A Short Interview With Nathan Salmon, PhD
What do you consider to be the most pressing philosophical issues of our day?
What is pressing to one person may not be to another, and what is pressing to a philosopher is typically exactly the opposite to the man or woman on the street. In addition there are broad areas of philosophy that I do not know well enough to know what the hot issues are there. In the areas I know best--which are the core areas of metaphysics & epistemology--I feel that the most pressing issues of the moment are the traditional questions: What is consciousness? How is it possible? What makes you you? Are we really as free to make choices as we seem to be, or is our apparent freedom a particularly irresistible illusion? Are there facts that we can never know even in principle? Contemporary philosophy has developed a set of methodologies for making significant headway with regard to these sorts of issues, but it is safe to say that the issues remain unsolved and will likely remain so in the future. The future of philosophy is not in today's philosophers' hands; it is in the hands of today's students of philosophy.
What are some of your favorite philosophical problems (issues, etc.)?
My personal favorites are the ones that I feel I'm personally able to make some progress with, or can learn from others who have been able to shed significant light, through their judicious use of reason and tutored intuition. Fortunately, there are many brilliant people from whom we can learn a lot--although it can often be a challenge to determine just which people they are and which of their thoughts are genuinely insightful. As a philosopher of language and metaphysician, I'm particularly interested in issues concerning vagueness in natural language, and the whole nature of linguistic meaning in general.
Are there any areas of philosophy that you feel our department is particularly strong in? How about weaknesses (if any)?
Although this is not recognized by such outlets as the Philosophical Gourmet Report, the UCSB philosophy department is in fact a VERY strong department. With all undue modesty, I know (up to Cartesian doubt) that this department compares quite favorably in the core areas of philosophy with the strongest philosophy departments today. Our weaknesses as a philosophy department are to a very large extent a result of our small size. We have critical mass to support a thriving Ph.D. program, but we are much too small to achieve a significant showing in such rankings as the Gourmet Report--and, I would add, too small for a research university of the size and rank of UCSB.
It seems that our department is a very close department, both in and out of the office... What advantages do you think this brings to an academic department?
We enjoy a special situation that many philosophy departments would love to have: the faculty, graduate students, and staff respect each other and like each other. It is difficult to convey how important this is, but anyone who has belonged to a department with significantly less social harmony (as I and many others have) knows what I am talking about.
Do you have any "words of wisdom" for individuals who may be considering a career in professional philosophy?
I would be remiss if I didn't say that one word of wisdom for such an individual is: reconsider. For a very long time the career prospects for someone with a Ph.D. in philosophy have not been good and I see no signs of significant improvement on the horizon. With that said, it is possible to establish a satisfying career in philosophy. If one is prepared to take the risk, my advice is to seek the guidance of those more learned than oneself, to realize one's potential as a philosopher and as a teacher of philosophy.
|
|