Here, we outline UPJA’s recent developments and the contents of Volume 2, Issue 2

Collins, Rory W.

Pillai, Anita S.

PhilPapers

 iv EDITORS’ NOTE This year has brought many unexpected obstacles. The COVID-19 pandemic continues to challenge our way of being and perceptions of normality. This has forced students to adapt to a new way of life, with disruptions to on-campus learning having changed the landscape of tertiary education. As such, we are proud that Volume 2, Issue 2 has provided a means of collaboration for undergraduate philosophy, a locus for the free movement of ideas at a time when physical movement is severely restricted. Additionally, there have been significant changes to the funding of humanities programmes in Australian universities, providing further roadblocks in a climate where academic philosophy must continually justify its existence. For our latest Voices from the Region and Beyond section, we posed the question ‘Why is philosophy relevant today?’. The responses published in this issue remind us of the importance of philosophy and its relevance to scholarly, political, social, and personal domains. With international travel greatly limited this year, we are pleased that UPJA has been a platform for dialogue between emerging philosophers around the world. This edition of the journal saw our pool of referees expand to include students and recent graduates from institutions worldwide, generating substantial interest from applicants in several parts of the Northern Hemisphere alongside the Australasian community. Our team of 22 referees for this issue spans Australia, Belgium, Canada, England, New Zealand, the Philippines, Portugal, Scotland, Spain, and the United States. Also, in November we hosted our second Virtual Conference for Undergraduate Philosophy. This involved talks from seven student presenters in five countries, a keynote address by Associate Professor Stephanie Collins, and many engaging discussions with attendees from across the globe. Given UPJA’s growing international presence, it was perhaps unsurprising to observe the regional diversity among those who submitted a paper for this issue. We received 42 submissions from students at 32 different institutions in 11 countries. In addition, we are pleased to report that half of these submissions (and two-thirds of referee applications) came from individuals who identify as members of underrepresented groups in philosophy. Three papers are published in the present issue, giving a competitive acceptance rate of 7%. In ‘A Kantian Take on Mind Extension’, Levi Haeck (Ghent University) provides a thorough examination of Immanuel Kant’s conception of the mind and its (inter)relationship with the world. Recognising that Kantian theories are lacking within recent dialogue in philosophy of mind, Haeck then assesses Andy Clark and David Chalmers’ extended mind thesis through a Kantian lens. This theory, Haeck argues, fails to adequately dispel the dualistic Cartesian opposition between ‘mind’ and ‘world’. Accordingly, Kant’s transcendental idealism – which Haeck suggests  v does successfully refute Cartesian idealism – may provide underappreciated insights into contemporary notions of mind extension. In a similar vein, Ruby Hornsby (University of Leeds) reflects on historical ideas of the good life and their application to various contexts with modern-day relevance in ‘The Nature of Pleasure in Plato’s Philebus’. Through a detailed analysis of Plato’s account, Hornsby identifies two overarching varieties of pleasure: impure and pure. The former consists of the restoration of harmonious conditions, while the latter involves the actualisation of certain potential states. In either case, Hornsby maintains, a process of change is essential to the occurrence of pleasure. Matthew W. G. McClure (University of Edinburgh) focuses on a very different sort of change in ‘Star Models and the Semantics of Infectiousness’: a modification to logical systems. More specifically, McClure demonstrates how a novel variety of star semantics may be incorporated in forms of logic with many-valued semantics that include the truth-value ‘indeterminate’. McClure goes on to explore three possible ways of interpreting the indeterminate truth-value – the nonsense, off-topic, and emptiness interpretations – all of which, they argue, appear just as compatible with star semantics as many-valued semantics. In an interesting parallel with ongoing epidemiological events, McClure concludes by discussing how infectious logics might best be ‘quarantined’, and the means through which star semantics may navigate this challenge. We are pleased to award two prizes for this issue. Levi Haeck receives the prize for Best Paper, and Ruby Hornsby receives the prize for Best Paper (Member of an Underrepresented Group in Philosophy). Both of these are funded by the Australasian Association of Philosophy, whose continued support of UPJA has been invaluable. Indeed, many organisations and individuals contributed to the production of Volume 2, Issue 2. We are thankful to the numerous student philosophy societies and Minorities and Philosophy chapters for circulating our call for papers; our team of referees for providing such erudite and constructive reports on submissions; and our three faculty advisors – Associate Professor Stephanie Collins, Assistant Professor Sandra Leonie Field, and Dr Carolyn Mason – for their ongoing assistance. Thanks also to Dr David Ripley and Raphael Morris for sharing their philosophical expertise. Finally, we thank our hardworking and dedicated Associate Editors, Alan Bechaz and Racher Du. Their creative ingenuity, philosophical insight, and tenacity in producing this issue were second to none. It is with great pride that we pass on to them the roles of Editors-in-Chief for Volume 3, Issue 1.   Rory Collins and Anita Pillai December 2020  

Editors' Note

https://philpapers.org/archive/COLEN-2.pdf

Editors' Note

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

PhilPapers