Misosophe

Without getting too off topic, this post interests me, because I have always had trouble understanding where the line between moral realism and anti-realism lies; it seems that the line is not clearly drawn, though many philosophers tell us clearly enough where they draw the line. For example, if I say "There are no moral facts, but various moral interpretations are biological/psychological/sociological facts," am I a realist or an anti-realist? If someone says to me "X is absolutely wrong," I would reply "No: there are no absolute moral facts"; moral facts in that sense are not real, and belief in them is based on an error. But if someone said to me that moral talk is meaningless, I would say "No: moral interpretations tell us a lot about human beings and human life, understood as symptoms." In other words, moral interpretations are the result of much that can be considered fact, and for that reason they tell us a lot; but these interpretations themselves often contradict fact, and to that extent are errors. Is this realism or anti-realism?

Unlike some in this thread, I did expect to get in somewhere, considering I applied to a range of programs from #1 in the U.S. (NYU) to some unranked Canadian schools. I hoped to get into NYU, but I certainly didn't expect to; however, I did expect to at least get in at one of the unranked programs, which I ultimately did. Having applied to 11 programs and been accepted at one, maybe it was overconfident to expect to get in anywhere. Sure glad I did though!

I would say yes, considering my hope was just to get accepted to a PhD program. I probably applied to too many highly ranked schools (a result of following Leiter's "Where to go to study Nietzsche" posts), but I also applied to several lower ranked programs as safety schools. Out of 11, I was accepted at one with good funding, rejected outright at the other 10. I was accepted to my last resort safety school, though I've since realized that it has a better reputation than I'd thought, especially for my AOIs, and is in fact better than several of my higher-ranked safety schools. My prospective supervisor is well known and has a good reputation, and after visiting the campus and meeting with the department I think I'll be quite happy there. So no complaints here; even though NYU was my first choice (because of John Richardson), I knew it was an incredibly long shot. I'm just happy to have been accepted and to have the opportunity to continue my work. It really is a lottery, there's no doubt.

Well, received my last rejection today from Boston U. Accepted with funding at 1/11 programs, rejected at all the rest. I'm a good example for the advice a few others have given on here: "Remember, it only takes one acceptance." I'm really happy to have gotten this acceptance, as I'm not sure what I would have done with the next year otherwise. Something far less worthwhile than taking a PhD in Philosophy, I'm sure.

I'm also interested what people have to say about this, specifically where potential supervisors are concerned. I'll be visiting a department this week whose offer I intend to accept, and have a meeting scheduled with the prof. who makes most sense as my dissertation supervisor (similar interests, good supervisory record, etc.). Aside from general talk about our respective research, what I plan to write my dissertation on, etc., does anyone have any suggestions about other questions that would be important to ask where the supervisory relationship is concerned?