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.
Joshua’s views on basic beliefs ... How do we get from experience to justified belief? ... The connection between knowledge and awareness ... Is...
In the dialogue, David Ottlinger and Dan Kaufman discuss the ongoing effort to de-platform/cancel Professor Kathleen Stock for her writing and public statements on...
In praise of non-elite institutions ... Spencer’s journey from Mormonism to professional philosophy ... Does philosophy matter? ... The role of temperament in shaping...