Links
This page contains the resources that I have found useful in my personal and professional life. Admittedly, it is an eclectic list. It contains everything from quotes and books that I like to podcasts, videos, and slideshows.
If you don’t want to scroll through the entire list, you can click on one of the links below and filter the resources by specific category.
I will update this list as I discover new resources. If you have a resource you think I should add, please email me.
You do not have time to care for a fancy website? Neither have I.
You dislike fancy websites which make scholars look like they were trying to sell a new product? So do I.
But this new website (more…)
Andrew Ollett has just posted some interesting comments on K. Yoshimizu recent workshop and on the impact of his theories from a linguistic point of view. Andrew especially elaborates on the topic-comment opposition and on the possibility to read along these lines the vidheya–upadeya opposition found in Kumarila.
If you missed the workshop, you can read about it also here.
I should have noticed it before, but here am I. At the link above you can read a thought-inspiring blog entry by Helen De Cruz reporting Elizabeth Fricker’s arguments on how we rely on the “testimony” of GPS, googlesearch and so on and have lost the skill to read maps, sum up numbers and so on. This is closely related to a further problem I have dealt with in the past, namely whether thermometers, GPS devices and other tools can be said to be testimony-bearers. You can read more about this controversy at this post (and in the article it refers to).
Finally an interesting blog-post saying some basic things about the relation between philosophy and physics, explaining that “being useful” is not tantamount to “being useful to my current calculations” and that, accordingly, many physicists criticising philosophy are just misunderstanding their target.
I would have added something more regarding the epistemology of the issue, but for that have a look at the interesting comments (e.g., one says that philosophy is useful for asking questions, but lousy for answering them…).
Studio of Fedele Fischetti
Yes, with Michael Dummett’s death the “linguistic turn” in analytic philosophy has come to an end.
Yes, the new dominant trend is the move towards neurosciences, which are used to deal with issues in philosophy of mind, (cognitive) linguistics, (cognitive) semantics, morality, etc.
The most amusing version of the Philosophers’ Carnival I know of! With a reference to Jonathan Edelmann’s piece on Theology and Philosophy in the Indian context which you can read here.
Due to the fact that I work in an underrepresented area of philosophy (Indian philosophy, even worse: Pūrva Mīmāṃsā) and I am a woman, I am more than interested in the general topic of “making philosophy more inclusive“. But what do we really mean by this slogan?
We might mean:
- Including more people from underrepresented groups (women, transsexuals, disabled people, black people, ethnic, political and religious minorities…)
- Including more people working on underrepresented topics (e.g., feminist philosophy, (critical) race-theory, philosophy of disability, Africana philosophy…)
At the link above you can read my thoughts on this topic.
This is a very interesting Carnival, which lists posts I either knew and liked or discovered through it and liked even more. I am very grateful for being mentioned (not because of this blog, though, but because of this post on Free Will in heaven) although I did not even submit my post. Even more interesting is the mention of Matthew Dasti’s post on “Indian Philosophy in One Paragraph”. Thanks Kenny Pearce!
At the link you can read my thoughts on the topic, from the point of view of mainly Western philosophy, but with some incursions into Indian theories (e.g., of the jīvanmukti or the Bodhisattva).
I am often inclined to think that some battles have been won and that people will, like Brian Leiter notes, ignore Indian philosophy, but probably also feel they should not. Then, sometimes I am brought back to reality, in this case by the introduction of an otherwise interesting book about the function of images in Christian theology. The blurb says that
None, really? What about the so-called Hinduism? What about the importance of the localisation of deities in a precise icon in which God is not only re-presented, but actually present? Could not we stop using comparison to enhance the value of what we are doing? Could not we start saying that “Christian faith has had a deep relation to the images of God” without claiming what we do not know?