Ryura

1. There seem to be many areas of anglophone philosophy today that have very little work being done on them in foreign languages. On a whole, the type of philosophy done in the English-speaking world differs from, say, continental Europe's philosophy. That's why language learning appears to be irrelevant for English-speaking philosophers today. 2. There actually is quite a bit of philosophical literature on the problems of translation in philosophy. I see these issues discussed in forewords by translated authors all the time. Gadamer has written some on translation as well.

Congrats! Mind sharing where? All the aspects of my application seem to me to be pretty similar in strength. High GPA from a notable Christian liberal arts college. High but not superb GRE scores. A well-argued but somewhat unambitious writing sample. Very strong recommendations from fairly unknown scholars. I'd guess my recommendations are the strongest part for me, but it's hard to say.

Thanks for clarifying when one may be elitist. Does this rule apply to reviewing a book's content as well?

About half of my schools appeared to require official transcripts. One of them required two sets (ugh). But many of those that required official ones allowed me to upload unofficials, and it wasn't clear whether they really needed official transcripts.

I don't think anyone here is denying that writing is an art form. In fact, since most people have acknowledged that their writing today is much different than it has been in the past, everyone appears to be in agreement with you that writing skills can and must be learned. What is in question is how, exactly, excellent writing looks in practice. You've stated one idea - a three step process that most of us have agreed we use for non-philosophical writing. Then we've responded with our experience when trying to write philosophically. But all you've done is say that our experiences are invalid because philosophical writing couldn't possibly be different. Indeed, you do so despite Table's rather illuminating example of mathematics as an area where your method clearly doesn't apply. Did you ever consider that, perhaps, you may be the one who doesn't want people to mention things that go against your own preconceived notions? P.S. Statements like "man up" are probably not going to help your credibility on these forums.

Really - you think all the great literary masters agree with you? Such confidence. A few thoughts on word vomiting: First, it doesn't preclude the nuance and precision needed to do great philosophy. I know this because, as is well known, Kripke word vomited the entirety of Naming and Necessity, which is full of analytic nuance and precision. Second, I find that word vomiting can help me to trace a thought down avenues I previously hadn't taken it. That is, just "letting it flow" allows my thought to go in a bunch of different directions and see new possibilities for it. Of course, almost inevitably, the word vomited paragraph(s) will be entirely erased and replaced with a more carefully written argument. But nevertheless, the word vomit can help on the first try to see new ideas. Third, it usually takes me about an hour and a half to write a well written double spaced page for topics I'm not terribly familiar with. For topics that I am familiar with, e.g. Heidegger or Kierkegaard or the epistemology of disagreement, I can write a good page in about half of that time.

While this advice may ring true for non-philosophy degrees (I haven't the slightest clue), one thing to keep in mind is that most serious applicants to philosophy Ph.D. programs will have non-WS credentials that are far better than many other programs. That is, philosophy Ph.D. applicants are among the best overall graduate school applicants in the world. It's unlikely that non-philosophers will have much weight on the admission committees, then, since by the usual standards (GPA, GRE, etc.) virtually every serious candidate should be accepted. The writing sample and letters are the only ways for a student to stand out given such strong competition (the statement of purpose, I take it, only goes to prove one is a good match for the program, which again could only be evaluated by the faculty).

The university is closed. Nobody is reading your application over Christmas.