Tuesday, March 27, 2012

A reminder about co-authorship

If you're a philosopher or philosophy grad student (especially one at Baylor!), and like one of the arguments on my blog (including old ones in the archives), and would like to co-author with me a paper filling out and expanding on the argument, do email me--I am very open to such activity, as I do not have the time to do this by myself to every argument that I think might have promise. While some of the arguments are only worthy of being blogged--and some on reflection not even that--I think that scattered in the archives, as well as given more recently, there are a number of arguments that could be at the center of a paper.


Huume said...

Awesome! I hope you get some co-authors. I really enjoy reading your blog even though much of your work greatly exceeds my mental capacity (I am an artist by trade, so ;)

fwf said...

One interesting thing about your blog is that it contains very few references to real living people. There are lots of hypothetical (non-real) people used in thought experiments. And there are some references to dead (non-living) people (e.g. Plato, Aquinas, Leibniz -- just look at the "labels"!). I am guessing this is because the purpose of the blog is to serve as a space for jotting down arguments in a rough form, not to direct them against the views of others or to point out how the argument fits into the broader philosophical landscape, whether historical or present-day, and that you tend to pursue such an approach only in published work. So I take it that the blog is more for yourself (though not entirely so), the published work more for others (or at least more for others than the blog).

Alexander R Pruss said...

Right. Some of the posts fit into an existing contemporary discussion I know of, some (most?) of them are on stuff where there probably is a contemporary discussion but I don't know it, and some are just out in left field.

I do kind of like the British(?) way of philosophical essay writing where you minimize references.