As a nominee of the ESJP you obviously study or studied Philosophy, but could you tell us something more about yourself and how your interest in Philosophy came to be?
I became interested in philosophy almost without realizing it. I studied economics before, and grew increasingly critical, perhaps not of economics as a discipline, but of the way I saw it practiced. I didn’t feel students and professors around me questioned the fundamentals of the science enough. At the same time, I read a lot of philosophy out of broader curiosity, but nothing connected with economic science. Eventually a friend told me about EIPE in Rotterdam, and these two interests found each other naturally.
Could you shortly introduce the topic of your paper and tell us why you wanted to write about this topic?
The paper discusses the issue of freedom in religious education. It started as an immediate interest: The issue had come up in public discussion in the Netherlands, but it seemed to me that it often revolved around suspicions of criminal behavior and terrorism. For me, the issue sparked deeper questions about tolerance and freedom and how to promote them from public policy. My goal in writing the paper was to conceptualize, perhaps for myself, how this tolerance could be justified, and what practical limits needed to be required of it, so that we all live free, together.
The ESJP works with a double-blind peer-reviewed process that most academic journals also use, followed by an intensive editorial process in which you get feedback on your work. What did you take out of this experience?
It was a great experience. First, because at the time of writing the article I cared about its content personally. I felt that it was one of the smoothest articles I had written during my master’s, so it was extremely satisfying to see it becoming something bigger. The editorial process itself was very useful. The editors challenged the paper fruitfully. The whole process felt like an intense discussion with a friend over the dinner table: it fires you up and sharpens your ideas.
Since your paper was first nominated by a teacher for our journal and then passed the double-blind peer-reviewed process, you have shown to be able to write a noteworthy and qualitative philosophical paper. What is your secret?
Whatever it is I don’t know it. I think my “style” of writing or working is extremely inconsistent. Sometimes, I start from clean abstract ideas and concepts that live in the realm of a “discipline”; that is when writing is the hardest and I feel less involved. Other times, I start from an argument, a conversation someone had about whatever topic; then, engaging in the argumentative games makes it fun. Yet other times, I start from a problematic fact that appeared to me in the various realms of “real life”; that is when I care about it, and when writing flows much more smoothly, orderly, and productively.
You are still a student (or you just graduated) and already have a first publication, what’s next? What are your plans for the future?
I have mostly worked as an economist. I have grown interested in the philosophical and methodological challenges for the Evidence-Based movement in economics. This is to say, I believe my interest are quite diverse. A PhD is certainly something I consider doing in the future if I can give shape to a significant topic that I feel deeply engaged with. What looks most satisfying to me is a career that combines academics and intellectual engagement with practical involvement in our society.