C
U
R
R
I
C
U
L
U
M
V
I
T
A
E
Rossen I. Ventzislavov
Email address: rossen@ventzislavov.com
Personal website: www.ventzislavov.com
EDUCATION
The Graduate Center at The City University of New York
New York, NY
PhD, Philosophy, February 2011
Thesis Title: The Language of Philosophy, A Critical Look Into the Language of Early
Analytic Philosophy (Six chapters, 250 pages, see synopsis below)
Thesis Advisor: Nickolas Pappas
Dissertation Committee: Christa Acampora, Linda Alcoff, Noel Carroll, Frank Kirkland
St. Francis College
Brooklyn, NY
B.A., May 2000
Major: Political Science
Minor: Philosophy
Awards: Dean’s List Award, Spring 1999; Dean’s List Award, Fall 1999; Award for Best
Academic Essay, Spring 1999
The American University in Bulgaria
B.A., December 1998
Major: Political Science
Minor: Philosophy
Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria
AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION
History of Philosophy, Aesthetics, Continental Philosophy
AREAS OF TEACHING COMPETENCE
History of Philosophy, Critical Thinking, Ethics, Basic Logic, Bioethics, Political Philosophy,
Aesthetics, Continental Philosophy
LANGUAGE COMPETENCE
Bulgarian (native)
English (fluent)
Russian (reading)
German (basic comprehension and expression)
PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONS
“The Time is Now: Acceptance and Conquest in Pop Music,” Journal of Popular Music Studies,
Forthcoming, March 2012
C
U
R
R
I
C
U
L
U
M
V
I
T
A
E
“Common Senses,” Philosophy Colloquium Presentation, The City College at The City
University of New York, February 2012
“One of Deleuze’s Bergsonisms,” Deleuze Studies, Forthcoming (Vol. 5, Issue 3, November
2011)
“Singing Nonsense,” Peer-Reviewed Journal, Submitted for review, September 2011
“Fragments in Libeskind and Wittgenstein,” Peer-Reviewed Journal, Conditionally accepted,
Second draft submitted for review, July 2011
“What Literature is For,” Liternet.bg, Vol. 9, No. 118, 2009
“Formal Reality,” Literaturen Vestnik, Vol. 168, No. 3, pp. 14-15, 2000
“What Is the Fundamental Difference Between the Ethics of Aristotle and Aquinas?” Student
Recognition Journal, St. Francis College, 2000
“Electioneering,” Aspecter, Issue 47, Year 6, p. 7, The American University in Bulgaria, 1998
POSITIONS HELD
Adjunct Instructor, The City College of New York
Courses Taught:
The Rational Animal (An advanced survey of philosophical ideas;
Spring 2007 – Present)
Critical Thinking (Fall 2007)
Bioethics (Teaching Assistant; Fall 2009 – Present)
New York, NY
Adjunct Instructor, The Fashion Institute of Technology, SUNY
Courses Taught:
Ethics (Spring 2011—Present)
New York, NY
COMMITTEE WORK
The Graduate Center at CUNY
Theaetetus Conference Coordinator (November 18-19, 2011)
New York, NY
Pratt Institute
Architecture Thesis Project Evaluation Committee (Spring 2009 – Present)
New York, NY
MEMBERSHIPS
C
U
R
R
I
C
U
L
U
M
V
I
T
A
E
The American Philosophical Association
The American Society for Aesthetics
REFERENCES
Edward Casey, Stony Brook University
Contact: escasey3@aol.com
Nickolas Pappas, The Graduate Center at The City University of New York
Contact: nickolaspappas60@gmail.com
Jeffrey Blustein, The Graduate Center at The City University of New York
Contact: jblustein@ccny.cuny.edu
Linda Alcoff, Hunter College at the City University of New York
Contact: lmartina@hunter.cuny.edu
DISSERTATION SYNOPSIS
In my dissertation I offer a topical critique of the language of early analytic philosophy. My
critique focuses on the factors that shaped the tradition’s linguistic inventory. Among these
factors, I pay special attention to the direct influence the new analytic arguments and
methodologies had on the formation of the specialized language of analysis. In this, I argue that
early analytic philosophy is not only distinguished by a tendency of economizing language, as
early analytic thinkers readily admitted, but also by the heretofore unstudied effort to ostracize
words and expressions that could in any way challenge their new philosophical programs. I
attempt to prove that, in result of the latter, early analytic philosophers isolated themselves from
alternative ways of doing philosophy and, more importantly, sacrificed some of the
understandability of their arguments. My method consists of the analysis of specific arguments
by particular philosophers with a view on both the formation of their language choices and the
way these choices in turn influence the arguments themselves. My primary examples of the
tendencies discussed come from the writings of Moore, Neurath, and Wittgenstein. I also look
into the importance of professional conformism for the way the language of early analytic
philosophy has been inherited by subsequent generations of analysts. My example here is Searle
and, more specifically, his compromised treatment of Derrida’s reading of Austin. In conclusion,
I explore the issues of language choice, understandability of arguments, modes of inheritance,
and philosophical motivation as discussed by Wisdom and Cavell. In the latter two philosophers,
I find both eloquent proof for the relevance of the problems that concern my study and, also,
fresh suggestions as to how these problems are to be dealt with philosophically.