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
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!
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!