Comments on: #136 Enduring Questions http://chaospet.com/2009/07/27/136-enduring-questions/ Now updated every day that it is updated Thu, 09 Sep 2010 13:03:16 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: DiogenesdelaPhyrron http://chaospet.com/2009/07/27/136-enduring-questions/comment-page-1/#comment-18494 DiogenesdelaPhyrron Tue, 15 Sep 2009 05:25:57 +0000 http://chaospet.com/?p=218#comment-18494 How about someone just go Skeptic on 'em. Ask them what their field has discovered and shoot it down in a tyrant of infinite regress. Gotta love the classics How about someone just go Skeptic on ‘em. Ask them what their field has discovered and shoot it down in a tyrant of infinite regress. Gotta love the classics

]]> By: chaospet http://chaospet.com/2009/07/27/136-enduring-questions/comment-page-1/#comment-17650 chaospet Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:24:28 +0000 http://chaospet.com/?p=218#comment-17650 Well technically I'm a professor I suppose... adjunct.. which is essentially a mere lecturer. :P Well technically I’m a professor I suppose… adjunct.. which is essentially a mere lecturer. :P

]]> By: Emil http://chaospet.com/2009/07/27/136-enduring-questions/comment-page-1/#comment-17629 Emil Wed, 29 Jul 2009 02:06:02 +0000 http://chaospet.com/?p=218#comment-17629 Whiner! Chaos, are you a mere lecturer or a professor? :) Whiner!

Chaos, are you a mere lecturer or a professor? :)

]]> By: chaospet http://chaospet.com/2009/07/27/136-enduring-questions/comment-page-1/#comment-17622 chaospet Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:19:28 +0000 http://chaospet.com/?p=218#comment-17622 Ben: That's a possibility, but when you read the grant description it doesn't seem to be what's going on. Rather, it seems as though the NEH is simply ignorant of what philosophers do. For instance, they say: <i>"Enduring questions are, to an overarching degree, predisciplinary. They are questions to which no discipline or field or profession can lay an exclusive claim. In many cases they predate the formation of the academic disciplines themselves."</i> This is really peculiar, to say the least, for what is Philosophy if not the discipline that exclusively deals with those sorts of questions? Which of course is not to say that other disciplines might not have valuable input on these issues. And if the grant had been described in that way - to design interdisciplinary approaches to traditional philosophical questions - that would be fine. But the fact that the proposal does not mention philosophy at all is troublesome. It would be as if they proposed to design interdisciplinary courses dealing with enduring questions like "What is gravity?", tried to suggest that it was a question outside of any discipline, and nowhere mentioned the fact that this sort of question that Physics typically deals with and on which physicists have some degree of expertise. I think physicists would be up in arms, and rightfully so. However I do think you're right about one thing, the best way for philosophers to react to this is probably to submit creative designs for courses dealing with these questions. I know at least a handful of philosophers were among the winners of grants last year. Still, it bothers me that we should be in this position at all - it's not a positive indication of our discipline's status in academia. And here I said I wasn't going to rant.... Ben: That’s a possibility, but when you read the grant description it doesn’t seem to be what’s going on. Rather, it seems as though the NEH is simply ignorant of what philosophers do. For instance, they say:

“Enduring questions are, to an overarching degree, predisciplinary. They are questions to which no discipline or field or profession can lay an exclusive claim. In many cases they predate the formation of the academic disciplines themselves.”

This is really peculiar, to say the least, for what is Philosophy if not the discipline that exclusively deals with those sorts of questions? Which of course is not to say that other disciplines might not have valuable input on these issues. And if the grant had been described in that way – to design interdisciplinary approaches to traditional philosophical questions – that would be fine.

But the fact that the proposal does not mention philosophy at all is troublesome. It would be as if they proposed to design interdisciplinary courses dealing with enduring questions like “What is gravity?”, tried to suggest that it was a question outside of any discipline, and nowhere mentioned the fact that this sort of question that Physics typically deals with and on which physicists have some degree of expertise. I think physicists would be up in arms, and rightfully so.

However I do think you’re right about one thing, the best way for philosophers to react to this is probably to submit creative designs for courses dealing with these questions. I know at least a handful of philosophers were among the winners of grants last year. Still, it bothers me that we should be in this position at all – it’s not a positive indication of our discipline’s status in academia.

And here I said I wasn’t going to rant….

]]> By: Ben http://chaospet.com/2009/07/27/136-enduring-questions/comment-page-1/#comment-17621 Ben Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:16:59 +0000 http://chaospet.com/?p=218#comment-17621 I can only assume that NEH perceives a lack of innovation in the design of courses dedicated to central philosophical questions--sure, that's a challenge to academic philosophers, but it's one that could be met, rather than mocked. Isn't this really just an opportunity to re-frame key questions and get some grant money? I can only assume that NEH perceives a lack of innovation in the design of courses dedicated to central philosophical questions–sure, that’s a challenge to academic philosophers, but it’s one that could be met, rather than mocked. Isn’t this really just an opportunity to re-frame key questions and get some grant money?

]]>