Underappreciated Philosophical Writing of the Past 50 Years, Part 5: 2010s
In this, the last post in our series of underappreciated writing of the past 50 years, we turn to 2010-2019.
[painting by Anna Matykiewicz]
In addition to commenting on this post, please note that suggestions are welcome on the previous installments in the series:
Thanks for your contributions to this series!
“Kotarbinski’s action theory” (Palgrave, 2017) shows why Kotarbinski’s praxiology is no less important than phil of action of Anscombe or Davidson. The book also addresses numerous topics in contemporary action theory (e.g. Bratman’s planning theory, theory of reasons for action, or automaticity). Recommended as a ‘must-read’ by several well-recognized authors, it is still rather unknown.
Praxeology, not praxiology.
nope, sir. read the book first, then make your own judgements…
Dale (DC) Matthew (https://yorku.academia.edu/DaleMatthew ) published several important articles in the late 2010’s, including but not limited to:
Rawls and Racial Justice (Politics, Philosophy, and Economics, 2017): https://www.academia.edu/33668167/Rawls_and_Racial_Justice
Rawls’ Ideal Theory: A Clarification and Defense (Res Publica, 2019): https://www.academia.edu/37564043/Rawlss_Ideal_Theory_A_Clarification_and_Defense
They are underappreciated in the sense that they seek to defend Rawls’ theory of justice against some influential critiques, and are relatively new and only have one citation on Google Scholar between them.
Causation and Its Basis in Fundamental Physics by Douglas Kutach is a terrific work in the metaphysics of causation, that is also of significant methodological interest due to Kutach’s idea of “empirical analysis”, a framework for empirically informed conceptual engineering. It’s currently only cited by 28 other publications on Google Scholar; it deserves far more.
A really nicely done book that hasn’t received as much attention as it should have is Colin Grey’s _Justice and Authority in Immigration Law_ (Bloomsbury, 2015). It’s not as easy a read as some more well-known works on immigration by philosophers, but it’s a very careful, sophisticated argument. It’s especially important and useful for discussing when, how, and why laws enforcing restrictions on immigration can be said to have authority over those that they are applied to. I’d say the book is worth the effort (it’s not that it’s poorly written – quite the opposite – just that the arguments are made with detail and care) and would would benefit people interested in philosophical issues around immigration and legal authority.
Models as epistemic artefacts by Tarja Knuuttila (2011). This paper criticises the representational approach to the problem of the epistemic role of models, and instead proposes a new approach. The artifactual account she develops approaches models as epistemic artefacts whose justificativo is distributed across uses, model construction and what the model epistemically affords. This includes representation, and goes beyond it.
This was sent before I could proofread it, sorry. The correct name of the article is “Modelling and representing: An artefactual approach to model-based representation”
If it is justified for someone to suggest its own work then: Essay on Human Reason: On the Principle of Identity and Difference (Vernon Press, 2018).
First chapter: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334172059_Theory_of_perception_where_the_material_touches_the_mental
Summary: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332382681_The_Reason_as_an_ability_for_identification_and_differentiation_updated
Three that come to mind:
– “What Makes a Person Liable to Defensive Harm?” by Kerah Gordon-Solmon (Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 2017).
Gordon-Solmon provides a compelling reinterpretation of the influential ‘responsibility account’ of liability to defensive harm by emphasizing how the moral logic of this account parallels the moral logic employed by luck egalitarians in
debates about distributive justice. This article is well worth a read for anyone interested in the ethics of defensive harm or risk imposition.
– “Political Self-Determination and Wars of National Defense” by Massimo Renzo (Journal of Moral Philosophy, 2018).
Renzo lays out a strong case for thinking that engaging in a defensive war to protect a country’s independence can be justified even if the lives of its citizens are not under an immediate threat. To do this, he shows how
a people’s interest in political autonomy can be integrated into proportionality calculations.
-“Permissibility in a World of Wrongdoing” by Victor Tadros (Philosophy and Public Affairs, 2016).
Tadros undertakes a sophisticated a thorough analysis of (among other things) of whether there is a duty to “take up the slack” for non-compliers in cases where doing so will prevent harm to innocent third parties. His reasoning
is hard to resist and the conclusion he reaches is provocative. Yet surprisingly, subsequent literature on this topic has largely overlooked/ignored this article.
Three cheers for Gordon-Solmon! Her work connects so many unexpected dots, and it’s got such a great style.
I’d recommend her PPA & PPQ papers, too.
Chris and Jen Frey’s “G. E. M. Anscombe on the Analogical Unity of Intention in Perception and Action” Analytic Philosophy, 2017. https://philpapers.org/rec/FREGAO
It’s simultaneously a great phil. action paper, a great phil. perception paper, and one of the best things I’ve read on Anscombe in a long time.
Julia Annas’ “Plato’s laws and Cicero’s De Legibus,” is a master’s class in classical scholarship, and, of course, philosophical thinking. *De Legibus* has probably enjoyed a wider readership than *Laws,* historically, and Prof. Annas argues forcefully for its unique contribution, despite Cicero’s claim to be following Plato. A the theme, not explicit, in the paper is the important role these works play in establishing western legal thinking, an influence still alive today. Cannot recommend it highly enough!
Oops *A secondary theme, not explicit,. . .