axiomness

That's great to hear MattDest (funfact--the medieval Muslims' [i know Alfarabi & Averroes use it] term for atheist was directly derived from Epicurus' name. No joke.) I'm curious to hear of your opinion of Rousseau then, by your reported method of choosing favorites. It's obviously kind of technical (as you are [at least] familiar with probability theory in Phil Religion, you know what I mean -- 'em prior probabilities are a tricky matter), but essentially the argument is a response to his 2013 article against Mike Bergmann's (2008) argument against Draper-style (he calls them Hume-style) arguments from evil, viz., the 1989 "Pain and Pleasure" argument. I don't defend Bergmann, but critique Bergmann's view so that it properly addresses the problems addressed in Draper's 2013 (well, he obviously disagrees, but he gave me an A on the paper so I'm happy with it). I think that skeptical theism of the Bergmann sort (which, rudimentarily, says that we have little-to-no idea about how the realm of value works--e.g., is it really all-things-considered good to do such-and-such? How likely are we to be able to discern such a value?) sucessfully undercuts the power that our understanding of pain and pleasure (which is a fundamental aspect of Draper's '89--hence the name) has in his argument. Well, that's my WS. As for any general thoughts, that's probably more PM-worthy stuff. I hope you do. I bet you were reading William Lane Craig or Plantinga (or historical stuff mostly). Or not, I'm curious. I'd recommend two things to get you back interested in it: 1) read some smart, non-fundamentalistic-apologetico-like theistic philosophers (Like, say, Zimmerman, or Rea, or Bergmann); 2) Read some progressive Atheists (like Draper or, better yet, J.L. Schellenberg's work).

One of mine I got a brand-spanking new Oxford Annotated Bible, what he had in his office was the Old Scofield KJV. So he went from the most (arguably) conservative/fundamentalist to the best scholarly/critical Bible. He's thrilled (he's Paul Draper, MattDest and Zizek). Another was hard, and we know eachother incredibly well. I gave him my stole from graduation (as an honor) and a year-length subscription to Mental_Floss. The other is very humanitarian/charity oriented. I donated to an educational fund (that directly supports, ironically, the above [2nd] recommender's teaching).

Zizek, do yourself a favor and get Dan Howard-Snyder's fantastic The Evidential Argument from Evil. I'm assuming that, mostly, you find Hume's inductive argument in book X to be the main force behind Hume's work. Check out Paul Draper (my favorite philosopher of religion) who takes Hume's argument, mixes in some formal Bayesianism, and does some incredible work with it. (To show my cards, my WS was an argument against one of Draper's--that Skeptical Theism defeats his sort of argument from evil). I'm also a major fan of David Lewis like yourself, for eerily similar reasons. I had a professor who was apparently closer than an acquantaince with him, and the way he spoke of Lewis was inspiring (excepting Lewis' apparant love for horrifically stinky cheese...). I'm also a major fan of Ayer. I totally am surprised at these names you've thrown out, I thought you were more a continentalish guy. As to the OP--perhaps it is a silly question for some of us. I'll answer anyway-- Current: Paul Draper, or Keith DeRose, or maybe Dean Zimmerman Historical: Hume or Spinoza, Aquinas, maybe Ockham (there are too many)

I did this for a few programs--I am wondering how many others do it. I was simply told by too many professors that, when applying to a specialty program, focusing on that same AOI is more likely to hurt than help you. It's a shame that is has to be political like that, but hey, what's one to do?

Here's a classic Never gets old

You can always start dealing drugs and thus have some bribe money for your academic adviser. Just saying. ... in all seriousness though, I second this ^^^^^^.

Good point. I will e-mail them too--a little extra pressure to refund those scores!

I haven't heard. And I thought it was $25?

Yep, me too. My parents still say "should of went" and "I seen you..." Zizek: It is the 21st-22nd. It's pretty big, around 70 participants, so there should be a smorgasbord of topics. Mine is a pretty dull one in Analytic Epistemology, argument that Susan Haack's "Foundherentism" is a foundationalism.

I'll say. UNC Chapel Hill has had quite a brain drain recently (Mary & Bob Adams just retired from there as well, are at Rutgers for the next year or so), it will be interesting to see how they drop in the Leiter report. Speaking of UNC Chapel Hill, is anyone going to be at the NC Philosophy Society conference there in February? I just heard back from them and had my paper accepted (it will be nice to do some philosophy to get the mind off of all the programs I will be rejected by!).

This is really neat. Thanks for doing the work.

agreed

I am am the same way. My closest writer has yet to submit his letter more than 2 days before an app is due. And yes, I am applying to Yale, and no, he hasn't sent it in yet. I guarantee he will send it in on the 2nd.

Agreed. I'd look at the MTS as well.

I haven't heard back about GRE scores, I doubt they have discussed it much--hopefully will hear about that by the end of January... "dream dream" is Oxford with a Clarendon Scholarship, Oriel College, "dream" is Notre Dame. Oxford has obvious perks, and is extremely good for what I want to get into; Notre Dame has the Center for Philosophy of Religion, which brings in the disparate group of philosophers of religion from all around the world to Indiana (very nice). Mike Rea, Mike Loux, Peter van Inwagen, Tom Flint... I could go on and on. Both of these schools have flourishing philosophy and theology departments. Notre Dame's theology is usually ranked top 2 in the world.

I've had several professors tell me this. Earnestly. One was coming from a prof who began the first lecture in his 400-level (Metaphysics) course with the following: "Seriously, I am being serious now, why the F&%* are you all sitting in here? If you can't give me a good answer I'll fail you right now--you'll thank me later when you grow up." Loric: Read this, and it should clear things up. http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2007/09/applying-to-philosophy-phd-programs.html

We here in the 'biz call that a non sequitur.

Hah, sorry that was quite poorly written. I meant thanks for your statement about being impressed with mental stamina. I meant 'it' as in the process of applying to all these programs. Just trying to get that whole Loric-induced flame war behind us.

I think that, overall, MattDest's comments seem pretty spot-on. Of course my opinions carry no substantial weight in this conversation due to this being my first time applying to graduate programs. For what it is worth, I have talked with three graduate admissions directors in programs I am very, very interested in (one is at my alma mater; the admissions director is actually a recommendation writer for me, and--be as it may--whose philosophy my sample is criticizing). They all told me, in different words, not to focus too much what makes me "fit" as in being a perfect formula for the school. In fact, they all said that this would be more likely to hurt at their programs--programs with distinct specialties receive tons of applicants wanting to study similar areas (thanks a lot, Leiter!), and all have the same (or at least similar enough) fit story as you do. They all suggested writing about what makes you different from everyone else who already has the same philosophical interests, and having your recommendation writers and CV (etc.) exemplify your fitting-ness. So, at least for certain programs (not rock star programs like Rutgers where everyone is applying, but good schools that have a strong presence in the area(s) you are particularly interested in), I think this needs to be taken into consideration. You've got to stick out too (programs do not want to be one-trick-ponies), and focusing on your "fit" might make you more bland when everyone else is applying there because of professors X, Y, and Z too. Thanks for that Jamc. It's made me seriously question what I'm doing at least four times, and those are thoughts I haven't had since I left the sciences two-and-a-half years ago. Not comforting/good for mental health.

Yeah, I think In Canada they pay YOU to give THEM a background check

Apply to as many as you can afford. If you have zero money, get waivers if offered and a credit card or two. I am applying to 18 (was 19, Colorado dropped), but thankfully was able to line up many fee waivers. If those didn't exist I would only be applying to around 5-10. As to jamc, for me writing at least the first 4 or five "types" of SOPs was most of the work. From those basic formats, I could adapt one to fit each program with only a couple paragraphs and some tone/emphasis shifting.

Wow, that's hilarious. I'm sure we're all chomping at the bit for that one... haha

hmm... Whitehead's "series of footnotes to Plato" quotation isn't unfounded. I say, in terms of philosophical and scientific influence, Aristotle > Plato > Kant.

I second this--so long as it looks neat, the SOP is so much less important than the writing sample (so I've been led to believe). Also, I'd say go with footnotes over endnotes, for the same said reasons above--I don't know about you guys, but I despise endnotes!