Blogging is, as far as I can tell, ‘the thing to do’ in philosophy these days, so I have an interest in both participating in that world and in building a viable and robust blog for my name to be attached to; as you may have noticed, however, I have been doing a less then admirable job of writing for Reformed Philosophy as of late. This is because I have been wrestling with a dilemma – a dilemma concerning what to post. On the one hand, as a Ph.D. student who is pursuing a career in academia, I want to be very protective of my work. Given the current job market, there is tremendous pressure to publish, so anything I’ve spent a suitable amount of time polishing (especially anything directly related to my dissertation) I shouldn’t post since someone might snag it and publish it before I get the chance. On the other hand, I don’t want to post something that I haven’t spent enough time polishing, since, after all, my name will still be attached to it. I certainly have my pocket-hypotheses on a wide array of topics, but I have not invested the time or done the research to write them in a professional fashion.

So as it stands, I don’t want to post work that I’ve spent sufficient time polishing, but, then again, I don’t want to post work that I haven’t spent sufficient time polishing either. What, then, is a blogging Ph.D. student to do? I’m not entirely sure. One answer is to post work that is in the grey area in between publishable and mere opinion; topics that I have done some research on but not enough to where I’ll be able to publish on the matter anytime soon. But can this be right? Is the value and purpose of a philosophy blog really so limited? To be fair, one can post on more than philosophy proper, one can post on relevant news in current affairs, book reviews, etc.; nonetheless, surely philosophy (proper) is or should be a pillar of any philosophy blog.

I don’t have a great answer for this dilemma yet; any feedback, as always, is appreciated.