Category Imperative
Folks,
Sorry about the hiatus and not commenting on recent posts. It is wonderful to see the group grow. I think that with Jamie Smith and myself, we have the first institutional gap. I came to Nova right after Jennifer and Jamie left and the blog brings us together for the first time, which is precisely why it is a great forum.
As the blog grows, I have a suggestion, which may already be in the works or cannot be implemented for whatever reason. I suggest that we use the "category" function of Powerblogs. Since Leiter was one of the initial inspirations, I can refer to his subcategories. As of now, our blog is only chronologically ordered. Time for continental folks is key, of course; but so is archive fever. I think the blog would benefit from a categorization.
Whose categories? Which rationale?
It should be debatable and reformable. Here are a few suggestions:
"Research": Posts dealing with our own research, or focused on research matters: new journals, interesting call for papers, conference notes etc.
"Market": We're the fortunate ones who got jobs; this is the place where we could post upcoming ads, news about APA gatherings such as nearby hotels or transportation issues, hotel room sharing if needed, especially for the grad students who can benefit from it, finally, tips/question regarding interviews. For instance, Greg had put together the 'Top Weird Questions' that many of us received during interviews this year. That could be here. (My favorite from this past year’s interviews: “Which article and/or book have you read in the past year that has helped you better integrate diversity in the classroom?” Yeah…that was a fun interview, the way the Spanish Inquisition must have been a blast.)
"News about the profession": Vague category, I admit. Senior hires, moves, or perhaps new journals and CFP could go here.
"Villanova News": Obviously about the philosophy program first and foremost but in general about Nova.
"Personal News": As mentioned earlier, I have never had the pleasure of meeting Jamie Smith and this is the beginning of an acquaintance. In general, this forum is allowing us to keep in touch and I think we should make room for sharing some personal good/bad news. One's breakfast does not count; a baby would.
"Of Political/Philosophical Interest": I never got a chance to give my two cents about the Iranian election, for instance, as I was about to move. But I think there will be occasions when one would like to have a link here or put a post with some political value.
"Teaching": Tips, news, war stories etc.
"Humor: Sophisticated and Unsophisticated": Hopefully more of the latter than the former, and this is not an important category but I like philosophical humor.
"Misc.": Call this the "ambiguous category", the "over-determined category", the "Other" category, the "differeance" category, the "hospitality" category", etc. Just stuff that is harder to classify.
As in Leiter's case, one can have multiple categories for each post if needed.
This is more a meta-post than an actual post. Meta-comments are most welcome.
Sorry about the hiatus and not commenting on recent posts. It is wonderful to see the group grow. I think that with Jamie Smith and myself, we have the first institutional gap. I came to Nova right after Jennifer and Jamie left and the blog brings us together for the first time, which is precisely why it is a great forum.
As the blog grows, I have a suggestion, which may already be in the works or cannot be implemented for whatever reason. I suggest that we use the "category" function of Powerblogs. Since Leiter was one of the initial inspirations, I can refer to his subcategories. As of now, our blog is only chronologically ordered. Time for continental folks is key, of course; but so is archive fever. I think the blog would benefit from a categorization.
Whose categories? Which rationale?
It should be debatable and reformable. Here are a few suggestions:
"Research": Posts dealing with our own research, or focused on research matters: new journals, interesting call for papers, conference notes etc.
"Market": We're the fortunate ones who got jobs; this is the place where we could post upcoming ads, news about APA gatherings such as nearby hotels or transportation issues, hotel room sharing if needed, especially for the grad students who can benefit from it, finally, tips/question regarding interviews. For instance, Greg had put together the 'Top Weird Questions' that many of us received during interviews this year. That could be here. (My favorite from this past year’s interviews: “Which article and/or book have you read in the past year that has helped you better integrate diversity in the classroom?” Yeah…that was a fun interview, the way the Spanish Inquisition must have been a blast.)
"News about the profession": Vague category, I admit. Senior hires, moves, or perhaps new journals and CFP could go here.
"Villanova News": Obviously about the philosophy program first and foremost but in general about Nova.
"Personal News": As mentioned earlier, I have never had the pleasure of meeting Jamie Smith and this is the beginning of an acquaintance. In general, this forum is allowing us to keep in touch and I think we should make room for sharing some personal good/bad news. One's breakfast does not count; a baby would.
"Of Political/Philosophical Interest": I never got a chance to give my two cents about the Iranian election, for instance, as I was about to move. But I think there will be occasions when one would like to have a link here or put a post with some political value.
"Teaching": Tips, news, war stories etc.
"Humor: Sophisticated and Unsophisticated": Hopefully more of the latter than the former, and this is not an important category but I like philosophical humor.
"Misc.": Call this the "ambiguous category", the "over-determined category", the "Other" category, the "differeance" category, the "hospitality" category", etc. Just stuff that is harder to classify.
As in Leiter's case, one can have multiple categories for each post if needed.
This is more a meta-post than an actual post. Meta-comments are most welcome.
Posted by Farhang Erfani on
Friday August 19, 2005 at 5:47pm
Seriously, though, the category idea is a good one, and I think your initial category division is sound. I have thought about this already, as John mooted the idea to me earlier in the summer. What I told him at the time was that I would look into it, but it was unclear to me that, given the way categories work on powerblogs, that it would make much difference to the way the blog works. I have to admit, though, that at the time I didn't really look into it further. I will now.
kidding, kidding.
Interestingly, I think people often use the word "moot" (in the adjectival sense displayed in the phrase "moot point") incorrectly. I think it should most correctly mean "up for debate," while people often use the phrase "moot point" to refer to something that is not worth debating (thus the common mistake of saying "mute point"). However, I think that the correct sense might also have connotations of being wholly or infinitely debatable, or undecidable, and in this case what I am calling the incorrect usage would not be completely off. Whether anyone should care is of course a different story...
Insofar as this "blog" can be a forum for discussion debate, "Villanova PhilMoot" might be right on point, though a bit odd...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=moot+
It is interesting that the noun and the adjective examples are different. One meaning useless to debate; the other meaning worth debating.
"Usage Note: The adjective moot is originally a legal term going back to the mid-16th century. It derives from the noun moot, in its sense of a hypothetical case argued as an exercise by law students. Consequently, a moot question is one that is arguable or open to debate. But in the mid-19th century people also began to look at the hypothetical side of moot as its essential meaning, and they started to use the word to mean “of no significance or relevance.” Thus, a moot point, however debatable, is one that has no practical value. A number of critics have objected to this use, but 59 percent of the Usage Panel accepts it in the sentence The nominee himself chastised the White House for failing to do more to support him, but his concerns became moot when a number of Republicans announced that they, too, would oppose the nomination. When using moot one should be sure that the context makes clear which sense is meant."
Apparently, I disagree with a majority of the Usage Panel (whoever they are)...
seriously, i do know that the OED had the best philologists in the world on their staff when they were putting that text together and researching when words first began to be used in a given sense (and i assume they continue to have the best folks doing their update work). interestingly enough, j.r.r. tolkien was one of them. i don't know who the usage panel is here, but presumably it's some kind of group like that???