So, I have finished (what I hope is) the penultimate draft of my dissertation and It is in the hands of my committee. I have already heard back from one diligent committee member and he has given the green light (not the chair, alas)…so if I hear back from the other two by the beginning of August (and there are no major problems/objections) I should have enough time to make corrections and have the final defensible draft done by the end of August, which means that my September 10th defense is starting to look attainable!!! (fingers crossed; I hope I did not just now jinx it!!!)
Below are the two last chapters (here are chapters 1 and 2). As always comments welcome!
Ch. 3 -Two Current Kinds of Expressivism: Blackburn and Copp
Richard Brown 
Ch1 After a quick read…
“I suppose we should attribute the discovery of metaethics to him.”
I’d tend to instead go with either ‘the literature attributes’ or ‘I’m proposing it here and this is why’.
and sentances like “but I shall not dwell on this here. My point is that” I’d try to reduce the words
and I’d try to reduce informalities like “or whatever.”
“If it were t turn out” t –> “If it were to turn out”
in general it makes more sense to me when the fact that we are relying on potentially flawed/inconsistent intuitions (eg when we say ‘How can we
say that’) is brought to the forefront or it is just asserted and referenced that that is a justification.
Still maybe with all of the above my field is a little different.
Anyway – hope there is something in that that is useful – and I am already sympathetic to what you are saying so thats a good start.
Hey GNZ, thanks for the comments, all of which are helpful. I will take them into consideration when I write the final draft.
For some reason I can’t get at the other chapters which is a pity so I cant offer my limited advise there.
BTW those smilies are supposed to be “close quote” “close bracket”!
hmmm..that’s strange. What happens when you try to open them? I just double checked and the all open for me…
Yeah wordpress gets a bit over zelous with the smiley faces!
OK I got it working
“Blackburn certainly does talk like a realist as I construe them”
can you find someone who has used your definition? there should be quite a few books and articles out there that explicitly state the definition. – or did you define it clearly earlier – if so then nevermind.
Now I am just before 3.1.1
– I understand that its a critique of his position but I’d feel better if there was a little more support for your side in the first section – things like
1) some references to papers that share your concerns
2) holding fire just a little bit more* in the intro prior to presenting the full weight of your evidence
3) If possible using quotes or specific references to what you find self evidently dubious.
Blackburn’s view “founders” –> flounders?
* not saying you hold fire entirely, obviously your summary is that you plan to show the argument is flawed but just keeping in mind the audience might not be convinced yet.
Thanks again for the comments GNZ.
In chapter 2 I lay out and defend my construal of realism as the claim that when two people disagree about some fundamental moral claim only one of them can be right.
As for the other stuff, I will again take it into consideration. Thanks!
Thats what I get for reading them out of order!
BTW chapter 2 reads pretty well.
have I seen the argument for ‘P-semantics’ and ‘L-semantics’ elsewhere?
Regardless I like the approach.
I get the feeling the intro is slightly less assertive this time (ie a lot of ‘i think’)
I’d try to avoid things like “One of the points I have been trying to make”
The end tails off a little (space I would reserve for hammering home the conclusion).
Anyway, very interesting 🙂