Deadline for submissions is one year before the publication dates below.
Intending authors should directly contact the Advisory Editor(s) listed for the relevant issue. They should refer to the submission guidelines when preparing their work for submission.
Publication Date: Issue Title (click title for description)
102:3 Jul. 2019.
Advisory Editor: Ken Games (Birkbeck).
Deadline for submissions: Jul 31, 2018
Recent scholarship on Nietzsche has turned to themes that are not generally within the provenance of the Anglo-American philosophical tradition, for instance nihilism, the affirmation of life, the problem of finding meaning in the modern world, the import of “the death of God,” the question of the function and value of high culture. We are seeking papers that speak to these and other core Nietzschean interests, but aim to make them accessible to a wider audience.
The study of responsibility in ethics focuses on the nature of agency, accountability, blame, punishment and, crucially, the distribution of responsibility for complex moral problems. Work in social ontology examines the nature of entities such as groups, corporations, money, and law, and what it is for certain social entities to have intentional states and to act. Emerging research at the intersection of these fields of study explores both normative dimensions of work in social ontology and metaphysical assumptions and implications of ethical theorizing about collective responsibility. In this issue we invite submissions that explore the following kinds of questions: How can work in social ontology contribute to and inform the analysis of collective responsibility? What ontological claims about the nature of organizations and agency are involved in moral and legal practices? And conversely, how does normative inquiry inform social ontology? What normative questions and assumptions underpin our social categories and how we analyze them? The social dynamics of public and private institutions, law, and other social structures raise important questions about the role of power in social practices that involve ascriptions of responsibility. Accordingly, we welcome papers that will engage both ethical and ontological questions connected with, for example, war, economic policy, climate change, as well as corporate and criminal justice.
102:1 Jan. 2019.
Advisory Editor: John Broome (Oxford) (email@example.com).
Deadline for submissions: January 31, 2018
Much of the philosophy of climate change has revolved around the injustice of climate change and how it should be corrected. But climate change also raises philosophical questions about value. We need to estimate how bad the results of climate change will be, and make a judgement about how much effort should be put into controlling it. What is the proper way to take account of the very large uncertainties and risks that surround climate change? Climate change will reduce, or possibly enlarge, the future human population of the world and it may conceivably lead to the extinction of humanity; how should these possibilities be incorporated into our judgements of badness? What benefit for climate change might be achieved by slowing the growth of population? How should we value the harm that climate change is doing to human cultures, to nature and to non-human animals? How should all these considerations feed into the ‘social cost of capital’ as it is used in economic evaluation of climate policies? These questions and others will be considered in this issue of the Monist.
101:4 Oct. 2018.
Advisory Editor: A.W Carus (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Deadline for submissions: Oct 31, 2017
It is well known that Carnap, in his “Overcoming of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language” of 1932, used Heidegger’s philosophy to provide examples of metaphysical pseudosentences. What is less well known is that Carnaps’s critique of metaphysics was rooted in a broader, positive metaphilosophy, which underwent a radical change in the early 1930s that gave rise to the principle of tolerance, the basis for Carnap’s later outlook. The earlier critique of metaphysics thereby yielded to a different kind of critique, with a focus on replacing “external” questions — questions not articulable in an explicitly specified linguistic framework — by practical questions concerning which framework to choose. Papers are invited that address not only Carnap’s own metaphilosophy, but also the status of present-day metaphysics in the light of Carnap’s critique — including such questions as: Must the later, tolerance-oriented metaphilosophy actually exclude metaphysics? And if not, which forms of metaphysics will remain safe? Does the later critique apply, for instance, to current analytic metaphysics? And how does it relate to current work under the heading of ‘metametaphysics’? These are not just historical questions, but also address issues of importance to many aspects of current philosophy.
101:3 Jul 2018.
Advisory Editors: Tiziana Andina (email@example.com), Carola Barbero (firstname.lastname@example.org), and Carolyn Korsmeyer (email@example.com).
Deadline for submissions: July 31, 2017
Food is normally considered as something natural, but there are good reasons to consider it also as belonging to the realm of artifacts and sometimes even as rising to the level of works of art. Food contributes to building that part of our human identity that has to do with culture and tradition and with social standing. Our relationship with food can be healthy, but it can also take on the form of a disease. In this issue of The Monist, philosophers and representatives of disciplines such as psychology, economics, sociology, and medicine will attempt to investigate the role and value of food in our lives. What kind of object is food? How are we to classify it in our ontology? What are its functions in our lives?
101:2 Apr 2018.
Advisory Editor: Leo Zaibert (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Deadline for submissions: April 30, 2017
Think of the action of a political leader in approving torture when confronted by a terrorist threat. According to some, such an action – a case of what in the literature is called “dirty hands” – would be simultaneously both right and wrong. According to others, however, such dirty hands cases cannot exist. For while it is easy to see how actions can be right in some respects and wrong in others, or right in some contexts but wrong in others, dirty hands cases are held to be both right and wrong simpliciter, and this is logically impossible. The present issue of The Monist is devoted to papers addressing the apparent paradox of dirty hands. Are dirty hands cases linked specifically to political activity? Are they linked essentially to emergencies? Or can dirty hands cases arise in the normal course of our lives? Is Melville’s Billy Budd, for example, a story about dirty hands? And how are actors with dirty hands to be treated – should they be simultaneously both praised and blamed?
101:1 Jan 2018.
Advisory Editor: John Haldane (email@example.com).
Deadline for submissions: Jan 31, 2017
Historically aesthetics has focussed on the philosophy of art, on the nature of beauty, and on the character of the experience of both. This tended to represent the aesthetic as somewhat rare and elevated above ordinary experience and practice. In recent decades the subject has broadened with attention being given to a wider diversity of art forms including conceptual art and land art, computer art, the cinema, and video arts. In addition there has been a growth of interest in environmental aesthetics. A more limited development has been the recognition of the ubiquity of the aesthetic within the fabric of everyday life as for example in work on the aesthetics of the built environment, of personal spaces, and on the aesthetic aspects of social life. Papers are invited that explore either the general idea of an aesthetics of everyday life, or particular topics within this general area. Of particular interest are papers relating the aesthetics of everyday life to issues in social relationships and public policy, for example in relation to clothing styles and fashion, public rituals and ceremonies, landscape design and gardening, urban planning, ambient sound, and graffiti.
100:4 Oct 2017.
Advisory Editor: Werner Ceusters (Buffalo) (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Deadline for submissions: Oct 31, 2016
A pain is defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain as ‘an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage’. Contributions are invited that might help to improve this definition, addressing questions such as: What sorts of entities are pains? Do pains involve two kinds of experiences, sensory on the one hand and emotional on the other? If somebody has a painful toe, is the pain located in the toe or in the brain? Is pain essentially associated with (actual or possible) tissue damage—so that one should not strictly speaking speak of pain in the case of, for example, response to bereavement? Papers are particularly welcomed which address the significance of recent developments in neuroscience, psychology, psychiatry, and biomedicine for the philosophical understanding of pain.
Kant argued that the laws of nature were, in part, the result of our mind projecting an order onto nature. This issue of The Monist seeks to assess the prospects of such a conception of laws for contemporary debates in the philosophy of science. We invite contributions addressing questions such as: How is ‘projecting an order onto nature’ properly to be understood? What good can a conception of laws in these terms be for on-going debates between realist and empiricist approaches to laws of nature? Can a Kantian view shed light on the foundations of modern physics (and especially on quantum mechanics) or on contested issues concerning the nature of laws in biology; and might such a view advance current debates over the unity or disunity of science?