7 thoughts on “‘Nominalism is the doctrine that there are no universals’…

  1. Woops – we cross-posted! Took mine down.

    My inner nominalist is trying not to get cranky at your suggestion of what it takes for there to be universals. . . ;-)

  2. Hi,

    As a co-editor I think that I owe you an explanation, and I have a reply to get this explanation published. Eight women philosophers* have been invited to contribute to this volume prior to the decision to publish because we did want this volume to be representative of the profession. Of these eight philosophers, two accepted to contribute to the volume while we thought of publishing it with another publisher whose acronym starts with a “O” and finishes with a “P”. So that at some stage of the process there were two women philosophers involved in that project. 6 months after the submission, this publisher decided not to publish. At this stage, one of these two philosophers decided to withdraw her paper despite our encouragements and decision to submit elsewhere. Finally, we decided to resubmit elsewhere with only one woman involved because of time pressure. When we announced that the volume has been accepted by Acumen (then swallowed by Routledge) the second philosopher involved in the project decided to withdraw her paper too, again against our encouragements to pursue. Then we were facing a moral dilemma: we did want the collection to be more representative, but several of the contributors are young researchers on the job market who need publications urgently. Deciding to postpone the publication in order to find new contributors (while the project already started more than a year ago at this stage) would have been bad for them and they might have decided to withdraw their paper too. We talked the issue with the publisher who encouraged us to publish the collection in its present stage. So we sincerely regret that the volume is not more representative of the profession than it is; this is not what we wanted and we acted against this.
    I let you judge whether we still deserve the blame, at least now you have the relevant data.

    Best,
    Ghislain

    * compare with the number of women philosophers whose publications are listed in the category “property nominalim” in philpapers for comparison: http://philpapers.org/browse/property-nominalism?sqc=&onlineOnly=&cn=property-nominalism&showCategories=on&newWindow=on&proOnly=on&new=1&limit=50&categorizerOn=&cId=5947&publishedOnly=&langFilter=&hideAbstracts=&sort=pubYear&filterByAreas=&freeOnly=&start=0&format=html&jlist=&ap_c1=&ap_c2=

  3. Hi Ghislain,
    Thanks for stopping by! Blame is not, and never has been, any part of what we’re up to with this campaign. Given the demographics of our profession, there are many ways that all-male conferences and volumes can come about. The goal of this campaign is simply to call attention to the regulatory with which all-male conferences and volumes appear, do to the damaging effects they can have. I’m sorry that yours turned out this way despite your efforts.

  4. Thanks for stopping by! Blame is not, and never has been, any part of what we’re up to with this campaign. Given the demographics of our profession, there are many ways that all-male conferences and volumes can come about. The goal of this campaign is simply to call attention to the regulatory with which all-male conferences and volumes appear, do to the damaging effects they can have. I’m sorry that yours turned out this way despite your efforts.

Comments are closed.