 |
 |
This is interesting, Nick. The referee showed graciousness, I think. I am currently at work on a short article on The Future of the English PhD, which you will remember participating in in November. I try and summarise your claims and reasoning in the article, so let's hope it is accepted and a new audience will be introduced, albeit briefly, to what you have to say. Hope you're well, otherwise. Best wishes, Riczhard. On 29 January 2016 at 14:59, Maxwell, Nicholas <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Dear Friend of Wisdom, > > > > It is of course absolutely standard for papers I send > out to journals to be rejected. In the old days, the few that got > published did so after I had pointed out in some detail what was wrong with > the referees’ reports. Nowadays, that is not permitted. Editors no longer > consider criticisms of referee reports, even when criticisms are blatantly > valid. Rarely, however, have I had a rejection so full of praise as the > following:- > > > > “This is a moving and in many ways impressive and idealistic, even > romantic, paper: part > > diagnosis, part social evaluation, and part revolutionary call-to-arms. If > the author is > > right, the contemporary social world in general, and modern universities > in particular, are > > ‘grossly, profoundly and damagingly irrational.’ The author > (self-identified in the > > references to his work in the body of the text, Nicholas Maxwell) has been > advocating > > these ideas for decades. They are powerful and important ideas. I have > considerable > > sympathy for his ‘New Enlightenment’ vision, and his “synthesis of > rationalism and > > romanticism” (p. 22). But it is not clear to me that the paper should be > published in *AJP*” > > And this well-disposed referee goes on to recommend > rejection. The paper is called “Can Universities Save Us from Disaster?”, > and the journal is the Australasian Journal of Philosophy. > > > > Of course, usually referee rejections are scornful > and dismissive. But either way, academia, as at present constituted, is > not designed to hear the news that it is profoundly and damagingly > irrational in a structural way from the standpoint of helping humanity make > progress towards as good a world as possible. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Nick > > Website: www.ucl.ac.uk/from-knowledge-to-wisdom > Publications online: http://philpapers.org/profile/17092 > http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/view/people/ANMAX22.date.html >