where appointments might include two or even more disciplines is much needed and long overdue.

I believe that joint appointments are the way forward for several reasons. If it is beneficial for academics to work more closely in more than a single discipline, then it is surely wise to appoint academics to more than one discipline when it is appropriate. This move forward would help better expose colleagues to more ideas and research programmes than the case would be otherwise. Indeed, if developments in different disciplines may have importance for and bring benefit to other disciplines, then it should become more commonplace for academics in one discipline to be granted a second appointment in a second discipline in order to more regularly demonstrate the value added in their teaching and research.

Moreover, many current academic staff already teach and research in more than one discipline: where appropriate, joint appointments would recognize the actual contributions of staff in their current teaching and research. Thus, while joint appointments may not be best for everyone, they should be on the table to offer proper acknowledgement of the work actually performed by academic staff members. Furthermore, this recognition might further encourage others to engage more often in interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary work thereby best fulfilling the clearly stated commitments of universities, research councils, and government. Additionally, joint appointments might encourage academic staff to more vigorously pursue research across disciplines, as well as clearly embody the multidisciplinary ethos within higher education today.

These appointments have been a great success elsewhere, such as in Canada and the United States, where many leaders in various fields hold joint appointments. These professors are highly prized and a joint appointment is often a clear recognition of their influence beyond a single discipline. Various combinations of joint appointments exist in business, classics, economics, law, medicine, philosophy, political science, and other subjects are far from unusual. Nor does this lack sense. Each of these disciplines may benefit from greater interaction with other disciplines. A joint appointment might help build more lasting bridges between disciplines than a funded research project: projects come and go, but an appointment will often last far longer and potentially have a far greater effect on relevant fields of study and a university’s teaching and research environment. As the UK continues to compete with North American universities, we could all do well to overcome our disadvantage in failing to offer joint appointments.

This is a model that should be adopted in this country. If our universities, the research councils, and the government are sincere about their desire for greater collaboration between disciplines, then I believe that one significant and highly welcome proof of their conviction would be to open the doors to joint appointments. And the sooner, the better.

UPDATE: My great thanks to Brian Leiter for alerting readers to this post. Any comments most welcome!

Thirsty? You won't be after you read this!

Now we learn that astronauts on the International Space Station are drinking their own (recycled) urine. Details here . . . and cheers!

The problem is jealousy?

This was a response from Tory MP Anthony Steen with respect to the allegation he had claimed £87,000 over the last four years from the taxpayer through MP expenses to help maintain his home. The BBC reports this here. An excerpt:

=============
A Tory MP has apologised for a BBC interview in which he said critics of his expenses claims were simply "jealous" of his country house.

Anthony Steen, who the Daily Telegraph said had claimed more than £87,000 over four years for the home, admitted his remarks were "inappropriate". [. . .]

[. . .] In an interview with Radio 4's The World At One on Wednesday, Mr Steen suggested his critics were envious because he lived in a large house that resembled Royal residence Balmoral, and had trees in the grounds that needed lopping.

Shadow foreign secretary William Hague described Mr Steen's comments as "ridiculous".

Mr Steen later said he was "deeply upset" during the interview and over-reacted.

During the interview, the 69-year-old former barrister claimed ministers had "mucked up the system" by introducing the Freedom of Information Act. [. . .]

[. . .] He added: "What right does the public have to interfere with my private life? None."
However, in a statement on Thursday, he apologised for his comments.

Mr Steen said he had been "deeply upset with the situation which resulted in me overreacting".
He said: "I am sorry that in the heat of the moment I said inappropriate things that weren't as measured as I would have liked about the Freedom of Information Act, which I entirely support." [. . .]"
=============

He will not be standing for re-election.

KISS - "Detroit Rock City"

A very special moment in my life

. . . was when I saw Kiss on "Kids are People, Too" here. I've played guitar ever since. It is odd to see how young everyone was . . .

Conference: The Atypical Perpetrator

Conference website is here.

Multidisciplinary seminar on ethics, psychiatry and legal responsibility Registration deadline: June 2 (for those who want to have lunch; registration is not required for participation). To registrate your participation please contact higher executive officer Per Jørgen Ystehede: p.j.ystehede@jus.uio.no

Tid og sted: The Atypical Perpetrator 8. jun. 2009 09:30 - 9. jun. 2009 15:30, Auditorium 14, Domus Biblioteca Legg til i kalender

Philosophers, lawyers, psychiatrists, criminologists and psychologists share an interest in the human mind and behaviour. Although the perspectives and approaches vary significantly between the disciplines, there is much to be learned from a cross-disciplinary dialogue on these matters, not least with regard to how we should relate to “atypical” agents (agents who lack moral or rational competence), when it comes to questions of moral responsibility, liability to be punished and treatment.

These questions will be addressed at a multidisciplinary seminar at the University of Oslo on June 8-9, 2009. There will be speakers and commentators representing the fields of psychiatry, law and philosophy, but also representing the different legal and psychiatric traditions of different countries. Among the speakers are:

Stephen Morse, Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology and Law in Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania

Matt Matravers, Professor at the Department of Politics, University of York

Vidar Halvorsen, Associate Professor at the Department of Criminology and Sociology of Law at the University of Oslo

Randi Rosenqvist, psychiatrist, former Head of the Norwegian Forensic Medical Board

Adina Roskies, Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, Dartmouth College

John Gunn, Emeritus Professor of Forensic Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London


About the topic of the seminar:

Most theories of punishment and moral censorship have a retributive component; sanctions are justified by reference to some kind of desert. This is true both of purely retributive theories of punishment claiming that criminals ought to be punished because they deserve punishment, and mixed versions where punishment is primarily justified as a form of prevention, but where desert operates as a constraint, so that no one should be punished unless they are at fault. For an agent to be deserving of desert, he must fulfil certain criteria of moral and legal competence: it is an empirical question whether these criteria are met in a concrete case, but it is also a legal/philosophical question what these criteria should be.

‘Atypical’ perpetrators are persons who in one way or another seem to have a defect in their moral and/or legal competence, and who, at least prima facie, are thus not fit for punishment. Psychotics, the mentally disabled, small children and people who are ‘unconscious’ at the time of the crime are normally excluded from legal responsibility. Other cases - paradigmatically presented by the psychopath – are more troubling. Psychopaths may be defined as people who are rational and thus able to predict the consequences of their actions and capable of understanding social rules and the consequences of violating rules; hence they are often seen as legally responsible. Yet they are assumed not to be morally competent because they lack the ability to grasp, apply and be motivated by moral reasons. Among the questions raised by atypical perpetrators, and which will be discussed at the workshop are:

Is there an overlap between legal and moral responsibility, and is the overlap dependent on which kind of theory one appeals to in justifying punishment?

How do we deal with persons who are rationally capable but morally incompetent?

What is the significance of underlying neurobiological features for determining when an agent lacks the capacity for being held responsible?

To which extent does our view on atypical perpetrators affect our views on typical perpetrators? Can we draw general lessons about responsibility from such cases? In particular, if we argue that atypical perpetrators are not legally responsible because of certain neurological defects, what does this imply for the case of typical perpetrators, whose actions are also due to their neurological underpinnings?

Philosophers, lawyers, psychiatrists, criminologists and psychologists share an interest in the human mind and behaviour. Although the perspectives and approaches vary significantly between the disciplines, there is much to be learned from a cross-disciplinary dialogue on these matters, not least with regard to how we should relate to “atypical” agents (agents who lack moral or rational competence), when it comes to questions of moral responsibility, liability to be punished and treatment.


Programme details:
Monday June 8
09.30 Coffee

Welcome/Introduction (Lene Bomann-Larsen/Jakob Elster): 10.00-10.30

Session 1: 10.30-12.00; Stephen Morse: “The Responsibility and Social Control of Psychopathic Offenders”; commentator: Pål Hartvig

Lunch: 1200-1300

Session 2: 13.00-14.30; Adina Roskies: "Beyond Freedom and Resentment: Causation and the atypical perpetrator"; commentator: Jon Lindstrøm

Coffee Break: 1430-1500

Session 3: 15.00-16.30; Vidar Halvorsen: “Punishing «Psychopaths»”; commentator: Øyvind Holst


Tuesday June 9

Session 4: 9.00-10.30; John Gunn: “Dr Shipman - A very unusual case?”; commentator: TBA

Coffee break

Session 5: 1100-1230; Randi Rosenqvist: “The Norwegian Insanity Defence, in theory different from the rest of the world.”; commentator: Olav Gjelsvik

Lunch 12.30-13.30

Session 6: 13.30-15.00; Matt Matravers: “Psychopathy: the politics of responsibility and dangerousness; commentator”: Jakob Elster

You will find the abstracts here

Workshop: Constructivism and Practical Reason

Workshop: Constructivism and Practical Reason
University of Sheffield, 20th June, 2009

10.00 - registration and coffee
10.30 - Jussi Suikkanen (University of Leeds): "'Restricted Constructivism'"
11.45 - coffee
12.15 - Michael Ridge (University of Edinburgh): "Kantian Constructivism:
Something Old, Something New"
1.30 - lunch
2.30 - Carla Bagnoli (University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee): "The Activity of Practical Reason"
3.45 - coffee
4.15 - T. M. Scanlon (Harvard University): "Constructivism: What? And Why?"
5.45 - end of workshop.

Information about registration and prices is here: http://constructivism09.wordpress.com/registration/

The workshop will take place in the Humanities Research Institute of the University of Sheffield which is located in the Douglas Knoop Centre. Directions are here:
http://www.shef.ac.uk/hri/findus.html

Any inquiries please direct to Heather Arnold: H.E.Arnold@sheffield.ac.uk

This is the third of four events at Sheffield that will comprise the AHRC-funded project on Constructivism in Practical Philosophy. For details of the rest of the project see our main website: http://constructivism09.wordpress.com/

Nussbaum conference in Newcastle

Nussbaum’s Liberty of Conscience: Author Meets Critics

Friday, 12th June 2009

Research Beehive room 2.21
Old Library Building
Newcastle University

Conference website is here

Martha C. Nussbaum is one of the most significant moral and political philosophers today. Her recent work Liberty of Conscience: In Defense of America’s Tradition of Religious Equality marks a significant contribution to how we should respond to questions concerning the freedom of religious expression in a multicultural society. This conference will bring together four leading political philosophers—Chandran Kukathas (LSE), Peter Jones (Newcastle), Anne Phillips (LSE), and Susan Mendus (York)—with individual replies by Martha Nussbaum (Chicago) discussing themes in Liberty of Conscience.

Programme:

10.00-10.30am
Registration (tea/coffee)

10.30-11.45pm
Speaker: Susan Mendus (York)
Should religion be special?
Respondent: Martha Nussbaum (Chicago)
Chair: Thom Brooks (Newcastle)

11.45-12.30pm
Lunch

12.30-1.45pm
Speaker: Peter Jones (Newcastle)
Liberty of conscience and equality: How accommodating should we be?
Respondent: Martha Nussbaum (Chicago)
Chair: Thom Brooks (Newcastle)

1.45-2.00pm
Break

2.00-3.15pm
Speaker: Anne Phillips (LSE)
Should Europe be more like America? Reflections on Martha Nussbaum’s Liberty of Conscience
Respondent: Martha Nussbaum (Chicago)
Chair: Thom Brooks (Newcastle)

3.15-3.45pm
Tea/coffee

3.45-5.00pm
Speaker: Chandran Kukathas (LSE)
Pax Americana: On Nussbaum’s Liberty of Conscience
Respondent: Martha Nussbaum (Chicago)
Chair: Thom Brooks (Newcastle)

Martha C. Nussbaum is Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago, appointed in the Philosophy Department, Law School, and Divinity School. She is an Associate in the Classics Department and the Political Science Department, an Affiliate of the Committee on Southern Asian Studies, and a Board Member of the Human Rights Program. She is the founder and coordinator of the Centre for Comparative Constitutionalism. She has been elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, as well as having been a member of its Council. She is also a member of the American Philosophical Society and a Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy. She has received honorary degrees from thirty-two colleges in the United States, Canada, Asia, and Europe. Her books include Aristotle’s De Motu Animalium (1978), The Fragility of Goodness (1986), Love’s Knowledge (1990), The Therapy of Desire (1994), Poetic Justice (1996), For Love of Country (1996), Cultivating Humanity (1997), Sex and Social Justice (1998), Women and Human Development (2000), Upheavals of Thought (2001), Hiding from Humanity (2004), Frontiers of Justice (2006), The Clash Within (2007), and Liberty of Conscience: In Defense of America’s Tradition of Religious Equality. In addition, she has edited over a dozen books. Nussbaum has published in several leading journals, including Ethics, Philosophy and Public Affairs, and the Journal of Moral Philosophy amongst many others.

Chandran Kukathas is Chair in Political Theory at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He has held previous positions at the Royal Military College, Canberra; Oxford; the Australian National University; the University of New South Wales; and the University of Utah. His books include The Liberal Archipelago (2003), Handbook of Political Theory (with Gerald Gaus) (2004), John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice and Its Critics (with Philip Pettit) (1990), and John Rawls: Critical Assessments (2002). Kukathas has published in several leading journals, including The Monist, Social Philosophy and Policy, Journal of Social Philosophy, and the Journal of Political Philosophy amongst many others.

Peter Jones is Professor of Political Philosophy at Newcastle University. His books include Rights (1994); Party, Parliament, and Personality (1995); and Group Rights (2009). Jones has published in several leading journals, including British Journal of Political Science; Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy; Human Rights Quarterly; Journal of Political Philosophy; Political Studies; Res Publica; and Review of International Studies amongst many others.

Anne Phillips is Professor of Political and Gender Theory at the London School of Economics and Political Science with appointments in the LSE Gender Institute and Government Department. She is a Fellow of the British Academy. She has held a previous appointment at the Australian National University. Her books include Hidden Hands (1983), Feminism and Equality (1987), The Enigma of Colonialism (1989), Engendering Democracy (1991), Destabilising Theory (1992), Democracy and Difference (1993), The Politics of Presence (1995), Feminism and Politics (1998), Which Equalities Matter? (1999), Oxford Handbook of Political Theory (with John Dryzek and Bonnie Honig) (2006), and Multiculturalism without Culture (2007). Phillips has published in several leading journals, including Journal of Political Philosophy, Modern Law Review, and Political Studies amongst many others.

Susan Mendus is Professor of Political Philosophy at the University of York. She is a Fellow of the British Academy. Her books include After MacIntyre (with John Horton) (1994), The Politics of Toleration (1999), Toleration, Identity and Difference (with John Horton) (1999), Feminism and Emotion (2000), Impartiality in Moral and Political Philosophy (2002), Aspects of Toleration (with John Horton) (2009), Justifying Toleration (2009), and Politics and Morality (2009). Mendus has published in several leading journals, including the British Journal of Political Science; Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy; Philosophia amongst many others.

Thom Brooks is Reader in Political and Legal Philosophy at the University of Newcastle and the editor of the Journal of Moral Philosophy. He was previously a fellow at the Centre for Ethics, Philosophy, and Public Affairs at the University of St Andrews. His books include The Legacy of John Rawls (with Fabian Freyenhagen) (2005); Rousseau and Law (2005); Hegel’s Political Philosophy: A Systematic Reading of the Philosophy of Right (2007); Locke and Law (2007); The Global Justice Reader (2008); The Right to a Fair Trial (2009); and a forthcoming book on punishment. His articles have appeared in several journals, such as History of Political Thought, Journal of Applied Philosophy, Journal of Social Philosophy, Philosophical Topics, Philosophy, Ratio, and Utilitas amongst others. He is currently editing a book with Martha Nussbaum entitled Rawls’s Political Liberalism.

The conference is open to all and it is supported generously by the Newcastle Institute for the Arts, Social Sciences, and Humanities (NIASSH); the Newcastle Ethics, Legal, and Political Philosophy Group; the School of Geography, Politics, and Sociology; Basic Books; and the Journal of Moral Philosophy.


Registration fees:
Unwaged/student: £15
Waged: £20
Price includes registration, teas/coffees, and a buffet lunch.

The conference website is here.

The top 20 philosophers of all time

. . . as reported by Brian Leiter on his Leiter Reports here after 900 votes cast:

1. Plato (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)
2. Aristotle loses to Plato by 367–364
3. Kant loses to Plato by 411–328, loses to Aristotle by 454–295
4. Hume loses to Plato by 534–166, loses to Kant by 533–176
5. Descartes loses to Plato by 597–117, loses to Hume by 356–269
6. Socrates loses to Plato by 548–101, loses to Descartes by 327–270
7. Wittgenstein loses to Plato by 610–85, loses to Socrates by 385–193
8. Locke loses to Plato by 659–29, loses to Wittgenstein by 311–239
9. Frege loses to Plato by 611–86, loses to Locke by 279–256
10. Aquinas loses to Plato by 642–57, loses to Frege by 289–284
11. Hegel loses to Plato by 615–82, loses to Aquinas by 288–285
12. Leibniz loses to Plato by 650–36, loses to Hegel by 281–266
13. Spinoza loses to Plato by 653–49, loses to Leibniz by 281–207
14. Mill loses to Plato by 645–39, loses to Spinoza by 272–247
15. Hobbes loses to Plato by 647–47, loses to Spinoza by 269–245
16. Augustine loses to Plato by 663–46, loses to Mill by 296–247
17. Marx loses to Plato by 653–52, loses to Augustine by 305–248
18. Nietzsche loses to Plato by 691–63, loses to Marx by 327–269
19. Kierkegaard loses to Plato by 622–106, loses to Nietzsche by 330–256
20. Rousseau loses to Plato by 638–41, loses to Kierkegaard by 280–209

Berkeley was a close runner-up for the top 20.

Scepticism conference

Scepticism

University of Southampton
Saturday 6th June 2009

Registration is free. Any enquiries: Adam Dunn - agd205@soton.ac.uk or Dan Clifford - djc302@soton.ac.uk

Provisional Timetable below (also available at http://www.soton.ac.uk/philosophy/news/eventsindex.shtml)

10.00–11.30
Keynote: Duncan Pritchard (Edinburgh) "Radical Scepticism, Epistemic Luck and Epistemic Value"

Parallel Sessions
11:40-12:50
Michael Hannon (Cambridge) Mark McBride (Oxford) "Skepticism, Contextualism, "Towards a Complete Solution and Ordinary Language" to the Problem of Easy Knowledge"

Dorette van der Tholen (TiLPS) Jochen Briesen (Berlin) "Does Contextualism Solve "Reconsidering Closure, Under-the Sceptical Problem?" determination, and Infallibilism— Reply to Anthony Brueckner"

13.00–14.30
Lunch

Parallel Sessions
14.30–15.05
Brian Flanagan (UCD) Frederik Gierlinger (Vienna) "Moral Scepticism and "Wright, Wittgenstein and Companions in Guilt" the Foundations of Knowledge"

15.15–15.50
David Egan (Oxford) Alexis Papazoglou (Cambridge) "Sceptical Themes: "McDowell on Scepticism" Groundlessness and the Uncanny in Hediegger and Wittgenstein

16.00–16.35
Ro Smith (York) Jeff Byrnes (Essex) "Stroud and the Anti-Sceptical "On Scandal and Madness Potential of Transcendental Ar- Averted" guments"

16.45–18.15
Keynote: Quassim Cassam (Warwick) "Knowing, Seeing and Stroud’s Dilemma"

Avenue Campus
Southampton
SO17 1BF