Vicious Times
- PDF / 128,342 Bytes
- 3 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 61 Downloads / 173 Views
Vicious Times Ezio Di Nucci 1 Accepted: 20 October 2020/ # Springer Nature B.V. 2020
If you are looking for comfort in those vicious times, look no further than academic journals. Those old-fashioned institutions - or should we call them by their new name… those websites take such a long view of things that you will find no trace of COVID-19 in this issue of ETMP – and thank god for that if you ask me. Still, philosophy in particular has always paid a steep price for its taking of the long view: basically, nobody cares. It is therefore a delight for us to be able to present, in this issue of Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, a philosophical debate that has, at the same time, all the strengths of the rigour, precision and over-the-top clarity commonly associated with analytic philosophy while also preserving the ambition of both using and explaining recent historical cases with all their real-life complexities (rather than fanciful thought-experiments, that is). Enter so-called vice epistemology. I know, it isn’t the sexiest name in the game but isn’t that the point of taking the long view? Boring is good, just look at Trump. One of the most influential authors within vice epistemology is surely Quassim Cassam and our journal now publishes a book symposium on Cassam’s Vices of the Mind (Cassam 2019): the symposium consists of four commentaries plus author’s replies (Alfano 2019; Cassam 2020; Plakias 2020; Tanesini 2020; and Vigani 2020). Before talking content, let me emphasize that this is the first – but not the last – book symposium of its kind for ETMP: it has been run internally by one of the journal’s editors – me - rather than having been submitted as a special issue by an external guest editor. You are always welcome to submit proposals for both special issues and book symposia, by the way, see our CFP. We run our internal book symposia as follows: the journal’s editorial team selects books which are interesting enough from an argumentative point of view to warrant not just a book review or a review essay (which, again, you are welcome to suggest to us) but multiple commentaries, generally between three and five. The ETMP editorial team then contacts the author (we couldn’t do a symposium if an author didn’t want to reply to critics, but that hasn’t happened yet… wonder why) and selects commentators. This is obviously a different strategy from the classic passive approach of a journal which just has referees evaluate unsolicited submissions but – it is important to stress –
* Ezio Di Nucci [email protected]
1
University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
E. Di Nucci
our symposia are part of the book review section of the journal so they do not diminish the page count available to unsolicited submissions. Also, each contribution to our book symposia is externally peer-reviewed (double-blind) apart from the author’s replies, which are just evaluated by ETMP editors – usually at least two. I know, who cares about the inner workings of an academic journal –even more boring than its content, and that’s sayi
Data Loading...
