Archive for the ‘Interviews’ Category

While searching through old posts at Against Politics, one of my common haunts, I came across an interview featuring Jan Narveson, professor of philosophy emeritus at the University of Waterloo. Dr. Narveson, whose work I encountered via the work of Robert Nozick and David Gauthier, is an anarcho-capitalist and the author of the influential The Libertarian Idea. Among other things, Dr. Narveson addresses in the interview why natural rights should be rejected and offers his list of the most influential texts in libertarian political philosophy. Here is the link to the interview, a significant portion of which I excerpt here:

The contractarian and utilitarian approaches to libertarianism are often confused. What are the differences between these two views?

Contractarian is not the same as utilitarian, and does not give similar results. The Utilitarian, as in Bentham and Mill, holds that (1) everyone’s utility is cardinally measurable, in principle, and (2) for social and moral purposes, we should count an equal amount of anyone’s utility as equal to anyone else’s, intrinsically.

Utilitarianism is, actually, equivalent to another natural rights perspective—that’s why I stopped being a utilitarian.



Read Full Post »

The following is the second part of the interview with Philosopher Graham Priest. Part I can be found here.


Read Full Post »

The Florida Student Philosophy Blog is proud to present this interview with noted logician, Graham Priest. Professor Priest received his Ph.D. from the London School of Economics and has spent many years promoting a position within philosophical logic studies known as ‘dialetheism’ This controversial position asserts the existence of true contradictions. Professor Priest’s work is widely recognized and I, along with several of my student colleagues, have used the 2nd edition of his textbook, An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic. The Florida Student Philosophy Blog is very thankful for Professor Priest taking the time to answer the following questions gathered from several Florida Philosophy majors.

I have split the interview into two parts. This posting is the first part of the two. There will be an activist comment review policy, as in comments will be strictly regulated on this and the other part.


Read Full Post »

For those who may think logical positivism extinct, I present Institute Vienna Circle: Society for the Advancement of the Scientific World Conception.

From University College, London: Evidence, Inference, & Enquiry: Towards an Integrated Science of Evidence. The Mission Statement of this interdisciplinary collaborative effort reads:

The ultimate aim is to advance human understanding, decision-making and risk management across a wide variety of academic and practical activities. This will be achieved through improved treatment of evidence, inference and enquiry, and through cross-disciplinary transfer of understanding, insight and good practice.

For those who, like myself, think Ockham’s Razor is more than an aesthetic / metaphysical inclination: Ockham’s Razor: A New Justification.

An in-depth, multipart interview / panel discussion with the venerable WVO Quine: The Quine – Fara Interview.

(Note the way in which Quine uses behavioristic speech when he refers to his personal tastes and preferences.)

Colliding Particles, an entertaining episodic production which follows a group of young British physicists at CERN in their search for the elusive mass giver: the Higgs boson.

Last- but certainly not least-, two bits concerning a personal favorite: wine.

(1) Philosophy Talk with Barry Smith on Wine.

(2) A report on the philosophy of wine.

Read Full Post »

John Perry discusses the nature of the philosophy, what it takes to be a philosopher, and (~24:00) personal identity and related philosophical issues, here.

(HT: Brian Leiter)

Read Full Post »

An interview at Philosophy Bites:

Testimonial injustice occurs when others fail to treat you seriously as a source of knowledge. In this interview Miranda Fricker, author of a recent book on the topic, explains this concept which lies at the intersection between epistemology and political philosophy.

This interview is from 2007, but I just found out about it via Feminist Philosophers. And here’s a review of her book, Epistemic Injustice:

Epistemology and Ethics have traditionally been kept apart. This book brings them together. Miranda Fricker focuses on two kinds of epistemic injustice: the injustice that occurs when someone is not treated seriously as a possible source of knowledge (testimonial injustice) and the injustice that occurs when a society lacks a conceptual framework for understanding the experiences of someone who has been treated badly (hermeneutic injustice). An example of the first kind is when someone stopped by the police is not believed because he is black; an example of the second type is when someone is a victim of sexual harrassment in a society that still lacks that concept. Both are kinds of epistemic injustice in Fricker’s terms. That is they are harms that an individual suffers that relate to that individual’s potential to give knowledge and to be a subject of social understanding.

Read Full Post »

I thought it was time to finally put up some info on the Cobell Case. This case is called the largest class-action suit against the United States. And it is a pretty huge issue considering it is about the mismanagement of a whole lot of Indian money. It’s only right for someone blogging about American Indian political issues to have a post about it.

Since it is such an important case, I’m including two videos today. The first video is an interview with Eloise Cobell about the case. The second video is a speech Cobell gave at the 2008 National Rural Assembly.

For background, you might want to check out this tidbit on the Dawes General Allotment Act. For more information on the case, check out the wiki on the Cobell Case and the website Indian Trust.


Read Full Post »

Older Posts »