I think that sounds like a great idea, it might instill good research practices that could benefit them for their whole careers. Also sounds like a good way to include milestones that are not purely ChatGPT-able, I think I'll include that in my seminar in spring.

This looks incredible! I'll really have to think about this to make sure my submission is as good as possible.

this was many years ago, but the gorilla(?) makes a fallacy (is/ought related) early on that made me rage quit the book

I think it's pretty easy to parse what she's trying to say, she's just using the term "distinction" slightly wrong (should be e.g. 'opposition'). The mistake is quite similar to those made by many philosophers who argue that there is no analytic/continental 'split' (or 'divide', etc.), I think.

what if the real distinction is not between analytic and continental philosophy, but between cope (philosophers who want to preserve some intuition) and seethe (philosophers who are super mad about it)?

cope is a load-bearing element of philosophy more generally

unironically my main take-away from a grad seminar on supererogation

moral realists distinguish between "the thing is true" and "the thing isn't true" challenge (impossible)

I'm a radical anti-realist, I also think that moral and aesthetic truths are true no matter what I specifically (or anyone for that matter) believe, I just think that if they exist there's no way for us to ever know, so even if they do exist, they just as well might not.

"The nice thing about science is that our best scientific theories may or may not be approximately true, but whether or not they are, they are(/n't) whether or not you believe it."

protagonist gets so mad that they destroy the academic publishing industry, fix peer review and the metrics of academic success, etc. ...

this is what I think ideal board game design feels like (i.e. Settlers of Catan)