Commenting & Moderation Policy
We envision this as an online venue for professional philosophical discussion.
While commenters need not have a higher degree in philosophy, commenters will be expected to abide by conversational norms typical for a professional presentation and question & answer (Q&A) discussion period.
These norms include:
Commenting by raising a question, or an objection, or otherwise providing constructive feedback,
That addresses the substance of the author’s presented work.
Not repeating a question, objection, or piece of feedback already raised by someone else.
Please note that “piling on” or personal attacks are not permitted.
Our aim in enforcing these standards is to realize a unique forum in the philosophy web-o-sphere: a place for productive, professional discussion of new research.
Readers may report comments that run afoul of this policy—and, although we hope to use moderation rarely and judiciously, please note that we may remove such comments or (in repeated or egregious cases) ban particular commenters.
Thanks for your substack, I'll give it a look. I hope this is the appropriate place to post this.
Your guidelines suggest you are receptive to article submissions from academic philosophers. This focus may be too limited, for the following reason.
The first thing I do when arriving at any philosophy site is search for the phrase "nuclear weapons". My reasoning is that any philosopher or philosophy site which hasn't displayed an interest in the most imminent catastrophic threat to everything we hold most dear may have not yet mastered critical thinking.
I'm sorry to report your site has not passed this test, but in fairness to you, very few academic philosophy sites do. Given how widespread this logic failure is throughout the realm of academic philosophy it would perhaps be helpful to your blog to expand the range of voices you are willing to include.
I would argue that it is not the job of philosophers to think and write safely within status quo expectations, because there are an infinite number of other people available for that. The most important job for philosophers, their unique contribution, is to explore unexamined assumptions at the heart of a status quo and subject those assumptions to inspection and challenge.
Generally speaking, an unexamined assumption of the philosophy profession as a whole is that nuclear weapons are a subject for some other discipline. Here's an invitation to explore that assumption and subject it to inspection and challenge. There's a leadership opportunity here given how many of your peers will not take up this challenge.
In any case, whatever happens, good luck with your substack!