Comments on: Chichele Professorship of Social and Political Theory

By: Crooked Timber » » G.A. Cohen Interview

Crooked Timber » » G.A. Cohen Interview — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 19:02:40 +0000

[...] Speaking of G.A. Cohen, “Philosophy Bites” has a brief interview (less than 11 minutes) with him that serves as a nice introduction to his thought. posted on Wednesday, January 2nd, 2008 at 7:02 pm Post a comment [...]

By: josh

josh — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:26:07 +0000

Did Taylor write a book on Marx? I was unaware of that …
It would be quite a change from past practice if someone was appointed who didn’t have a degree from Oxford (and also, if a native-born Briton were appointed).
It struck me as strange to be establishing a chair in 1944, too—but then it was established in a strange way, by (if memory serves) splitting the old Gladstone professorship in two, to produce one professorship in public administration and one in political theory—a key moment in the emergence of political theory as a distinct subject at Oxford (so fallow was the field, that Berlin – who at that point only had his book on Marx and one lecture course on the political thought of the Enlightenment to recommend him for the post – was invited to apply. But by the time word reached him in the US, Cole had already gotten the job). There’s a rather good account of the CPSPT’s history in Robert Wokler’s essay on ‘The Professorate of Political Thought in England’ in this volume:
http://www.amazon.com/History-Political-Thought-National-Context/dp/0521782341/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198268395&sr=8-9

By: Thom Brooks

Thom Brooks — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:27:44 +0000

One crucial feature of all Chichele Professors seems to be that all have written a book on Marx. Of the names circulating above, who has written a book on Marx…? (Yes, I know the answer.)

By: chris armstrong

chris armstrong — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:01:11 +0000

Well, modesty prevents us suggesting ourselves, right?

By: aaron_m

aaron_m — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:32:49 +0000

A pretty short list of names so far. Does this reflect the reality in terms of the scope of potential candidates?

By: PdeB

PdeB — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:19:18 +0000

I recall a wisecrack by a member of CT at a tea party on the retirement of a different philosophy professor a few years ago, at which G.A. Cohen was present. GAC was helping himself to seconds or thirds of chocolate cake when up pipes the CT member and asks (in homage to GAC’s snappy book-title): “If you’re an egalitarian, how come you’re so f***ing greedy?”

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 05:26:09 +0000

Tom- who do you think fits your bill? I’m curious to hear quite independently of whether any such person might actually be under consideration. I’d tend to think most of the people who have been mentioned would fit to some degree or another, though of course some have other draw-backs (too old, unlikely to move, etc.) Who do you think has both a big and original program today?

By: Tom Hurka

Tom Hurka — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:55:05 +0000

When they picked Jerry, they picked someone with a big and also original political-philosophy program. I hope they do the same again, rather than select someone who’s just carrying on a familiar existing program. I’m actually confident they will.

By: harry b

harry b — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:39:04 +0000

marcel, anyone who reads us regularly and pays attention will know that my spelling is bad, my typing is worse, and my grammar is crap. Still, about a third of the people who read the post in a good mood, and know Jerry, will have experienced an unbidden semi-smile at the vague thought contained in my stream of conciousness.

Or is #15 an elaborate joke about pedantry?

By: marcel

marcel — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:28:34 +0000

#11: “He is retiring” is the third person singular in the continuous present of the verb “to retire”

Of course, but you wrote, that’s a verb, not an adjective, as anyone who knows him would know.

“That” is singular, indicating that whatever it refers to is as well. Since no one would take the phrase “is retiring” to be an adjective, I imagined that you meant “that word”, not “that phrase”.

If you are going to make a pun, better be sure that your pedantry is in order. Had you wanted to be precise, you could have written “probably know that G. A. Cohen retires effective the end of this term/academic year”, or “probably know that G. A. Cohen will retire in the near future…” In this case, the pun would have been more difficult to pull off, but the referent of “that” would have been of the appropriate number.

Anyway, it appears to me “retiring” is a verbal, and the predicate of the sentence is “is retiring”. But as I said, I am not a grammarian, so may be wrong.

By: harry b

harry b — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:22:42 +0000

Or are they, like William Gladstone and W.G. Grace, one and the same person? That would be a turn up! (Remember Bernard Coard, Chris?)

By: Beryl

Beryl — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:12:51 +0000

When you say, “not the famous one”, Harry, who do you think of as the famous one?

He means the infamous, I would imagine.

By: phil

phil — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:14:39 +0000

And ‘retiring’ in the sentence is the present participle of the verb ‘to retire’.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:22:12 +0000

I’m not an expert on English grammar, but to me that looks more like a gerund or a present participle (my bet).

“He is retiring” is the third person singular in the continuous present of the verb “to retire”.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:20:57 +0000

I assumed that by the “famous” Charles Taylor Harry meant the Liberian war-lord and ex-president. Is there another one even more famous?