Welcome Welcome, My blog is relatively new and I’m excited to be hosting this edition of the Philosophy Carnival here at Servile Conformist, my meager home. As you can see, most of my scribbling online has something to do with religion, but there have been quite a few carnivals focused on the topic of Philosophy of Religion in the past, so I made an effort to provide material not related to religion. I only got 1 serious submission (really surprised at how many submissions I got about the power of positive thinking and advice from life coaches), so I hope you find something interesting! We do not yet have a host for the next carnival, so if you think you might be interested, head on over to the Carnival's website to check it out.
There are some great interviews out right now available for listening that I wanted to draw people’s attention to. First, the BBC interviewed Philosophers Stephen Mulhall, Beatrice Han-Pile, and Hans Johann-Glock about the so called “Continental-Analytic split” in Philosophy. Second, comes from the University of Chicago, where Professor Peter Kail discusses the legacy of David Hume.
A blast from the past, I’ve discovered some mp3 lectures of my all time Favorite philosopher Walter Kaufmann. He has lectures available on Existentialism, from Heidegger and Jaspers to Kierkegaard and Sartre! Fantastic stuff in my opinion.
Speaking of Sarte, Jared Smith of Philosophy and Polity has a two part discussion on Existentialism and Compatibilism, where the topic ranges from the general understanding of freedom in existential literature, some metaphysical mistakes Sartre makes in his own version of Compatibilism and Nietzsche and Camus’ own solutions to freedom in the face of determinism.
On the topic of Freedom, Professor Eddy Nahmias has an interesting piece on Neuroscience and Free Will, the comments section has some interesting developments, where Professor Nahmias comments as well.
As a companion to Professor Nahmias 's piece, Serife Tekin provides some excellent commentary on what it means to have a Philosophy that in empirically-informed.
Justin Smith (who blogs much less than he should) provided a short excerpt from his upcoming work 'Language and Animals', where he takes up David Foster Wallace and Louis Agassiz request to, "Consider the lobster".
Ben Saunders is looking for comments on his thoughts about this question:
Suppose we have two propositions, P and Q. P is true. Q is a more extreme version of P. Does it follow that Q is false? Or that we have reason to believe P rather than Q?
Over at the Prosblogion, Alexander Pruss posted an interesting argument for Theism by Emanuel Rutten of VU University in the Netherlands. I found the first metaphyscal principle that Professor Rutten mentioned ("If it is impossible to know that p, then p is necessarily false".) was fertile ground for further exploration.
Over at the Secular Outpost, Philosopher Graham Oppy has been in discussion with Christian apologist JP Moreland about the argument from consciousness, which started in the European Journal for Philosophy of Religion and continues online.