This will be another wonky analytic philosophy post about imaginative resistance. (Here is the last such, with links to others yet further back.) Today I cranked out the first half of an essay - too hastily, although I've been taking notes for the longest time, and the first bit is recycled. It is a bit precious and scholastic, as befits its dignity as an academic paper. It lacks an ending, so don't expect one. But if there's anything fundamentally defective about these feet and torso, it would be helpful if I were informed before screwing on the head. Brian Weatherson, in particular, is instructed to leave critical comments. (And I am sorry that, in the course of the post, I have been compelled to note before god and google that the fiction he has penned of late is hardly of the first water, aesthetically. Brian is a fine fellow. But there you are. Plato dear, truth dearer, yadda, yadda, yadda.)
And I've realized I don't really understand Gendler's paper. That is, it seems to me she should conclude her paper by saying, sensibly: 'so there's really no such thing after all. Just a big misunderstanding.' But she doesn't. I really should email her and request clarification, but haven't yet.
Proceed at own risk. Geek-talk between us academic wonks.