Hi. I haven’t read through everything here yet, but saw your CFP about Ethics and Aesthetics, which piqued my interest. I’d be happy to get involved with editing, or contributing a chapter, in either Metaphysics or Logic. (I agree, by the way, with some of the comments on the difficulty of logic in an intro text, but there are a few good examples, and I’d be willing to give it a go, even if it was ultimately decided to scrap it.)
Also, I see there’s nothing on Philosophy of Religion / Philosophical Theology (though maybe the idea was to include that under “Metaphysics”?) I think many undergraduates expect that arguments about the existence of God, the problem of Evil, etc., are supposed to be a big part of Philosophy. I’d be happy to help with that, if it was judged to be a good idea to include it. Cheers!
(EDIT: Just read the part about describing my experience. I’m Assistant Professor at Brescia University. Did my Ph.D. at Notre Dame. Oral exams in Metaphysics under Peter van Inwagen; dissertation under Richard Cross in Philosophy of Religion, on the so-called Logical Problem of the Trinity, which combined logic, metaphysics, and a consideration of some of the interplay between theology and philosophy during the 4th century. My first publication is just now coming out on the role of history in philosophical theology and the distinction between methodological approaches that are appropriate in metaphysics versus those that are appropriate in philosophical theology. More at beaubranson.com for those who are interested.)
@hugh Hii!! I would like to be involved in some way in this project (reviewer, contributor…). Specially in Part 7 “Philosophy of Science”.
My expertise is in History and Philosophy of Science, Epistemology, Science, Technology and Society studies and Politics of Science [I’m MA in Logic and Philosophy of Science, and MA in Education (minor in Philosophy). Currently doing a PhD in Philosophy of Science in the University of the Basque Country]. I have little experience in High School teaching and in divulgation of philosophy activities.
I already added myself to the team.
Greetings from Spain!
Hi @beau-branson and @sergio.urulo – welcome to the project! Wonderful to have you both on board.
Sergio, we will definitely keep you posted as we start on Philosophy of Science and get you involved. It’s great to see interest in the project all the way from Spain
Beau, I’ll get @clhendricksbc to weigh in on the idea of including ‘Philosophy of Religion’. We are looking for more part editors at the moment, so if you were interested in taking on that, Metaphysics or Logic, we’d love to talk more!
@sergio.urulo
¡Hola Sergio! ¡Saludos desde Vancouver!
It’s good to see someone finally taking initiative to contribute to the Philosophy of Science part of the textbook. I am starting graduate studies in the Philosophy of Physics and was waiting for someone to collaborate in the planning and writing of that section!
@beau.branson Awesome! Let’s wait for Christina to chime in on the proposed new topic, but in the meantime you can read more about the role here. Let me know if you have any questions.
@zoe@beau-branson I think Beau is right that philosophy of religion is often included in intro to philosophy. It certainly is something that could be useful to many intro courses, so I think if Beau wants to take that on as a Part editor, that sounds fine to me. Or one of the others…Beau, it’s up to you which one you would prefer to do. That is, if you would still like to be a Part editor after reading the description!
@dmgile Thanks, Douglas. We don’t have a Part editor for that section yet. I’m thinking I’d kind of rather have people with PhD’s in hand for Part editors, but I could be swayed on that, especially since, if I remember correctly, you have a good deal of teaching experience? Or maybe I’m mixing you up with someone else!
@clhendricksbc Yes I get the idea of keeping things in the open, and would put up with the awkwardness of this forum to have that. But I’ll defer to your judgment on which way to go.
It seems like a forum-type structure might be a better way to keep things organized. So discussions / threads could be split up by topic and made more manageable while still keeping everything together in one forum.
@clhendricksbc Yes, I’ve read over it and would be happy to. Like I said, I’d be happy to do any or all of those areas. Just to clarify, we are commissioning original chapters on all these topics, rather than making a reader of classic texts and writing intros for them, yes? I’m in the middle of a move right now, but I will start brainstorming chapter topics and reaching out to people I know who might be interested.
Also, did I read on here that you are at UBC? You might have run into my old friend, Kent Schmor, who’s been teaching at a few different schools in Vancouver.
Actually, come to think of it, Kent would be a good person to do the Logic section, I bet.
By the way, to add to earlier comments on Logic, there is a very useful sort of “crash course” in the basics of modern logic in a book by Moreland and Craig called “Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview.” I actually used it once but then got a bunch of questions about whether it was “Christian Logic” or whether logic itself was Christian, so I stopped using it to avoid all of that. But it would be a good model for something that gives just enough to be useful without becoming overwhelming.
@clhendricksbc Yes, I have taught at the university level for 12 years on my Masters, before that I was a technical editor, so I have experience working on books and working with multiple authors. My PhD oral defence is 27 July so barring some sort of cosmic catastrophe, I should have it all completed at that time. My dissertation is in social and political philosophy. I am very interested in being the part editor for that section.
@dmgile Okay, sounds great to me, then! Welcome aboard as Part editor! @zoe is going to set up a meeting of new part editors with me and the existing ones soon to get started.
@beau.branson Yes, we are creating original chapters. We are also compiling a list of primary sources that could go along with the textbook, and we could put together a reader of sorts. That would be separate, though, from this textbook.
I have heard Kent’s name before, but I can’t place him! Perhaps he has taught in our department but if so I can’t remember, sadly.
@beau.branson Oh, and let’s talk in a meeting about which area you might do. @Zoe is going to connect us for a virtual meeting soon. I think starting with one section is a good idea, so maybe consider which (Phil of Religion, Metaphysics, Logic) you would most like to work on at this time.
Rebus is currently developing a new tool to address some of the issues we’re having, which should be ready for beta soon (is that right, Zoe?). Hopefully that will address some of these issues. But maybe, Beau, you could say a little more about threads being split up by topic? We kind of have a forum structure here insofar as this thread is the main book discussion thread while each of the Parts of the book has their own (Ethics & Aesthetics so far).
This thread is quite big and unwieldy, and too intimidating for new people to get their heads around. So Zoe was thinking of having a separate place for general project summary and have this thread be more like current discussion. Thus, people don’t have to go to this thread to try to find out about the project more generally. I think it might scare some off!
How does this sound? I think (2) sounds good to me…
@clhendricksbc@beau.branson Good to see that Metaphysics and/or Logic is under consideration to start working on. Feel free to ask if I can be of help here in a later stage as a proofreader/reviewer.
