Sider has a draft of his logic book up on his website (all 367 pages).

Ross discusses, and rejects, views which attempt to undermine the importance of ethical questions. Interestingly, Ross argues that, even if we have no reason to disbelieve these views, we still have reason to reject them.

A fun paper by Ted Sider arguing, from vagueness, that a certain conception of Hell is inconsistent with attributes that God is traditionally thought to have.

Scott Soames discusses Frege's and Russell's (confused) attempts to solve the problem he calls "the unity of the proposition". He then attempts to get at the heart of the problem, and sketch a solution. This paper was especially interesting for me because (i) I had to read it for class, and (ii) Soames's solution is very similar to a solution I developed in response to a problem for platonism in the philosophy of mathematics.

Appiah's 2007 talk on Experimental Philosophy

New paper by David Enoch to be presented at MEW 2008.

New paper by Mark Schroeder expanding on chapter seven of Slaves of the Passions. To be presented at the Madison Metaethics workshop in 3 weeks.

I address an intuition commonly endorsed by metaphysicians, that there must be a fundamental layer
of reality, i.e., that chains of ontological dependence must terminate: there cannot be turtles all the
way down. I discuss applications of this intuition with reference to Bradley’s regress, composition,
realism about the mental and the cosmological argument. I discuss some arguments for the intui-
tion, but argue that they are unconvincing.

Given reader's interest in Plantinga's arguments concerning the relationship between evolution and naturalism, I thought this fairly recently posted paper by Sober might be of interest. He discusses the logical and evidential relationship between evolutionary theory and particular metaphysical claims about supernatural entities.

John Hawthorne discusses a problem that I had never really thought about (not that he's the first to discuss it). How do we rule out crazy interpretations of our utterances, that nevertheless come out true?