Eleonore Stump’s “Wandering in Darkness: Narrative and the Problem of Suffering” is a work of genius. (Easily found on Amazon.) See also her fantastic paper “Aquinas on Atonement.”

Same with Lynnne Rudder-Baker’s “Naturalism and the First-Person Perspective.” (Easily found on Amazon.)

Finally, Lorraine Keller’s “The Argument from Intentionality (Or Aboutness)” in “Two Dozen (or So) Arguments for God: The Plantinga Project” is brilliant. (Easily found on Amazon.)

Noa Shein, THE FALSE DICHOTOMY BETWEEN OBJECTIVE
AND SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATIONS OF SPINOZA’S
THEORY OF ATTRIBUTES, Brit J Hist Phil, 2009.

This powerfully argues against the orthodox interpretation of a critical point in Spinoza’s metaphysics–an orthodoxy based on thin and shaky arguments.

Rebekka Hufendiek, “Affordances and the Normativity of Emotions”
(One of the best papers in analytic philosophy of emotion that I’ve read.)
Abstract: The normativity of emotions is a widely discussed phenomenon. So far embodied accounts have not paid sufficient attention to the various aspects of the normativity of emotions. In this paper it shall be pointed out that embodied accounts are constrained in the way they can account for the normativity of emotions due to their commitments to naturalism, externalism, and anti-vehicle-internalism. One way to account for the normativity of emotions within a naturalist framework is to describe the intentional objects of emotions as affordances that are of value for the organism. These affordances are part of a biological and social environment we are situated in, and they stand in complex relations to each other and to skillful organisms. I suggest that describing these relations can replace vehicle-internalist approaches but still account for the normativity of emotions within a naturalist framework.

– Hannah Arendt: “On Violence” (the role violent action plays on human affairs).
– Julia Annas: “Being Virtuous and Doing the Right Thing” (excellent defense of Aristotle’s ethics in reply to the criticisms against it).
-Sandra Lee Bartky: “Narcissism, Femininity and Alienation” (on conflicts within feminism).
-Iris Young: “Lived Body VS. Gender” (for understanding gender and its relation to our environment/each other/ourselves).

Two more worth mentioning:
Drayson’s “The personal/subpersonal distinction” (2014)
Fridland’s “They’ve lost control: Refections on skill” (2014)

Cathy Sutton’s “Against Maximality Principles”, for her killer counterexamples to maximality constraints on ordinary-object kinds. Every metaphysician should know these examples! https://philpapers.org/rec/SUTATM

Chomsky’s 1959 review of Skinner changed history. My 2014 review of Chomsky’s “The Science of Language” remains mostly ignored. I am NOT claiming people should agree with it but it is curious that they do not mention it. Perhaps because I am a woman?
Behme, Christina (2014) A ‘Galilean’ science of language. Journal of Linguistics 50, 3, 671-704
Abstract
The Science of Language, published in the sixth decade of Noam Chomsky’s linguistic career, defends views that are visibly out of touch with recent research in formal linguistics, developmental child psychology, computational modeling of language acquisition, and language evolution. I argue that the poor quality of this volume is representative of the serious shortcomings of Chomsky’s recent scholarship, especially of his criticism of and contribution to debates about language evolution. Chomsky creates the impression that he is quoting titbits of a massive body of scientific work he has conducted or is intimately familiar with. Yet his speculations reveal a lack of even basic understanding of biology, and an unwillingness to engage seriously with the relevant literature. At the same time, he ridicules the work of virtually all other theorists, without spelling out the views he disagrees with. A critical analysis of the ‘Galilean method’ demonstrates that Chomsky uses appeal to authority to insulate his own proposals against falsification by empirical counter-evidence. This form of discourse bears no serious relation to the way science proceeds.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-linguistics/article/a-galilean-science-of-language1/5134714D7DBAF43A5CBF2F7BE8F0137C#

One of my favorite exchanges is Sara Moss’s “On the Pragmatics of Counterfactuals” and Karen Lewis’s “Counterfactual Discourse in Context”.

https://philpapers.org/rec/MOSOTP
https://philpapers.org/rec/LEWCDI

I enjoyed reading Charity Anderson’s “On the Intimate Relationship of Knowledge and Action” (2015) Episteme. It’s a very careful, clear, and well-written critique of pragmatic encroachment.

https://philpapers.org/rec/ANDOTI-3

Not necessarily underappreciated but:

Gina Schouten, “Restricting Justice: Political Interventions in the Home and in the Market”, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Volume 41, Issue 4, Fall 2013, Pages 357–388

Also, and this is a bit awkward because its in a volume I edited (but that’s how I know it so well), everyone who teaches philosophy — in fact everyone who teachers in the humanities and interpretative social sciences — ought to read:

Kyla Ebels-Duggan, “Autonomy as an Intellectual Virtue”, in The Aims of Higher Education: Problems of Morality and Justice, edited by Brighouse and McPherson, University of Chicago Press, 2015.

Same volume has chapters by Amy Gutmann about the purposes of higher education and Erin Kelly about the structures of universities that should be widely read too.

It’s like a positive wave of feminist power these days. Nice way to appreciate women in science by your article. Hope art will be the next chapter and one Kunstbuchverlag (publisher of art books) starts this new age in art aswell. https://www.kerberverlag.com/en/. Because women did so many impressive projects in history so far! Greetings from Germany