Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Bingo. Most of what appears in philosophical periodicals (about which I know a thing or two) is worthless, either because the author has nothing new to say or because what is said is politicized. Looking over a typical issue of a philosophical periodical in ethics (broadly construed to include moral philosophy, social philosophy, political philosophy, and philosophy of law) is akin to reading the letters to the editor of the New York Times. The authors are immersed in a progressive worldview and end up talking to each other but saying nothing to anyone on the outside. I don't understand how anyone with any self-respect could tolerate life in an echo chamber. I want my ideas challenged, not reaffirmed at every turn.