~GRAPHY

Students who apply to PhD programs--particularly those who don't get in anywhere--should be able to get candid feedback on their applications. It's too much of a black box. So, if you applied to the Rutgers Philosophy PhD program and need some candid feedback, shoot me an email.

@kelleher_ This looks fantastic, Paul! Can't wait to see the final in print.

@Philosophy_Mark @sabrina_p_leeds Nice! I did post-crescent. 20-year-old dude named "royal" illegally subcontracted out part of his route to me when I was 12.

Just wanted to reach out to the folks who have contacted me regarding KU philosophy’s situation. Here’s what I can say.

@otterleeism Shame...probably served too many bitterballen.

Woody Harrelson never really fitted into the cast of Cheers

@simontrub @zenahitz @AcademicChatter Sounds great! Please include me.

Trying to give grad students advice in a format that speaks to today's youth

Very useful advice here for undergrad essay writing.

I miss pretending to write in cafes.

It really decreases (increases) readability when people do (don't) include the opposite-direction effect in parentheses.

@GrammarTable The argument is something like 1) these examples have the same meanings as 1. and 2.; 2) if they have the same meanings, 'her' must contribute the same meaning; 3) 'her' is clearly indirect in the examples; so, it's indirect in 1. and 2.

@GrammarTable Interesting. I genuinely have no idea how these would get classified. But I thought that each has a 1:1 translation in which 'her' in definitely indirect (e.g. "Egil gave her some help." And "Egil asked her a question/favor"). So 1. and 2. might both be read as elliptical??

What kind of object is "her" in these two sentences? 1. Egil helped her. 2. Egil asked her.

"Above all, it teaches us that action requires knowledge, and knowledge requires action. Knowledge is neither ‘illusion’, nor merely an instrument for the pursuit of power. It is a collective practice best cultivated in communities of philosophical friendship."

@claquerer @grammartable To be fair, there is a scope ambiguity with the NOT in 1. But I guess the more natural translation for me is what Ive written. Interesting to see people's reactions, though.

@claquerer @grammartable I don't think the share the same truth conditions. The first is NOT(A&B) and the second NOT(AvB). These have different truth conditions. Isnt that right?

Are these two sentences equivalent? 1. Both of her parents could not make it. 2. Neither of her parents could make it. Please indicate whether you are a native or nonnative speaker of English.

The need for deeper advising relationships as a central pillar of student success is a recurring theme throughout the dissertation. chroni.cl/3f7asBQ

@grammartable *but not both

@grammartable The first would be true in the case where only one could make it (both not both), but the second would be false in this case. Since they have different truth conditions, they do not have the same meaning and so are not equivalent.