I reflect critically on the early modern philosophical canon in light of the entrenchment and homogeneity of the lineup of seven core figures: Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, and Kant. After distinguishing three elements of a philosophical canon—a causal story, a set of core philosophical questions, and a set of distinctively philosophical works—I argue that recent efforts contextualizing the history of philosophy within the history of science subtly shift the central philosophical questions and allow for a greater range of figures to be philosophically central. However, the history of science is but one context in which to situate philosophical works. Looking at the historical context of seventeenth-century philosophy of mind, one that weaves together questions of consciousness, rationality, and education, does more than shift the central questions—it brings new ones to light. It also shows that a range of genres can be properly philosophical and seamlessly diversifies the central philosophers of the period.

For several decades now, a debate about the desirability of immortality has raged on in philosophy of death circles. While these circles and their debates are found primarily within the analytic tradition, Martin Heidegger, who famously introduces the notion of human life (or something like it) as essentially ‘Being-towards-death’, has much to contribute. At first glance, this idea seems to agree with the views of ‘immortality curmudgeons’ like Samuel Scheffler, and, in fact, on the rare occasions that Heidegger is mentioned in the related literature, his name is usually placed on a list of likely pessimists about immortality. Upon closer inspection, however, it turns out that Heidegger's understanding of the relationship between death and meaning allows for a rather uncurmudgeonly view of immortality. In this paper, I argue that the often-misunderstood Heidegger has important supportive insights to offer when it comes to the prospects of an unending life.

Most discussions of racial fetish center on the question of whether it is caused by negative racial stereotypes. In this paper I adopt a different strategy, one that begins with the experiences of those targeted by racial fetish rather than those who possess it; that is, I shift focus away from the origins of racial fetishes to their effects as a social phenomenon in a racially stratified world. I examine the case of preferences for Asian women, also known as ‘yellow fever’, to argue against the claim that racial fetishes are unobjectionable if they are merely based on personal or aesthetic preference rather than racial stereotypes. I contend that even if this were so, yellow fever would still be morally objectionable because of the disproportionate psychological burdens it places on Asian and Asian-American women, along with the role it plays in a pernicious system of racial social meanings.

Nietzsche is mostly known for denying moral responsibility on account of lack of libertarian free will, thus betraying an incompatibilist approach to moral responsibility. In this paper, however, I focus on a different, less familiar argument by Nietzsche, one that I interpret as a critique of a compatibilist conception of moral responsibility. The critique shows why punishment and our moral sanctions in general are morally unjustified by the compatibilist's own lights. In addition, I articulate what I call Nietzsche's explanatory challenge, which challenges the compatibilist to explain the performance of an immoral action without appealing to conditions that would exempt or excuse the wrongdoer or otherwise relieve the wrongdoer from responsibility and would thus make punishing the wrongdoer morally unjustified. By drawing on the work of R. Jay Wallace, I reconstruct Nietzsche's anticompatibilist argument and defend it against four possible objections.

This article seeks to come to a better understanding of the account of normative personhood given by the Nigerian philosopher Ifeyani Menkiti by engaging it with that of Kant. The idea is not to adjudicate between the two accounts, but to explore the philosophical possibilities and constraints in both. I focus on the moral significance of the afterlife in each account. I engage Kant's doctrine of the postulates in support of Menkiti's defense of belief in this-worldly ancestral existence and evaluate Kant's moral commitment to belief in the immortality of the soul in the light of Menkiti's more social conception of the afterlife. I close with some comments on the general need for greater cross-cultural philosophical engagement.

A familiar objection to mental state theories of well-being proceeds as follows: Describe a good life. Contrast it with one identical in mental respects, but lacking a connection to reality. Then observe that mental state theories of well-being implausibly hold both lives in equal esteem. Conclude that such views are false. Here we argue this objection fails. There are two ways reality may be thought to matter for well-being. We want to contribute to reality, and we want our experience of the world to be veridical. Yet, if one accepts that reality matters in either of these ways, one must posit differences in well-being where no such differences exist.

Why is there something rather than nothing? Robert Nozick and Peter van Inwagen have proposed a probabilistic answer: there are more ways there could have been something than ways there could have been nothing; each has an equal intrinsic probability of obtaining; and so there being something is intrinsically more probable. The author presents a few original objections to this line of thinking, focusing especially on the kinds of probability it invokes. The author also sketches a more promising probabilistic answer, one that makes relevant scientific and theological considerations that are usually quickly dismissed in this context.

Analytic philosophers have criticized A. N. Whitehead's metaphysics for being obscure, yet several such philosophers have espoused positions in metaphysics and philosophy of mind that were advanced by Whitehead in the 1920s. In this paper, we evaluate the merits and demerits of these criticisms by Bertrand Russell, W. V. Quine, Karl Popper, and others and then demonstrate the affinities and contrasts in the positions advanced by Galen Strawson, David Chalmers, Thomas Nagel, and Whitehead regarding so-called ‘analytic panexperientialism’.