Home
Reading
Searching
Subscribe
Sponsors
Statistics
Posting
Contact
Spam
Lists
Links
About
Hosting
Filtering
Features Download
Marketing
Archives
FAQ
Blog
 
Gmane
From: Paolo Tripodi <paoltrip-8a+P9i1ojmF8zQARNC3f2A <at> public.gmane.org>
Subject: Call for papers: History of Late Analytic Philosophy (monographical issue of "Philosophical Inquiries")
Newsgroups: gmane.science.philosophy.region.europe
Date: Monday 16th May 2016 19:34:24 UTC (about 1 year ago)
*CfP: History of Late Analytic Philosophy (monographical issue
of Philosophical Inquiries)*

This call for papers aims at elaborating answers* from a historical
perspective* to the question:* What is late analytic philosophy?* The
selected papers will be published in *January 2018* in a monographical
issue of *Philosophical Inquiries <http://philinq.it/> *edited by Guido
Bonino (University of Turin) and Paolo Tripodi (University of Turin).

Essays should be submitted for review via the journal submission process
<http://philinq.it/index.php/philinq/author/submit>
(free author
registration is required). This CfP opens on May 16th 2016.* Deadline for
submissions is April 30th 2017*. A notification of acceptance (or
rejection) will be sent to authors by June 30th 2017 by email.

In the last 25 to 30 years historical attention has been directed toward
analytic philosophy: some analytic philosophers have begun reflecting on
the philosophical tradition they belong to, while many other scholars have
been working on what is by now become a well-established discipline known
as “history of analytic philosophy”. Yet this historiographical
perspective
mainly focuses on *early *analytic philosophy (Frege, Russell, Moore, the
early Wittgenstein…), or on *middle *analytic philosophy (Carnap, Ryle,
the
later Wittgenstein, Quine…), whereas – by contrast – proper
historical
investigations of *late *analytic philosophy are still greatly needed. By
“late” we mean analytic philosophy approximately in the last 40 years,
which is a long enough period to deserve a separate investigation.
Furthermore, we surmise that the development of this philosophical
tradition in such a time span has some distinctive features, which could be
profitably studied from different perspectives: philosophical,
metaphilosophical, historical, sociological… In fact, such a multifaceted
approach is in a sense required by the huge and increasing volume of
philosophical production (due to processes of professionalization and
specialization), which can hardly be dealt with satisfactorily if one takes
the narrow point of view of a single discipline. For instance, it is
arguably difficult to focus on prominent figures and main arguments of late
analytic philosophy as a historian of philosophy would do for an earlier
period, just because it is not obviously settled who the main figures are
supposed to be. For this reason this call is addressed not only to
philosophers and historians of philosophy, but also – hopefully – to
scholars coming from other disciplines such as sociology of knowledge,
institutional history of science, social epistemology, etc.

Below is an indicative but non-exhaustive list of topics and questions.

   -

   What are the main metaphilosophical and methodological features of late
   analytic philosophy? For example, what is the role of the so-called
   inference to the best explanation? What is the role of thought
experiments
   and, generally speaking, of intuition?
   -

   What are the main philosophical and metaphilosophical similarities and
   differences between early and middle analytic philosophy on the one hand
   and late analytic philosophy on the other?
   -

   What is the legacy of “classic” analytic philosophers (e.g.,
Russell,
   Wittgenstein, Carnap, Austin, Quine…) in late analytic philosophy?
   -

   What is the relative weight of subdisciplines such as metaphysics,
   logic, epistemology, philosophy of language, philosophy of mind, moral
and
   political philosophy in late analytic philosophy? Is there any sort of
   hierarchy among them?
   -

   What is the role of the study of language and of conceptual analysis in
   late analytic philosophy?
   -

   What are the main conceptions of the relationship between science and
   philosophy in late analytic philosophy?
   -

   Do late analytic philosophers take philosophical questions as
   substantial questions? Are there any differences among philosophical
   areas/subjects in this respect?
   -

   What is the role of professionalization and specialization in late
   analytic philosophy?
   -

   How did formalization/mathematization take place in late analytic
   philosophy? Are there any similarities/differences with analogous
processes
   occurred in disciplines such as economics and linguistics during the
20th
   century?
   -

   Is it possible to identify a mainstream and some minorities in late
   analytic philosophy? If so, what are their main features?
   -

   Who are the main figures of late analytic philosophy? For example, what
   role have people such as Saul Kripke and David Lewis played in the
revival
   of analytic metaphysics? What about Rawls and political philosophy?
   -

   What kind of philosophical work do late analytic philosophers regard as
   an innovation or progress in philosophy? What is the role of
intellectual
   cooperation and peer review?
   -

   Are there any philosophical taboos in late analytic philosophy? Are
   there any periods/subjects in the history of philosophy that have been
   neglected by the analytic tradition?
   -

   What is the role of “philosophical fashions” in late analytic
philosophy?
   -

   What kind of phenomenon is analytic philosophy, from the point of view
   of the sociology of knowledge and of the institutional history of
science?
   -

   In what sense and to what extent has late analytic philosophy been
   influenced by the socio-economic and political context in which it has
   developed? In what sense and to what extent can we see it as “its own
time
   comprehended in thoughts” (Hegel)?
   -

   What is the geography of late analytic philosophy?
   -

   What has the role of leading departments been in the development of late
   analytic philosophy? How have funding policies influenced such a
   development?
   -

   Are late analytic philosophers methodologically and/or culturally
   self-aware? Do they have a correct and up-to-date picture of what they
are
   doing?
   -

   Speaking of the present state of analytic philosophy, Williamson (2007)
   said: “This is not the end of philosophy. It is not even the beginning
of
   the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning”. Has late
analytic
   philosophy achieved the suggested status of scientific maturity? Can it
be
   regarded as a normal science?

Messages to the list are archived at http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/archives/philos-l.html
and at the unofficial mirror site http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.region.europe.

Recent posts can also be read in a Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/PhilosL/.

Discussions should be moved to Chora (a list solely for members of
Philos-L): enrol on Chora via http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/archives/chora.html.
To join Philos-L email the single line "subscribe philos-l yourname" to
listserv-VnOFtQRrI51aa/[email protected] and read the welcome
message carefully. To sign off the list send a blank message to
[email protected].org
 
CD: 4ms