Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Fool's avatar
  2. Santa Monica's avatar
  3. Charles Bakker's avatar
  4. Matty Silverstein's avatar
  5. Jason's avatar
  6. Nathan Meyvis's avatar
  7. Stefan Sciaraffa's avatar

    The McMaster Department of Philosophy has now put together the following notice commemorating Barry: Barry Allen: A Philosophical Life Barry…

Treatment of Philosophy in Planned National Research Council Rankings (Leiter)

Brian Leiter
Ned Block (NYU) alerts me to the fact that the new National Research Council study of graduate programs (the last one came out in 1995) proposes to divide Philosophy into the following subfields for evaluation purposes:
Continental Philosophy
Epistemology
Esthetics
Ethics and Political Philosophy
Feminist Philosophy
History of Philosophy
Logic and foundations of mathematics
Metaphysics
Philosophy of Language
Philosophy of Mind
Philosophy of Science
Ned notes that, "Ancient philosophy is listed under classics."  (There is more information about taxonomies here and about the planned questionnaires here.)  As things stand now, it is not clear that the NRC will undertake the most valuable part of their prior studies:  namely, a survey of expert opinion.  After the 1995 NRC Report, two Vanderbilt professors (not in philosophy) launched a campaign in favor of the kinds of "objective" measures that are increasingly popular in the sciences and in other fields (including law).  (Schools like Vanderbilt did not fare so well by reputational measures.)  It appears they have successfully conned the NRC panels into dropping what remains the most informative measure of quality, namely, evaluation by experts.  (There is no mention of reputational surveys here.)  Of course, for obvious reasons, philosophy is less in need of reputational surveys, but other fields, especially in the humanities, will no doubt be harmed by the absence of such data.

Putting aside the issue of the kinds of data the NRC proposes to request, Ned Block thought it might be useful to solicit comments on the proposed categories for philosophy.  There is still time for feedback from professional philosophers to make a difference here.  (Do look at the taxonomies for some other fields:  it seems unlikely the large number of fine-grained categories the PGR uses will be possible here–8-12 subfields seems fairly typical.)  Comments are open; no anonymous postings.  If there is hope that the NRC will take this feedback seriously, it needs to be signed.  Please post only once; comments may take awhile to appear.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

9 responses to “Treatment of Philosophy in Planned National Research Council Rankings (Leiter)”

  1. Chris Bobonich

    Ancient philosophy should not be listed under Classics. In the US at any rate, it is more actively done in Philosophy depts (which is not, of course, to deny that there are a number of superb people working in US Classics depts). But many more are working in Philosophy depts.

    Reply
  2. Hendrik Lorenz

    Classics should certainly include ancient philosophy as a category, together with other categories such as ancient history and classical literature. Fortunately, ancient philosophy is actively studied and taught in many U.S. Classics departments. Under the NRC proposal, philosophy does include the category of history of philosophy, and that seems reasonably interpreted as including the philosophical study of ancient philosophy.

    Reply
  3. Eric Rovie

    I see no space on any of the taxonomies given on the site for Philosophy of Law. At the least, it would seem to slot in nicely with Ethics and Political Philosophy. I think a more appropriate division might be Ethics as a stand alone category, with a second category for Social, Political, and Philosophy of Law.

    Reply
  4. Thom Brooks

    I agree with Rovie, although I would think "ethics and political philosophy" should be divided into two categories:

    (a) Ethics and Meta-Ethics
    (b) Legal and Political Philosophy

    Reply
  5. Gary Kemp

    Somebody has to play the fuddy-duddy … Maybe someone can explain why there would be feminist philosophy on such a list, but not Idealist, Marxist, Realist, Materialist etc.; or why that and not Indian, African, Chinese … (especially when Ethics and Political count as one category.. a big one!).

    Reply
  6. Steven

    At the very least, "esthetics" should be changed to "aesthetics." A Google search on the latter turn up the subfield's two major journals and professional societies, among other (mostly) relevant sites. A search on the former, on the other hand, turns up mostly irrelevant sites (such as those about "spa training.")

    Perhaps "Aesthetics and philosophy of the arts" would be the most helpful and informative name for the subfield for the purposes of the NRC report.

    Reply
  7. Gary Chartier

    Three observations: (2) Is "Continental Philosophy" an area of philosophy parallel with "Epistemology" or "Logic"? Surely not. Is it not rather a particular way of approaching philosophical problems in dialogue with a particular tradition of discourse? It doesn't seem on all fours with the other categories. (2) Ditto for "feminist philosophy." (3) Given the liveliness of debate in the philosophy of religion in recent decades, I'm surprised by its absence as a subject area.

    Reply
  8. Brian Leiter

    We've debated many times on this blog what "Continental philosophy" is, and I think it's safe to say that, whatever exactly it is, it isn't in any meaningful sense "a particular way of approaching philosophical problems in dialogue with a particular tradition of discourse," since there is no "particular way of approaching philosophical problems" and no "particular tradition of discourse" shared by all of Hegel, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche, Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, and the others generally lumped under this category. "Continental philosophy" is closer, I think, to "early modern philosophy," i.e., as defining an historical period of figures with some overlapping interests and methods.

    Reply
  9. Gary Chartier

    No doubt Brian is completely right about what Continental philosophy is. I think my point still stands that, if most of the other sub-fields on the list are topic-focused, it might seem odd to treat "Continental philosophy" as a category comparable to "logic" or "metaphysics," just as it would seem odd to treat "early modern philosophy" this way.

    Reply

Designed with WordPress