It is rare to have an occasion to discuss one's ideas with an interlocutor with the generosity and rigor of Graham Priest.I have genuinely enjoyed our exchange and how Priest has pushed me to clarify the scope of my analysis.In contemplating Priest's reply and our informal correspondence, it has become clear to me that Priest and I share a great many ideas and orientations.For example, we both appear to be allergic to orthodoxy, i.e. gate-keeping that does not let in all "legitimate traders" [4] 1 .So, yes, it would seem that we both hold a concern that professional philosophy has an unpleasant proclivity towards the development and sustenance of orthodoxy.And, I assume, we are both committed to contributing towards understandings of professional philosophy that counter this proclivity.2 There are, however, points where Priest and I part company and these points of divergence are significant.For example and, perhaps, most significantly, Priest and I disagree on how our respective positions impose limitations on actual philosophical engagement.Where Priest's article, "What is Philosophy?", is specifically concerned with offering an account of philosophical engagement, my article, "How is this Paper Philosophy?", is concerned with values that orient the institutionalization of philosophical engagement.There is a fundamental difference between having one's analysis target the institutionalization of philosophical practice versus philosophical practice as such, a difference Priest acknowledges early in his reply [1].However, this point of divergence is far more significant than Priest appears to appreciate.That is, a standard for a given practice functions very differently than a set of values aimed at orienting those standards.So, no, our accounts do not delimit in similar ways as ________________________
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 2 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.