I recently came across this blog post about publishing a task list online. While I am slightly uncomfortable with the focus on productivity – if only because I tend to think that the best philosophy happens if one engages with philosophy for its own sake rather than for the sake of productivity – I still find the notion of a public task list appealing. Here are a few reasons that speak in favour of it:
It might help me to structure my own work better.
Some reader might have helpful comments for how to accomplish a task.
Transparency: My PhD is funded by WRoCAH i.e. by public money. If you are reading this in the UK, your tax money.
My task list is not supposed to be exhaustive. It will be much more general than the online task list I have been inspired by. In particular I will limit myself to what I take to be the major tasks I face within my philosophical work.
The plan is that I will update it roughly once a week, stating which tasks have been accomplished, which still need to be accomplished and which are new. Continue reading “Task List 1”
This is the second part of a short, introductory dialogue. For the first part go here.
G: So do you agree with the following: You believe that one ought to act with the safe belief that there is a clearly right path in public matter, which is a political position, while I hold that one ought not to act with such a safe belief, which is political position insofar it denies your political position?
L: That is a completely different matter, not a political disagreement. This is disagreement between us is all about belief and certitude, not about how to spend one’s life. The disagreement is only about what to believe and so on, not about what one ought to do.
G: Are you not here at this demonstration because you believe the government ought not to act the way it does?
As I wrote in my very first blog post, I want to try things out in this blog. In this post I am trying something new for me, I publish the first part of a dialogue I have written.
The topics of the dialogue are mostly introductory. There are important philosophical issues touched upon without these issues being simplified, but the text does not presuppose any prior knowledge of philosophy.
Readers acquainted with ancient philosophy will be quick to spot the influence of Platonic dialogues. However, the positions the speakers take are not quite the same you find in typical dialogues by Platon. I leave to my readers to formulate, what exactly the difference is.
I continue with my discussion of four paper on Hegel’s theory of the state as presented in his Philosophy of Rightby discussing the last two papers. For the first two papers by Riedel and Sedgwick see this post. The papers I discuss this time are by Hans-Martin Jaeger and Thom Brooks.
Jaeger, Hans-Martin. 2002: “Hegel’s Reluctant Realism and the Transnationalisation of Civil Society”. In: Review of International Studies. Volume 28. Issue 3. 497-517.
Brooks, Thom. 2004. “Hegel’s Theory of International Politics: A Reply to Jaeger”. In: Review of International Studies. Volume 30. Issue 1. 149-152.