Academic Inspiration & CFP
One of my very best friends - who has recently finished a 5 year degree in Education at McGill, gave me this wonderfully inspirational plaque to hang on my wall =)
Appropriate considering this recent CFP:
A Companion to Bullshit
AbstractsOctober 19,2005
George Reisch and Gary Hardcastle (editors)Popular interest in bullshit might be approaching an all-time high. Itis reflected, for example, in Harry Frankfurt’s bestselling On Bullshit(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2005) and Laura Penny’sspirited Your Call Is Very Important to Us (Crown, 2005), not tomention the popular media's eager response to these books.
To philosophers, though, bullshit, and reflection upon it, is nothingnew. Hobbes, Locke, Hume, and Kant, not to mention the Frenchpositivists of the 19th century and the logical empiricists of the20th, analyzed and critiqued speech and writing that they suspected wasnot merely void of content, but intended to distract, deceive,manipulate, or oppress. And, as we know, they took their analyses andcritiques to be central to their philosophical projects.
As a result, we have before us an occasion in which widespread popularattention is directed toward a topic with a rich philosophical history,and about which today's professional philosophers have something tosay. We thus propose an edited volume of original reflections upon andanalyses of bullshit from epistemological, ethical, metaphysical,historical, and political points of view. A Companion to Bullshit willserve as a guide and resource for the many who find bullshit worththinking about and will, moreover, provide a venue for philosophers tocontinue participating in this public discussion.
Prospective contributors to A Companion to Bullshit are invited tosubmit an abstract of up to 1000 words for a scholarly essay of8,000-10,000 words. We encourage contributors to strive for highscholarly quality while writing for a broad educated audience. Wewelcome any abstract that engages the philosophical dimensions ofbullshit, but we especially seek contributions that take up one or moreof the following questions:
¬ What is Bullshit? Harry Frankfurt makes use of the tools andconcepts of natural language philosophy to distinguish bullshit andlying. Many other philosophers have likewise offered definitions ofbullshit, although with different tools and often by a different name.Should any of these conceptions be adopted? Should the project beapproached from different philosophical traditions, or abandonedaltogether? What sociological or psychological factors andcircumstances, if any, might play a role in defining bullshit?
¬ What Does Bullshit Do? Particular philosophical perspectives orphilosophical problems assign a particular function to bullshit. Whatare the advantages and disadvantages of these various points of view,and which is best? Could bullshit be eliminated? Ought it to be, ifit could?
¬ Bullshit: Past and Future. What is the relationship of bullshit tophilosophy and its history? Does the popular fascination with bullshitevidence some notable convergence of popular and philosophical goalsand values? Or is it best understood as a temporary and recurringinterest or fashion? Why now, precisely, has bullshit taken centerstage in popular culture? And what might this say about philosophy’splace in popular culture?
One of my very best friends - who has recently finished a 5 year degree in Education at McGill, gave me this wonderfully inspirational plaque to hang on my wall =)
Appropriate considering this recent CFP:A Companion to Bullshit
AbstractsOctober 19,2005
George Reisch and Gary Hardcastle (editors)Popular interest in bullshit might be approaching an all-time high. Itis reflected, for example, in Harry Frankfurt’s bestselling On Bullshit(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2005) and Laura Penny’sspirited Your Call Is Very Important to Us (Crown, 2005), not tomention the popular media's eager response to these books.
To philosophers, though, bullshit, and reflection upon it, is nothingnew. Hobbes, Locke, Hume, and Kant, not to mention the Frenchpositivists of the 19th century and the logical empiricists of the20th, analyzed and critiqued speech and writing that they suspected wasnot merely void of content, but intended to distract, deceive,manipulate, or oppress. And, as we know, they took their analyses andcritiques to be central to their philosophical projects.
As a result, we have before us an occasion in which widespread popularattention is directed toward a topic with a rich philosophical history,and about which today's professional philosophers have something tosay. We thus propose an edited volume of original reflections upon andanalyses of bullshit from epistemological, ethical, metaphysical,historical, and political points of view. A Companion to Bullshit willserve as a guide and resource for the many who find bullshit worththinking about and will, moreover, provide a venue for philosophers tocontinue participating in this public discussion.
Prospective contributors to A Companion to Bullshit are invited tosubmit an abstract of up to 1000 words for a scholarly essay of8,000-10,000 words. We encourage contributors to strive for highscholarly quality while writing for a broad educated audience. Wewelcome any abstract that engages the philosophical dimensions ofbullshit, but we especially seek contributions that take up one or moreof the following questions:
¬ What is Bullshit? Harry Frankfurt makes use of the tools andconcepts of natural language philosophy to distinguish bullshit andlying. Many other philosophers have likewise offered definitions ofbullshit, although with different tools and often by a different name.Should any of these conceptions be adopted? Should the project beapproached from different philosophical traditions, or abandonedaltogether? What sociological or psychological factors andcircumstances, if any, might play a role in defining bullshit?
¬ What Does Bullshit Do? Particular philosophical perspectives orphilosophical problems assign a particular function to bullshit. Whatare the advantages and disadvantages of these various points of view,and which is best? Could bullshit be eliminated? Ought it to be, ifit could?
¬ Bullshit: Past and Future. What is the relationship of bullshit tophilosophy and its history? Does the popular fascination with bullshitevidence some notable convergence of popular and philosophical goalsand values? Or is it best understood as a temporary and recurringinterest or fashion? Why now, precisely, has bullshit taken centerstage in popular culture? And what might this say about philosophy’splace in popular culture?
posted by Kelly at
20:09
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home