If anyone is in the general area, I'll be in Oxford tomorrow, speaking to the Oxford Philosophy Society about the metaphysics of linguistics. Details here: www.oxford-philsoc.org/events
Thanks! Looks great! (Hope you're feeling better soon)
Yeah, I think it gets complicated fast. Genuinely what got me started thinking about metaphysics of words stuff was how simple it seems at first, but how, on second thought, it all gets really complex and interesting. Linguistic entities are wierd.
I don't see why not! I realise its the obvious response, but I suppose it depends on your underlying metaphysics of objects/properties/events...
And here's a link to the Pavese and Radulescu paper I heavily draw on: academic.oup.com/analysis/art...
New short paper out in the Croatian Journal of Philosophy, arguing that we can't use intentions to individuate words. Huge credit and thanks to Pavese and Radulescu who came up with the general structure of the thought experiment first! Available open access here: hrcak.srce.hr/en/clanak/49...
Various Platonists about artifacts take them to be created entities. If created then they cannot be 'entirely separate' (and also plausible not timeless in a certain sense at least)
To be fair, the creator of A Man on the Inside also made A Good Place, which drew on lots of philosophy (and had a philosophy consultant I think). Maybe my work has gone 'mainstream' now?
A screenshot from the show A Man on the Inside. A philosophy professor is talking to another person and says 'Well, to answer that, we have to begin by asking, what are words?' Behind her is a whiteboard with other philosophical terms on it.
Can I claim this as 'Impact'? If a major Netflix show uses this as the sort of question a philosopher would ask...
And here's the open access link to the paper too: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...
I wrote up a short overview of a recent paper of mine, available here for anyone interested newworkinphilosophy.substack.com/p/water-and-...
if you're disabled and want a remote job doing meaningful work for an org that genuinely puts accessibility at the heart of everything it does, come and be my colleague.
Or at least it doesn't work unless you accept implausible views about words. And I think this shows that the metaphysics of words is important as views here impact other theories in philosophy of language, but I would say that... Available here open access www.cambridge.org/core/journal...
#PhilSky
I suspect most philosophers think some topics have had so much written about them, there isn't much more to say. And many will think that Putnam and Twin-Earth is one of them. Well, to prove that wrong, I've got a new paper just out on Putnam, Twin-Earth, and why that argument doesn't work #PhilSky
My latest paper now officially published (open access) after some delays in processing. It is about how to account for misspelling (and other forms of linguistic errors) without positing abstract word-types. Another part of my 'no need to posit word-types' series... www.cambridge.org/core/journal...
New paper just published online (and open access)! Philosophers/metaphysicians have paid very little/no attention to puns before, and I think we should. I argue that puns provide (another) reason to be nominalists about words.
philpapers.org/rec/MILTMO-64
Also, the second picutre is of the 'Square Ξead' public library. No notes - just excellent.
In Nice to give a paper at the SPE/Oasis conference (spe-uca.sciencesconf.org). The weather is not quite the same as Durham in early/mid October...
