« On Publishing in Times of Turmoil (or worse) | Main | On Great Statesmen, and Bad Ones (via Adam Smith) »

02/01/2017

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

GF-A

Is there any way to get the journals' records of submitted and rejected papers? It certainly seems very likely that Indian philosophers like the 5 you mentioned from the 1950s continued to submit to JP from 1960 on and JP rejected those submissions, but it would be nice to have incontrovertible proof.

Eric Schliesser

Yes, that would be obvious, important next step. (I smell a grant proposal to do research on this!)

Joel Katzav

Agreed, it would be interesting to see the records of rejected papers during the 1960s, partly because of the work of Indian philosophers, but also because of other philosophers who were in a similar position. I am, however, not sure how many submissions the journal would have received from Indian philosophers or from other marginalized groups. I think relevant authors would have known that submitting to the journal would very probably have been a pointless exercise.

Louis deRosset

You write: "A more complete explanation notes that the changes in JoP, like the changes in PR before it, included a shift within analytic philosophy, including a shift in views about which prominent Western philosophers are to be taken seriously and a shift in which topics might be engaged with. Modern Indian philosophers did not partake in this shift."

This seems like the crucial part of the explanation, but there's no account of the shift here. Is there a place where you characterize and document the shift in views? And where you document the fact that modern Indian philosophers did not partake of the shift? It's a crucial part of the story to know what the dispute was and what the disputants' reasons may have been.

Joel Katzav

Krist Vaesen and I (here) document and characterize a similar transition within critical philosophy in the Philosophical Review. To the characterization offered there, I would add that modern Indian philosophers tended to be far more open to engaging with work by European philosophers, e.g., phenomenology, as well as work by analytic philosophers that were no longer in fashion in the right circles in the 1960s, e.g., Susanne K. Langer. Having the ‘wrong’ discussants in one’s work was not something that just anyone could get away with at the time. There is more to be said, e.g., about philosophical style, and I do acknowledge that this issue deserves further documentation.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Here's a link to my past blogging (and discussions involving me) at: New APPS.

Categories

Blog powered by Typepad