[Vision2020] J. K. Campbell's "Strawson's Free Will Naturalism" on U of I Website!?

Sun Nov 8 16:47:46 PST 2009

"Free will," whatever that means, is a critical concept that many assume
(excuse me?) to have a clear definition, in applying moral responsibility,
punishment in the legal system, or deciding who does or does not go to
heaven, in certain theological systems...

It seems your philosophical work on this problem should be a major focus on
Vision2020.

But many appear to need to scapegoat and blame others for what are assumed
to be "free" choices, without a calm rational fact based assessment of
whether this blame based on supposed "free" choice, has a scientific basis.

No doubt this process serves a social function, as scapegoating promotes
cohesion, for those who conform to the dominant control ideology or
ideologies of a society, while "otherness" that violates this consensus is
damned, a projected rebellion feared thus not expressed by those who reject
impulses to revolt in a manner that deconstructs the dominant ideologies...

"Just sayin" ...

Phrases To Be Banned: Just
Sayin'<http://gawker.com/5259560/phrases-to-be-banned-just-sayin>

http://gawker.com/5259560/phrases-to-be-banned-just-sayin

Just Sayin' is meant to be a puckish little disclaimer to convey, "I have no
vested interest in what I've just said. The preceding thought was meant only
to be informative and, in fact, I might not even believe what I just said."
Just sayin' is almost always used sarcastically and passive aggressively. It
is frequently the last phrase in a sentence or a thought. There are 2258
Lexis hits for Just sayin' and an astonishing 1,940,000 Google hits.
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On 11/5/09, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Thanks, Ted! I was just trying to make clear what I said. I've had calls
> and offlist letters from folks who thought I said something and it turned
> out to be something said in a post after mine.
>
>
> I'm really touched by the interest. Two good sources of contemporary
> philosophy are the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet
> Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
>
>
> "Pereboom on Deliberation" is a reply to a paper by Derk Pereboom, one of
> the top guys in free will. He is a free will skeptic -- no one has free will
> -- and his book Living Without Free Will is a contemporary classic. I'm not
> a free will skeptic, for those who like to distort my words!
>
>
>
> On Nov 4, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>  Practicing fake medicine?  Those preaching ethics and theology from many
> pulpits are often not sufficiently qualified professionally, promoting gross
> oversimplifications of philosophy, from the point of view of a PhD doing
> technical academic philosophy.  They sometimes promote that gays are
> terrible sinners, promoting bigotry, that those following other
> religions will not be "saved," which can encourage discrimination against
> other religions, that women be subservient, that well researched scientific
> theories are false (evolution), encouraging anti-science (Creationism)
> curriculum in schools, and an anti-science attitude in general, resulting in
> millions in the US hampering necessary political and economic changes to
> address critical problems that are based on a broad understanding of
> science, such as climate change.  I could go on... but... Are they
> philosophical theological fakes?  It would seem so...
>
> The preceding paragraph actually belongs in the thread on the
> Hitchens/Wilson debate...
>
> What you wrote, which I think has merit, regarding the discussion of the
> Hitchens/Wilson "debate," is the following, which implies rather clearly,
> unless I'm misreading intention, that the Hitchens/Wilson debate was somehow
> "...creating the illusion the one is really doing philosophy:"
>
>  <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2009-November/066979.html>
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2009-November/066979.html
>
> "There are a host of issues here that I wouldn't
> even attempt to address in a single course, let alone a book or a
> movie. This is an oversimplification of philosophy. As a philosopher,
> this kind of stuff drives me up the wall. But I understand that
> philosophy is open to all, so in the end there is nothing wrong with
> it other than creating the illusion that one is really doing
> philosophy."
> -----------------
> Anyway, I don't recall that I wrote that you or anyone is a "real
> philosopher" or that you said as much about yourself.   I said I was seeking
> "real" philosophy to read, by which I meant work that is perhaps
> more academic, specialized, more technical, maybe less aimed at the general
> public for consumption.  What I found in your articles is just the ticket,
> with challenging and interesting new ideas, at least to my mind.
>
> Of course different academic schools of philosophy around the world have
> very different approaches to the problems they address, that are perhaps
> mutually exclusive.  The disagreements might result in some professional
> academic philosophers declaring some others to be not doing "real"
> philosophy.  Compare Baudrillard with your approach...
>
> I also located a couple of more papers online, one that is published, it
> appears:
>
>  <http://philpapers.org/rec/KEIFWA>http://philpapers.org/rec/KEIFWA
>
> <http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118517190/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0>
> http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118517190/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
>
>  Free will and the necessity of the past
> Joseph Keim Campbell*
>   *Washington State University
>  Analysis <http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118517170/home>
> *Volume 67 Issue 294*<http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118517187/issue>
> *, Pages 105 - 111*
> ---------------------
> And another that I'm not sure whether to call it "published" or not, but it
> is directly available on the web with no log-in or fee:
>
> "Pereboom on Deliberation"
> Joseph Keim Campbell
> Washington State University
> -------
> I like this opening sentence:
>
> "To quote the *Velvet Underground*, “I have made the big decision.*"*
>
> <http://experimentalphilosophy.typepad.com/2nd_annual_online_philoso/files/cambells_commentary_on_pereboom.pdf>
> http://experimentalphilosophy.typepad.com/2nd_annual_online_philoso/files/cambells_commentary_on_pereboom.pdf
> ------------------------------------------
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>
> On 11/4/09, Joe Campbell < <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  Also, I never said I was a "real philosopher." I am a professional
>> philosopher, that us, I have a job teaching philosophy and that job requires
>> that I publish also.
>>
>>
>> Look if you were a doctor and saw someone practicing fake medicine  -- and
>> getting a lot of attention for it -- I'm sure it would tick you off. And not
>> just because it's dangerous. Don't make too much out of it. And if you find
>> an instance where I show disrespect for my opponent, I'd like to know about
>> it.
>>
>>
>> That's 3 for me! See you tomorrow!
>>
>>
>> Amen!
>>
>> On Nov 4, 2009, at 4:51 AM, Ted Moffett < <starbliss at gmail.com>
>> starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>  In seeking some "real" philosophy to read, I decided to look up articles
>> by Joseph Keim Campbell, Washington State University philosopher who
>> sometimes contributes to Vision2020.  Oddly, Campbell's faculty page on the
>> WSU website does not list his published articles, nor any article in total.
>> Or did I miss something?
>>
>> The MIT press lists books that J. K. Campbell has edited, but these are
>> collections of essays by various authors.  The
>> <http://informationphilosopher.com/> <http://informationphilosopher.com/>
>> informationphilosopher.com website quotes one Campbell article, "A
>> Compatibilist Theory of Alternative Possibilities," *Philosophical
>> Studies*, 88, pp.319-30, 1997, which is also listed on
>> <http://philpapers.org/> <http://philpapers.org/>philpapers.org, though
>> it indicates "Philosophical Studies 67 (3):339-44," with two other listed
>> articles, (2005). Compatibilist Alternatives.<http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwCompatCampbell.html> Canadian
>> Journal Of Philosophy 35 (3):387-406(1996), Hume's Refutation of the
>> Cosmological Argument.<http://www.springerlink.com/content/w33884331m8165w3/fulltext.pdf> International
>> Journal for Philosophy of Religion 40 (3), and one reference to an MIT
>> press collection of essays by various authors.
>>
>> I found two J. K. Campbell articles, with admittedly limited
>> research, that are available in total online with direct access (no log-in
>> or fee), an article titled as in the subject heading, oddly on the
>> University of Idaho's website:
>> <http://www.uiweb.uidaho.edu/philosophy/essays/Campbell.Stawson.pdf><http://www.uiweb.uidaho.edu/philosophy/essays/Campbell.Stawson.pdf>
>> http://www.uiweb.uidaho.edu/philosophy/essays/Campbell.Stawson.pdf , not
>> WSU's, and "Compatabilist Alternatives" as listed above, at this website:
>> <http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwCompatCampbell.html><http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwCompatCampbell.html>
>> http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwCompatCampbell.html
>>
>> The two other articles mentioned above are available with a log-in and/or
>> fee from the web links given at <http://philpapers.org/><http://philpapers.org/>
>> philpapers.org, which I did not pursue.
>>
>> Perhaps there is a comprehensive listing somewhere of all of J. K.
>> Campbell's publications in philosophy?  It's puzzling that the WSU website
>> does not offer a comprehensive listing of Campbell's published articles,
>> unless I missed it.
>> ------------------------------------------
>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20091108/e20ec9e7/attachment-0001.html 