Tag Archives: philosophy

a state guaranteed education?

The first com­ments that struck me while read­ing Harry Brig­house’s inter­est­ing arti­cle, “What’s Wrong With Pri­vatis­ing Edu­ca­tion?,” were the fol­low­ing, made in response to some argu­ments made by James Too­ley in favor of pri­va­tiz­ing schools: “Too­ley him­self some­times endorses a prin­ci­ple that we might call the ‘Ade­quacy Prin­ci­ple’, that every­one has a right to a sufficiently

ed policy amateur hour

The biggest thing going on for me aca­d­e­m­i­cally these days is that I’m tak­ing my first edu­ca­tion pol­icy course. It’s this: HUDF 5645 Pol­icy sem­i­nar I Con­cep­tu­al­iza­tion and iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of social and edu­ca­tional prob­lems that can be sub­jected to pol­icy inter­ven­tions. Design and eval­u­a­tion of alter­na­tive pol­icy choices. Effec­tive strate­gies for pre­sent­ing pol­icy analy­sis to mul­ti­ple

book review: Schmidtz and Brennan's "A Brief History of Liberty"

Actu­ally, this is more of a book rec­om­men­da­tion than a book review. David Schmidtz is one of my favorite philoso­phers; it was his book “Social Wel­fare and Indi­vid­ual Respon­si­bil­ity: For and Against” (writ­ten with Robert Goodin) that first began to wake me from my dog­matic polit­i­cal slum­bers circa 2006, when I was an under­grad back

book review: Ivan Illich's "Deschooling Society"

Ivan Illich’s “Deschool­ing Soci­ety” is a clas­sic in the alter­na­tive edu­ca­tion scene, so I had been mean­ing to read it for ages and finally did. The book has seven short­ish chap­ters, and is a pretty quick read. The first chap­ter, “Why We Must Dis­es­tab­lish School,” is very clearly the strongest one. Illich argues that insti­tu­tion­al­ized school­ing

changing gears

As you might know, I’m begin­ning a new PhD pro­gram this fall. This one is in phi­los­o­phy and edu­ca­tion, instead of just phi­los­o­phy. I’ve been very inter­ested in edu­ca­tion for a few years now, and I know some things about it, but basi­cally just enough to be dan­ger­ous and to write a decent admis­sions appli­ca­tion.

my immortality poll & paper

I tweeted this recently: Phi­los­o­phy poll: T/F — Death is a nec­es­sary con­di­tion for the mean­ing­ful­ness of life; immor­tal­ity is incom­pat­i­ble with mean­ing­ful­ness. Here are the totally unrep­re­sen­ta­tive results: False — 6 True — 3 (assum­ing that this response counts as a “true”) For what­ever it’s worth, my vote is “false.” Assum­ing that the mean­ing­ful­ness of one’s life

states of character vs. virtues

Ok, one last bit for now on the sit­u­a­tion­ism stuff (con­tin­ued from here, here, and here). I think a main source of con­fu­sion is the dis­tinc­tion between what empir­i­cal claims virtue ethi­cists make, imply, or are com­mit­ted to, and what their nor­ma­tive claims are. Here’s my inter­pre­ta­tion of at least part of the story: Empir­i­cal Claim:

another stab at situationism

I think maybe I explained sit­u­a­tion­ism rather poorly back here in skep­ti­cism about moral char­ac­ter. Some things Adam says over at Sophist­pun­dit about The Nature of Char­ac­ter pro­vide a good oppor­tu­nity for me to clear things up for him as well as any­one else I may have unwit­tingly con­fused. So let me address a few

snapshots of moral character

Here is my very late reply to Jim on skep­ti­cism about moral char­ac­ter. The short answer: No, in all my mod­er­ately exten­sive read­ing on this sub­ject, I have not found any “stud­ies that actu­ally involve the obser­va­tion of a person’s behav­ior across a wide range of rel­e­vant cir­cum­stances,” as opposed to stud­ies which deal with

so be good for goodness sake

I’m tak­ing a break from seri­ous con­tent to bring you friv­o­lous xmas post, 2009. You know that song “Santa Clause is Com­ing to Town?” It con­tains the lyric: “so be good for good­ness sake.” But this is clearly incon­sis­tent with the con­tent of the song, and it dri­ves me crazy. Being good for good­ness’ sake means that