southpointingchariot wrote:While I'm not exactly sure how the scheduling will work, I think dropping the "issue" system looses some of the distinction that I hope this will eventually reach.
What kind of distinction? Do you know of any successful web-based publications that use a periodical system? It seems atavistic to me.
I'm thinking of a fairly collaborative model of editing, with some direct yeses and nos, and some factchecking and proofreading.
My fear with this is it's quite a strong disincentive for people to submit anything, which could make life difficult when there's already a very small pool of humanity to draw from. And because it means you have fewer pieces going up, it means there's less draw for people to come back, and thus a smaller total audience, which feeds back into reduced disincentive for writing in the first place.
Your description sounds very cool, but different than what I'm picturing. Do we have two different projects which can feed each other, or could there be a two headed zine and community blog concept?
Not sure. It would be easy for them to end up competing if they were separate, which again seems like a bad thing given the limited set of readers/writers. I'd prefer to see them as a combined project, though I'm not sure how we'd combine them, given the difference between our views.
Ryan wrote:If the W.M. Review is aimed at utilitarian thought specifically, then it seems unthinkable that it would not be married to felicifia.
Just that I think that the projects are similar at their core, and that their best chance at reaching their full potential is if they're joined!
Also agreed, in theory. A drawback is that Felicifia is and should IMO continue to be a place for anyone with utilitarian leanings - HU, PU, DU, prioritarian, general consequentialist etc. WR fits that idea, but an HU blog doesn't really. I could make the blog more generally U in theory, but there are already quite a few utilitarian blogs around, and I'd like to provide (perhaps optimistically) something more central, which I think means a) multiple authors but b) fairly united voice.
rehoot wrote:I would be disinclined to contribute to an edited work that prohibited critical philosophical discussion
*All* works do this though, either by choosing select authors, or by the more explicitly draconian (but maybe more honest?) method of having an editorial line that pieces must adhere to to be accepted. I think it's unfair to single out a multi-author publication that (openly) selects authors based on a shared view and being lacking in this respect. Should we invite continental philosophers to contribute too, and have the whole thing degenerate into a turgid mess of tedious argument and misunderstanding, or do you think there's some fundamental dividing line between them and analytic philosophers and no analagous line between utilitarians and non-utilitarian APs?
I don't know your background, but critical analysis forms the basis of merit in analytic philosophy, although it is technical enough to scare away the lay person.
My (most relevant) background is a ugrad in philosophy. I didn't continue in it mainly because, despite finding some areas of merit in AP (and none in CP), I thought it was still too characterised by adherence to too many unjustified/unjustifiable views - like the idea of 'plausibility' as a gauge of anything except the weather when one first thought about the topic. Yet variants of 'not plausible' are still by far the most common criticism types I see and hear from professional philosophers attacking util.
I'm not averse to any critical analysis, but contrary to popular belief, I think there are cases where the best critique is internal. If any non-utils ever mount an attack on util that's actually original, I'd be keen to post it on any relevant venue. But when my prior expectations of a given critique saying anything we haven't heard and refuted a hundred times each are so low, it doesn't seem worth clogging up the output for. Having said all this, given that I would like to post an argument for util myself, I clearly need to give people room to criticise it - but the most cutting criticisms I've ever had when I've tried to argue this kind of thing have been from other HUs.
I'll add that I think your comment assumes that this should be an analytic philosophers' blog. I think it should be a utilitarians'
blog, which is significantly different - it should serve the cause of utilitarianism, not of AP. And util is generally better served by applying it rather than by arguing over whether it's 'true'. Science blogs don't discuss scientific method much - they tend to just assume some version of the scientific method and get on with telling you its conclusions, only occasionally delving into underlying philosophy. I think a util blog should have the same weighting - not only does it make its comments more relevant for utilitarians themselves, it makes it a lot more interesting to read for the average person who wants to think about things that might affect his/her life. Ideally it would be a combination of physical and social science, economics, philosophy and maths, all passed through the filter of being relevant to someone at least sympathetic to util.