The Federico Lauria 2014 dissertation footnote 397 rabbit hole i fell into at 2 am...

[EmmaTook]

I'm writing this philosophy paper on philosophy of mind and desire, right? Standard stuff. My professor recommended Lauria's work because I'm interested in the deontic view of desire—basically this idea that desiring something means representing it as how things ought to be. Cool stuff.

I finally get my hands on the federico lauria 2014 dissertation through my university library database. "The Logic of the Liver." Weird title, but okay. I'm reading along, highlighting passages, feeling smart. Then I get to footnote 397.

Guys. FOOTNOTE 397.

It's this dense, tiny little block of text at the bottom of some page, and it's like Lauria just casually drops this entire alternative philosophical framework in like six lines. He's addressing some objection about his deontic view, and in the footnote, he mentions this obscure Meinongian distinction that apparently "deserves more attention than the present work can accommodate." And then he just... moves on. Back to the main text like nothing happened.

I've been stuck on this footnote for THREE DAYS. I've追 down every source he cited in it. I've read papers I'm not even sure I understand. I'm supposed to be writing about his main argument, but instead I'm down this rabbit hole of early 20th-century Austrian philosophy because of ONE FOOTNOTE.

Has anyone else had this experience with academic writing? Where a single footnote derails your entire research process? Part of me is annoyed, but part of me is actually fascinated. Like, what didn't he have room to say? What's in the ideas he had to cut? I might email him. Do philosophers answer emails from undergrads?

 

[Mark2003]

The Lauria dissertation is genuinely important in philosophy of desire. His deontic view—that desiring is representing a state as what ought to be—is a major alternative to the standard evaluative and motivational theories . He's been publishing on this for years, including a 2017 Oxford volume called The Nature of Desire .

That footnote 397 is almost certainly engaging with Meinong's theory of "objectives" and "ought-to-be" norms. Meinong had this whole framework where norms are a special kind of object that don't exist in the regular way but still structure our mental states. Lauria's dissertation abstract explicitly says it's "inspired by Meinong" . So that footnote isn't a tangent—it's the foundation.

The fact that he had to cut it to six lines is tragic. Dissertations have page limits. There's always stuff that doesn't fit. The footnotes are where the bleeding edge lives.

Email him. He's at the University of Geneva/Columbia . Philosophers love when students chase their footnotes. You'll make his day.

 

[ViVi]

For me it was a Rorty footnote that mentioned this obscure pragmatist I'd never heard of. Three weeks later I'd read everything by that pragmatist and my original paper was completely different.

Your Lauria footnote experience is actually a rite of passage. Every serious philosophy student has one. It's the moment when you realize that academic writing is FULL of these little doors, and you can choose to open them or not. The fact that you opened it and fell through means you're curious, persistent, and maybe a little obsessive – all good traits for philosophy.

The Meinongian stuff he's referencing is genuinely interesting. Meinong's distinction between being and existence, and how that applies to intentional states like desire... it's a whole thing. If you're still stuck, I'd recommend reading Meinong's "The Theory of Objects" (it's old but short) and then coming back to the footnote.

And yeah, email him! Lauria is at Geneva now I think. Philosophers at his level usually appreciate thoughtful questions from students. Just be specific about what you're asking and keep it concise. He might not have time for a long conversation but he'll probably point you toward relevant sources.