THe above comment is directed to Stephen Bayne

The best shot I think you have of publishing on Anscombe is probably a Thomistic journal or a journal not unsympathetic (a deliberate double negative) to outspoken Catholic philosophers. The first possibility that comes to mind is The Review of Metaphysics. There are two approaches one might take, at least. First, select a topic from Anscombe about which much has been said, e.g. “agency” or the “practical syllogism.” Then use a contemporary, such as Davidson, to provide a platform. You might weave in her relevance, yet unexplored, to “akrasia.” Then dump it in the lap of an editor with an interest in ethics. (Any of the major journals that value value theory).The draw back is not that Anscombe was not technical enough, but rather that she was obscure, stylistically, and the theory of action has evolved into a branch of the theory of explanation. So you might want to explore reasons and causes, with emphasis on reason, and display enough appropriate knowledge to convince the editors that there is a connection between Anscombe and, say, post-Hempelian theories of explanation of behavior. I’d like to see a paper setting an Anscombe type approach against some things Fred Dretske has said. There is a second approach.

This is the direct approach. First, avoid attempting to publish within the compass of a single essay dealing with the corpus of Anscombe’s work even on most single topics, although the topic of causation, or time, for example, are possibilities. The problem is not that she is not contemporary; it is, rather, that the action theory, at the moment, does not appear to be fashionable. My effort has been to make unfashionable things fashionable when the gain in intuitive content excels contemporary work as it becomes vacuously “formal.” Currently, I have completed roughly three hundred pages of a ms devoted to _The Theory of Human Action from Wm. James to Elizabeth Anscombe_. It delves into theories Anscombe appears to have ignored, just before Wittgenstein, and connects her revolution to a forgotten orthodoxy (James, Bradley, Shand, Moore etc). I mention this because while it does not “fit” the table of contents of they typical “hip” journal, for example Phil. Studies or Phil. Quarterly, it is very analytical, drawing not only from Kenny and Davidson, for example, but also some aspects of linguistic theory. My point: Anscombe is very relevant; even more relevant, I think, than the later Wittgenstein (how many good contemporary essays have you seen on that!?). Finally, a couple of barely related comments.

First, I am flattered and delighted by the interest in my website. Your conundrum in a sense, since I decided not to publish in journals, provides justification for my philosophical existence! Yours is the dilemma I set out to reveal: where to go when orthodoxy has choked off discourse. Second, I would consider webifying on Hist-Analytic papers of a high quality; well researched and thought out.

The best of luck! Anscombe was “difficult” in some ways; but she pushed herself to the limit; she never accepted easy answers; she defied fashions of all sorts; and she possessed intellectual courage. In a way, she was an island; in a way she has yet to be discovered.

Regards

Steve Bayne