Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

  The Canadian Journal of Philosophy has gone open access.  That is why I was able to discuss the article about free will and closure arguments in my Tuesday and Wednesday posts this week. Long live Canada.  Canadian Journal of Philosophy | Cambridge Core

  Tucker Carlson's son quits JD Vance's team after pundit suggested Trump might be 'Antichrist' News from inside the belly of the beast.  JD Vance is best bud with Tucker Carlson.  Back in the day, Tucker got his ambitious son, Buckley Carlson, a job on Vance's staff. I personally like to imagine that the rest of the staff called him Skippy.  That was back when Carlson, Vance, and Trump were all posing alike in their professed opposition to the neoconservatives of the Bush family circle and their forever wars.  Now, Trump is the wartime president, Carlson (bless his otherwise infernal soul) will not abide that.  Vance has no choice but to abide whatever Trump does and put a smile on his face while Trump does it, devastating as it may be to JD's chances of prevailing as a peace candidate in 2028.  Also devastating to Skip Carlson's chances of being a bigshot. Imagine my despair. 

You are looking for a second consecutive day at a fossil-disclosed jungle cat inspired by thought experiments over whether p was true already in ancient times.  I go back today to the issue raised in the Canadian Journal of Philosophy in an article earlier this year by Fabio Lampert and John William Waldrop.   The point is not to settle the issue of what is free will and is it real.  The point, rather, is in logical analytical fashion to render clear "previously underappreciated constraints on defenses of closure-based arguments against the existence of free will."  Who are they?  Lampert is affiliated with the University of Vienna, apparently a postdoctoral researcher there.  Waldrop's affiliation is with Notre Dame. They seem often to have worked together.   As I understand it, they are saying that various promising arguments against free will require a principle of closure, and that whether they have such a principle available in the sens...

In the Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Fabio Lampert and John William Waldrop recently offered a rather confusing argument about free will.  They didn't argue for it or against it precisely, but sought to outline what a solid argument for it or against it might look like.  They seem sure that no sound argument to either conclusion has appeared yet, despite the voluminous attempts. "Free will and intensional operators" is the title of their article, in the February 2026 issue. As one might expect, the phrase "intensional operators" plays a big part in their discussion. So does the word "closure".  They don't really define what they mean by [epistemic] closure in this context, but I expect that it means here that for any domain of discussion X, the domain is closed if and only if we can safely add to our knowledge by taking the enatilment of what we know as also ... known. [This is different from causal closure.]  Free will, for Lampert and Waldrop,...

The safe return of Artemis, with its four astronauts, reminded me of my boyhood  and the thrill of following the Gemini and Apollo flights. Some time in the school year that began around Labor Day 1969, a friend and classmate of mine named Pat showed me a poem he had written on how inspired he was by space exploration, and especially by the safe return of the Apollo 11 astronauts after their landing on the moon. It was a well-written poem for a 6th grader.  But he had chosen a picky critic.  I noted that he had described the return of this flight as a thing happening in spring.  Chiefly because thing and spring rhyme.  I pointed out, "the moon flight took place in July."  He thought about it and said he was not going to try to change the masterpiece. After all, thing and spring rhyme so nicely.  Well, they do. The following couplet also rhymes: It is hard to surpass the cosmic-sized bummer Of not having a rhyme for a flight in mid summer. Anyway: I am...

Just a book note today. I've heard good things about this one.  Brenda Wineapple, KEEPING THE FAITH (2026), concerning the Scopes Monkey trial still reverberating in our national consciousness after a century. Wineapple is a former faculty member at Sarah Lawrence and at present teaches in the MFA program at Columbia. She also has a world-class enviable surname.  Here's the link.  https://www.americamagazine.org/books/2026/01/15/review-the-scopes-monkey-trial-and-church-state-tensions/ [The above photo is of Clarence Darrow.]