Writing Sample on Kant's Idealism

[Mahdi Ahmadi]

Hey everyone,

I am a Ph.D. student in philosophy in Iran. I have been concentrated on Kant' Transcendental Idealism and applied to some Ph.D. programs last year. But I wasn't successful, just wait-listed in one university (UIC) and rejected from others. 

I wrote my writing sample on two-aspect vs. two-world interpretation of Kant's idealism and tried to show their flaws. I was mainly concentrated on Allison's and Guyer's works and also cited some more recent commentators such as Alias, Gardner, Stang, etc. 

I think the main reason for being rejected is my writing sample. Therefore, I have planned to improve it and try for the next year's cycle. I think the main problems with my writing are as follows:

First and more important is that I couldn't revise it very much. This is because professors in Iran cannot help us with writing a journal-quality writing rather than some general advice. So, I don't have detailed feedback on my paper to revise and improve it. I got some comments from some Kant scholars, but it seems to be insufficient.

I wasn't completely acquainted with more recent works. I need some advice to find and read more recent discussions on Kant's idealism. There are many articles exactly on this topic and some related topics such as Conceptualism. I need a strategy to read these works according to their priority.

I will be really appreciated if anyone can help me with these issues. Particularly, if anyone can take a look at my writing sample and help me revise it.

My writing can be found attached.

Best,

Paper - v2 - New.docx

[Mahdi Ahmadi]

It seems I don't have anybody!

[CynicismJX]

Maybe we can help each other. I have read Kant, but not professional at him. And my sample focuses on consent theory and political obligation.

[directingdirections]

i understand your problem and sympathise with you—the application process is very frustrating especially when you have to apply more than once, and are not sure how to improve various parts of your application. I had to do this as well, and also struggled with my writing sample. So I know that it is a challenge. However, I think part of the problem with lack of volunteers is that (a) you are asking quite a lot (i.e., it takes a lot of time and energy to prepare a full set of comments and suggestions on a philosophical essay) while (b) not being exactly clear on what you are looking for.. 

1. You write: "First and more important is that I couldn't revise it very much. This is because professors in Iran cannot help us with writing a journal-quality writing rather than some general advice. So, I don't have detailed feedback on my paper to revise and improve it. I got some comments from some Kant scholars, but it seems to be insufficient." I understand the problem you have in regards to the professors that you are working with. But then you say you have gotten comments from actual Kant scholars, but that that was not enough. Why was it insufficient? Are you looking for general comments, or more for comments that get at the fine points of your argument? If the latter (which I suspect might be the case), then why do you think other applicants are in a better place to assess and remark on your work over Kant scholars? 

2. Then you say that you haven't fully read-up on the literature: "I wasn't completely acquainted with more recent works. I need some advice to find and read more recent discussions on Kant's idealism. There are many articles exactly on this topic and some related topics such as Conceptualism. I need a strategy to read these works according to their priority." It is hard to give any kind of advice on this without knowing your reading history. Though, I will say that if you are adequately addressing the work of the philosophers you cite (e.g., Allison, Guyer, Allais, etc.) then I can't see why that wouldn't be enough for a single essay. This sounds like something that a professor (perhaps one of the Kant scholars that you have had read your work) advise you on. Beyond the general advice of: "look at the footnotes and bibliographies of the essays/books you have read and read the works being cited," it is not clear what kind of help you are expecting on this point.

3. It looks like you have posted your essay, but the link does not lead to a download. 

 

[Mahdi Ahmadi]

On 10/27/2019 at 10:53 PM, CynicismJX said:

Maybe we can help each other. I have read Kant, but not professional at him. And my sample focuses on consent theory and political obligation.

Thank you @CynicismJX!That's great!

I will send a message to you to be in touch.

[Mahdi Ahmadi]

On 10/27/2019 at 11:54 PM, directingdirections said:

i understand your problem and sympathise with you—the application process is very frustrating especially when you have to apply more than once, and are not sure how to improve various parts of your application. I had to do this as well, and also struggled with my writing sample. So I know that it is a challenge. However, I think part of the problem with lack of volunteers is that (a) you are asking quite a lot (i.e., it takes a lot of time and energy to prepare a full set of comments and suggestions on a philosophical essay) while (b) not being exactly clear on what you are looking for.. 

1. You write: "First and more important is that I couldn't revise it very much. This is because professors in Iran cannot help us with writing a journal-quality writing rather than some general advice. So, I don't have detailed feedback on my paper to revise and improve it. I got some comments from some Kant scholars, but it seems to be insufficient." I understand the problem you have in regards to the professors that you are working with. But then you say you have gotten comments from actual Kant scholars, but that that was not enough. Why was it insufficient? Are you looking for general comments, or more for comments that get at the fine points of your argument? If the latter (which I suspect might be the case), then why do you think other applicants are in a better place to assess and remark on your work over Kant scholars? 

2. Then you say that you haven't fully read-up on the literature: "I wasn't completely acquainted with more recent works. I need some advice to find and read more recent discussions on Kant's idealism. There are many articles exactly on this topic and some related topics such as Conceptualism. I need a strategy to read these works according to their priority." It is hard to give any kind of advice on this without knowing your reading history. Though, I will say that if you are adequately addressing the work of the philosophers you cite (e.g., Allison, Guyer, Allais, etc.) then I can't see why that wouldn't be enough for a single essay. This sounds like something that a professor (perhaps one of the Kant scholars that you have had read your work) advise you on. Beyond the general advice of: "look at the footnotes and bibliographies of the essays/books you have read and read the works being cited," it is not clear what kind of help you are expecting on this point.

3. It looks like you have posted your essay, but the link does not lead to a download. 

 

Thank you for your reply! I will clarify what I mean.

1. About asking for comments on my essay, I know that this is a lot and everyone who accepts is undoubtedly generous. But revising a philosophical essay is a vital phase and I need some guy to collaborate with. I am stressing on collaboration because I think we can help each other, and this process is fruitful for both sides.

2. Professor's comments are insufficient because they are only about the overall structure of the article and include some main points. But I like to have comments on my arguments. So, I need someone who might have enough time to give me detailed comments. As I said, this process is mutual and is helpful for both sides.

3. I am mainly working on transcendental idealism in accordance with the Aesthetic. I read some works of the mentioned professors in precisely this area, but reading the related literature in the closely related topics such as the discussion over the conceptualism needs much time to read without guidance (I am particularly struggled with starting in the blind). You are right that any advice needs the history of my idea. So, I write some words on it.

I am against two-world readings (for many reasons, I see Allais' one among them) and also two-world one. In a nutshell, I disagree with the two-world readings because they beg the question against their adversary and neglect the transcendental thrust of Kant's critical philosophy. Against the other side, I think it has some internal inconsistency, including the relation between appearance and thing in itself. Against these elucidations, I am thinking of his idealism as a second-order theory about empirical cognition with emphasizing the role of transcendental turn as an act, not as an argument against ordinary empirical idealism.

4. I will attach my article again. Just one point about my essay: If anyone like to take a look at my essay, please read the from page 17 to the end. The first part is a literature review for myself.

Paper - v2 - New.docx

[Mahdi Ahmadi]

My essay can be find here:

https://www.icloud.com/iclouddrive/0bA8GH2OMjdwTsXTRrsdjqYWw#Paper_-_v2_-_New