That’s an interesting take! I have a lots of thoughts on this (maybe I will add other comments later), but here is the most general one: One thing is to create new ideas, another thing is to assess their plausibility. You seem to focus a lot on the former—most of your examples for valuable insights are new ideas rather than objections or critical appraisals. But testing and critically discussing ideas is valuable too. Without such work, there would be an overabundance of ideas without separation between the good and bad ones. I think the value of many essays in this volume stems from doing this kind of work. They address an already existing promising idea—longtermism—and assess its plausibility and importance.
That’s a good point—responding to existing ideas does seem less exciting and original, but I agree is still valuable, and perhaps under-rewarded given it is less exciting.
That’s an interesting take! I have a lots of thoughts on this (maybe I will add other comments later), but here is the most general one: One thing is to create new ideas, another thing is to assess their plausibility. You seem to focus a lot on the former—most of your examples for valuable insights are new ideas rather than objections or critical appraisals. But testing and critically discussing ideas is valuable too. Without such work, there would be an overabundance of ideas without separation between the good and bad ones. I think the value of many essays in this volume stems from doing this kind of work. They address an already existing promising idea—longtermism—and assess its plausibility and importance.
That’s a good point—responding to existing ideas does seem less exciting and original, but I agree is still valuable, and perhaps under-rewarded given it is less exciting.
...especially so in academia! I’d say that in philosophy mediocre new ideas are more publishable than good objections.