We thought about using "Keep Philosophy Weird" as a tag-line but there was substantial disagreement about how well the same thing was working out for Austin, Texas, and we didn't want to hex ourselves. So we went with "All the philosophy that's not fit to print," with the understanding that "not fit" is different in kind from "unfit."
"Philosophy that's not fit to print" denotes philosophical insights that do not fit easily into contemporary units of printed philosophy: the chapter, the article, the presentation. One of the exciting things about blogs is the way they add a new medium to the cocktail napkin, dinner conversation, and posted letter. The ideas expressed in good blog posts (as well as cocktail napkins, dinner conversation, and posted letters) sometimes do end up repackaged as chapters and journal articles. But their value doesn't rest on that. You might have an interesting idea from teaching a class, reading a book, trying to make sense of something in popular culture, or from reading another blog, and it might not fit well with existing print dialectic for a variety of reasons. It may just concern topics that don' t mesh well. It might not be weighty enough. Or it might shade into other discursive practices such as criticism (in the sense Noel Carroll describes), satire, raw appreciation, literary excursion, or a little pithy insight the defense of which would be short by the standards of Analysis. The insight might concern history, art, sports, music, food, leisure, trains, death, heartache, decline, enrichment, moral rot and recovery, the fact that nobody much uses the word "akimbo" any more, the sad fate of animals in various space programs, etc. etc. etc. etc.
By way of contrast, for "philosophy unfit to print," please pick out whatever most irritates you about the philosophical blogosphere up to now, such as abuse of anonymity to defame and bully as well as the moral and intellectual rot that make anonymity necessary. On the former, little need be said. One should know it when one sees it. The latter is the topic for a blog post.
In any case, we endeavor to post all the philosophy not fit to print while avoiding posting philosophy unfit to print. Of course we'll fail. "All" is too much, and when you are really chasing insights you are going to slip over into the unfit sometimes. But with a spirit of mutual forbearance, and an unwillingness to give into the pathologies of calling out culture (for a critique, see HERE), we're sure that the various squares can, if not be circled, at least be dulled a bit in their corners.
- Dictator/General Secretary/etc. No! Important decisions such as these policies and decision to invite new authors at democratically by the authors. No one at philpercs is in a position to threaten to take their ball home if they don't get their way.
- Autonomy. Yes. Every author has full posting privileges and does not need prior approval prior to posting or commenting.
- Party lines. None. Authors disagree with one another about fundamental things, and that's OK. Intelligent people of good will can and do disagree about important issues, even and especially hot button political and professional issues. This doesn't mean that authors won't passionately defend the views that they are passionate about, and it doesn't mean that all authors equally suffer (those they take to be) fools gladly.
- Diversity. Yes. We seek diversity of ethnicity, race, gender, class, ability, and opinion. Drab uniformity is inimical to keeping philosophy weird, inimical to insight.
- Advertising. Never! [Insert comment about "the man," optimally referencing the Velvet Underground song about waiting for him.]
- Slacktivism. We are all slacktivists now. But, nonetheless, the point of this blog isn't to effect political change within or without the profession.
- News of the Profession. As with slacktivism, it will surely happen, but that's not the raison d'être of the blog.
- Work-rate. We'd like to have enough authors posting enough to where there is interesting new material every day. The ideal for individual authors is no more than one post a day and no less than one post a week (though a post every other week is fine).
- Cross-posting. No. Stuff posted at philpercs will initially only be posted here. There is a sorites series from commentary into clickbait, and when we traverse it we are posting and linking to other people's content here (the nature of the internet). But those of us who have or had old blogs don't simultaneously post our posts here at there. This is not to prohibit authors from later repurposing and excerpting their posts for other purposes.
- Aesthetic guidelines. We want the blog to look as nice as possible, commensurate with the varying general slovenliness. We'd like each post to have a beautiful picture and a background color scheme to highlight them. We'll improve the look gradually.
- Comment Policy. No one will feel the need to post anonymously and those who do will never engage in ad hominems, defamation, or threats. Seriously, we won't pre-moderate comments, but might have to post-moderate. Each author will moderate the discussions under their own posts (cf. 2 above).
- Weirdness. The only people for us are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars.
Please check out our list of extant authors. We're really happy to host guest posts, just contact one of the authors and/or just leave a comment on a post about the possibility if you've got something you'd like to share.