Alex Gregory
banner
alexgregory.bsky.social
Alex Gregory
@alexgregory.bsky.social
220 followers 160 following 73 posts
Associate Professor in Philosophy, at Southampton, UK. Working on happiness, wellbeing, desire, metaethics, etc. http://alexgregory.name.
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Found some time this morning to continue some work on my manuscript on fitting happiness (alexgregory.name#HAPbook). One question: The English word "Happy" clearly has many meanings - it is polysemous. Is there yet some single core meaning common to the various uses? Luckiness?
Alex Gregory
alexgregory.name
Do groups include pairs and other smaller unions? I can see the reasoning for thinking that group intentions are progressively rarer in larger groups, but not the reason for thinking that (e.g.) married couples could not have joint intentions.
Reposted by Alex Gregory
Reposted by Alex Gregory
Bonus: I give arguments against the orthodox view that instrumental desires are "just" combinations of ultimate desires + means-end beliefs, rather than independent states of mind. I think these arguments are pretty convincing, and its surprising that the orthodoxy here is so entrenched.
New paper: "Structural Rationality in Desire", at Utilitas. I defend the idea that structural rationality has things to say about desire, and defend a rational requirement to desire the means to your ends.

www.cambridge.org/core/journal...
Structural Rationality in Desire | Utilitas | Cambridge Core
Structural Rationality in Desire
www.cambridge.org
This navigable and enormous (I'm guessing: comprehensive) tree of life is pretty amazing: www.onezoom.org
OneZoom Tree of Life Explorer
Tree of life explorer
www.onezoom.org
It occurs to me that some people might not know of this fantastic guide to punctuation. It manages to be succinct, clear, and sensible. www.sussex.ac.uk/informatics/....
Guide to Punctuation
www.sussex.ac.uk
Reposted by Alex Gregory
Here is the advert for a postdoc at Liverpool for a project I'm involved in. Please share it with anyone who you think might be interested in applying. A brief project description is below.

tinyurl.com/4f7vw7ra
"Economics textbooks" is the obvious joke answer. A more serious answer is that some right-wing thought emphasizes a certain kind of freedom (e.g. Nozick) so that there may be *very* many different equally utopian outcomes, and so no single vision to write about.
Reposted by Alex Gregory
An interesting thing about sports (and other contests-for-entertainment) is that they have to balance meritocracy against excitement. Designing a contest that actually selects the best team is often boring, because we know who is the best team. So most sports build in randomness
Something about pulling apart lego toys, or unbuilding ikea furniture?
Philosophers of science: please come up with a way of talking about discovering natural kinds that's less gross than "carving nature at its joints." #philsky
Reposted by Alex Gregory
Spam emails from predatory academic journals: Dearest Dr Professor Landes, may you grace us with your world-leading expertise?

Emails from actual academic journals: We've created an account in our system for you. Review this paper, kthx.
Reposted by Alex Gregory
RIP Alasdair MacIntyre, a towering figure the likes of which this world rarely produces. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that his influence extended far beyond his scholarship:
This sounds right to me too. The definition is strictly false, but for the uninitiated it's better at conveying the spirit of the enterprise than many more careful definitions might be. (cf. "philosophers ask questions that come naturally to children using methods that come naturally to lawyers")
Reposted by Alex Gregory
Putnam 1975:
I have a vague idea of what measles is but literally all I know about mumps and rubella is that they’re in a vaccine with measles
Reposted by Alex Gregory
Come and work with us! We are advertising for a Lecturer in Philosophy (roughly=Assistant Prof) with research interests in philosophy of mind, metaphysics, or language. Details:
jobs.soton.ac.uk/Vacancy.aspx...
(Obvious rival hypothesis: Someone - though so far as I can see, not Epicurus, or Hume - introduced the problem with reference to omniscience, and everyone since has blindly copied that person in deference to tradition.)
This is partly a genuine question: Was there some historic reason why denying omniscience once seemed a natural solution to the POE, or reason why the POE wasn't noticed until someone took note of omniscience in particular?
Why does everyone *always* set up the problem of evil by appeal to God's omnipotence, omnibenevolence, *and omniscience*? It's relevant to the problem, but not central. Theodicies effectively aim to state caveats on omnipotence and omnibenevolence, so they are where the action is.
Reposted by Alex Gregory
This is the first of two adverts for postdocs on a project I'm involved in with Laura Gow and Thomas Raleigh. This one will be based in Luxembourg; the other will be based in Liverpool and will be advertised soon. Please share with anyone who might be interested.

recruitment.uni.lu/en/details.h...
Job Portal - University of Luxembourg
recruitment.uni.lu