Terence Rajivan Edward

The paradox of an island, we are told, is at once to be isolated from and open to the rest of the world. It seems the paradox is easily solved by clarifying isolated and open to the rest of the world.

Why do a conceptual analysis on a word that we already know how to use? Marilyn Strathern provides some information on garden cities and suburbs which suggests a novel solution to me.

Joseph Raz criticizes John Rawls for a procedure supporting a non-adaptable constitution. This paper considers how a non-adaptable constitution can seem not so counterintuitive and also when.

This paper describes a kind of poem which reveals an exception to the instruction to know thyself.

Jacques Derrida's claim that the Western tradition has privileged speech over writing runs into an objection from the history of British anthropology: the functionalist rejection of oral history.

This paper proposes a solution to a puzzle regarding when people switch from one skilled area of specialization to another, in which they have had little training. Certain analogies between the previous area and the area switched to enable this. I use Susan Carey as an example.

T.H. Irwin characterizes the reflective equilibrium procedure as one which should not involve ruthless surgery, in a metaphorical sense. One should not abandon many moral judgments about specific situations in order to achieve a set of general principles which entails one's specific moral judgments. I propose that many people will find avoiding this difficult, because they do not conceive or go in for subtle options, such as options between liberalism and nationalism.

This paper presents two definitions to cover temptations as objects external to persons.

Historian of anthropology George Stocking tells us: from the point of view of parts of the Victorian middle class, Victorian society was highly evolved yet also contained savage components. Why don’t they change their ways, or why didn’t they? There is a Quinean solution.

According to Marilyn Strathern, it is, or was, an axiom of social anthropology that societies differ in how they handle the same facts. I present a challenge which I anticipate and respond to it.

You may remember that a document circulated amongst University of Manchester staff asks, “Can top down management make our university great?” I suspect there is a difficulty with solving this problem by increasing the admission requirements, in terms of the grades you need to get in. At a certain level, one encounters a widespread and strong preference not to be the bottom level.

I present a vision of a university in which each of the departments is based on having solved a paradox (especially for those who think that philosophers on here lack vision, in a grand sense!). I do so imitating a notable modernist writer, apologies for any political incorrectness.

This paper proposes that Fodor has, or had, a personal reason to avoid the creative writing department, to do with his opposition to inferential role semantics.

A department where you study creative writing is a paradox, given the following assumption: creativity is something natural to creative people and they do not need to study it. I try to formulate the paradox more clearly and note a logical gap.

What is R.K. Narayan’s position in relation to his story “Such perfection”? It is natural to interpret him as conveying a message similar to one Western readers are familiar with from ancient Greek myths: fear perfection; it offends the gods. But there is room for a more complicated interpretation.

This paper tries to formulate the paradox of organic solidarity more precisely and propose a solution.

I present a solution to the paradox of the kalela dance based on the need for a contrast.

P.E. Easterling presents a brief description of the life of Sophocles according to which he was “evidently a classic from the start.” I note a concern about the description, that all classics would seem to be classics from the start.

This paper examines Jonathan Quong’s reconstruction of G.A. Cohen’s argument against the difference principle, or more precisely appealing to the difference principle to justify inequalities of wealth.

I respond further to an undergraduate philosophy essay writing guide which tells readers that they are studying philosophy not creative writing. I note an obvious disadvantage of the claim.

This paper presents a structural-functionalist solution to a paradox that historian of anthropology George Stocking dug up: from the point of view of parts of the Victorian middle class, Victorian society was highly evolved yet also contained savage components.

Adversarial philosophy is under attack (!), but I speculate that it is useful for working out the level of a philosopher and sometimes for increasing the respect awarded to some individuals and groups. There may be no alternative to it when you have an excess of philosophers of around the same level.

I introduce and examine an argument presented by American anthropologist Herbert S. Lewis against thinking that British anthropology played a significant role in supporting colonialist projects: the British empire was large and centuries old, so it seems very unlikely that two dozen anthropologists late on made much difference.

The paradox asserts “to be a decent human being, you have to treat people like they're special; but to be a decent sociologist, you have to remember they're not.” How then can a sociologist be a decent human being? I distinguish between rights and other things, such as beliefs or tastes, and draw attention to how respect for rights is compatible with a focus on the typical in research.

In this paper, I present a response to the surprise exam paradox which may be of some use to someone. It is somewhat frightening for me.

This paper poses the question of whether there is any difference between neutrality of effect and neutrality of outcome, a distinction drawn by Harry Brighouse.

This paper identifies three positions on the relationship between language and experience, the third of which I was not acquainted with before from my reading. It seems absurd.

This paper presents an attempt to solve Laura Valentini’s ideal theory paradox, in a way which makes me think of G.E. Moore but I shall leave the classification of the solution to the experts. I also discuss the claim that philosophy is so easy.

I flag what seem to me to be some minor concerns about Joel Smith’s definition of empathy, but maybe they are important to someone.

British structural-functionalist anthropology famously faces an objection that it is incapable of dealing with the influence of wider processes. An analytical response to this objection, which at least needs to be registered, is that some wider processes can be ignored when there is causal overdetermination.