Robert Gressis (Cal State Northridge), Dan Kaufman (Missouri State) and Kevin Currie-Knight (East Carolina) discuss what is and isn't realistic to expect of philosophy. Topics include Realism (Rob) and Anti-Realism (Dan and Kevin), Foundationalism (maybe Rob) and anti-Foundationalism (Dan and Kevin), and what we do when we attempt to ground and justify our positions to others. The conversation sprang from a set of articles at the Electric Agora. In one, Dan argued that philosophy is largely incapable of making sense of even basic moral considerations; in two others, Kevin argued that individual temperament plays a significant role in forming our philosophies.
Crispin's recent essay, "Western Philosophy as White Supremacism" ... Dan accuses Crispin of ahistorical revisionism ... Descartes as a product of his age ......
The first of a two-part conversation with Joshua Rasmussen of Azusa Pacific University on a broad variety of issues, related to the meaning of...
Realism vs. anti-realism ... Is reality the sum of human senses? ... Why Crispin is allergic to idealism ... “Rabbity moments” and Quine’s radical...