The Philosophers' Cocoon

A safe and supportive forum for philosophers.

Owned & Moderated by Marcus Arvan (University of Tampa)

Contact: marvan@ut.edu

Blog mission & moderation policy

IMPORTANT NOTE on how to ensure anonymity in commenting
Job-Market Reporting Thread (2026-27)
Job-Market Discussion Thread (2026-27)

  1. I have a decent teaching profile for history (have taught Chinese philosophy, can also teach early modern and early analytic/pragmatism),…

  3. Should you ask references to update their letters every single year? I’ve been on the market 4 years in a…

  4. Just saw that there’s a new editorial assistant at AJP. Is this related to what Anonymous of Oct. 10 says…

  5. I have some courses I’ve taught many, many times. With those, every time I teach it I try to pick…

recent posts

about

  • Having students use AI on assignments in (philosophy of AI) courses?

    In our September “how can we help you?” thread, a reader asks:

    It’s not uncommon lately to hear talk about how instructors are designing assignments that get students to engage with AI/”learn responsible” AI-use. I’m curious if anyone teaching on the philosophy of AI is using assignments that involve students using AI of some sort, whether critically, substantively, or ancillarily.

    I’m curious to hear answers to this, both in Philosophy of AI courses and philosophy courses more generally. I don’t use AI, have my students use it, or allow its usage–but I am always curious to learn about what people are doing and why.

    Do any readers have anything helpful to share?

    9

  • Students/postdocs writing up supervisors’ ideas as co-author?

    In our September “how can we help you?” thread, a reader asks:

    I’ve seen a few cases where students or postdocs were asked to write up their supervisors’ paper ideas and coauthor with them. These include papers on “controversial” topics that, in the worst cases, might affect the student’s reputation in the field and affect their ability to get a job in the future, but it seems to me that they might not feel comfortable saying no.

    So I wonder how search committees look at such cases. Is there a serious chance that such cases could damage early-career philosophers’ reputations? (In that case, as publications and post-docs experience are increasingly expected, it seems we need to have a serious conversation about the ethics of coauthoring.) Or do search committees take any account of these power dynamics when evaluating applicants’ coauthored works? (Coauthored works seem to be heavily discounted in evaluations, anyway, so maybe that mitigates the damage that could be caused…)

    I think a serious conversation about the ethics of co-authoring–and specifically cases like these–is a great idea. Any thoughts from readers? (Please ensure that comments respect the Cocoon’s mission: this is not a place to identify individuals/make allegations, etc.)

    6

  • On judging one’s own writing

    In our September “how can we help you?” thread, a reader asks:

    I am just getting into the business of writing philosophy, and I would be happy to hear others opinion on judging ones own writing.

    I have taken forever to writing my thesis and am still not finished (too many different issues to solve) and I am not feeling good about it. Now I have written two papers. One of these papers has gained considerable praise from one reviewer who called it excellent and important, and my supervisor liked it too; it is in R&R. I am not sure, though, if it can make it for the other reviewers had mixed feelings. I have mixed feelings too. While I am standing behind it firmly in one sense, I also see a lots of caveats, and receiving reviewer feedback, I take that very serious, perhaps a little too much. If the reviewer says it is not stable enough, then a part of me believes him, while the other one is meanwhile proving the reviewer false in every point. The feedback did help me to think through aspects I had not thought through before, which also means that I did not have thought the paper enough before. And if it stands on such shaky grounds, maybe, I then think to myself, it should not be published. Or maybe it should, maybe it helps for discussion, if somebody wishes to discuss it. So what are the standards on that. How firm is your trust in your writing, how firm must it be to be valuable?

    The second paper is also out for review. I am even more unsure about that one, but in a different way. I like it, and I think it says something genuinly true and important, but I am not sure, if it is “up to the standards of the discipline” which frighten me sometimes a little. It is very challenging to say something non-trivial, and to say it in a way that is technical enough (but perhaps not too much). I always have a kind of feeling that everything I say is just… made up in some way. Even though I firmly believe it is true (at least most of it, there are parts that may not be truth apt). I guess all that sounds very weird and a little contradictory. So I do not seem to be a very good person to judge my own writing. Or maybe I am and it is just that bad. Or maybe the part of me that is up to truth is right, and maybe it is good or good enough.

    So much to these inner ups and downs. Now my question are (i) are others are also experiencing this weird divided mind, and how handle it (ii) can others estimate a papers success from their own feel towards it? Like, if I feel it is trivial, then others feel that too; or if I feel that the method is not fully stabilized, or not standardized, then it will not come through peer review. Can you reliably estimate the chances of a paper before submitting? (iii) Do you feel it is fine if a paper has some unresolved issues, so if you did not think about each eventuality before? Is it fine to use peer review as a part of that thinking process in that case?

    Do readers have any helpful insights to share?

    12

  • Will AI increase philosophy major numbers?

    In our September “how can we help you?” thread, a reader asks:

    I’ve heard a lot of people say that the humanities are becoming more valuable again because of AI – in part because the once “hirable” majors are expected to become less hirable.

    Do people think this could actually lead to an increase in Philosophy majors? I ask because my department will face program review soon and I am curious as to whether we might be justified in making a kind of marketing push to students about Philosophy as a good major in an uncertain world, and whether this would be worth the effort.

    If there is any evidence of this, I would also love to know about it, so that we could potentially present it to admin at some point to hopefully convince them that we could plausibly increase majors over the next five years.

    I’m curious about this, as well. Do any readers have helpful insights to share?

    6