Suchergebnisse

Culture wars have two main functions. First, to split an existing, dominant social or political coalition apart by the clever use of wedge-issues. (Not all wedge-issues are a part of a culture war.) So, a culture war reveals a latent or induces real divergence in a pre-existing coalition. So, for example, how to think about trans-issues […]

In the wake of the sentencing of SBF last week there were two mighty takedowns of effective altruism: one (here) "The Deaths of Effective Altruism Sam Bankman-Fried is finally facing punishment. Let's also put his ruinous philosophy on trial" by Leif Wenar (Stanford) at Wired; the other and better written, "Neo-Utilitarians Are Utter Philistines" by Justin Smith-Ruiu (Paris) at his […]

A few months ago Jacob Levy (McGill) published a lengthy Op-Ed, "Campus culture wars are a teachable moment in how freedom of speech and academic freedom differ," in the Globe and Mail. It offered a salutary account on the nature of academic freedom in the aftermath of the "Dec. 5 U.S. House of Representatives committee […]

One structural source of weakness in contemporary liberal democracy is that it does not seem to be able to solve some important, even bread and butter, policy challenges. That it does not do so with the threat that global warning involves is, while highly regrettable, no mystery. It's very difficult for democracies to take non-existing […]

When I first published on what I call 'synthetic philosophy' back in 2019, I presented the two key components of the view in such a way that it caused confusion about the position I was trying to describe as a sociological phenomenon within philosophy of science. I developed the idea of 'synthetic philosophy' in order to give […]

A few weeks ago, Cyril Hédoin responded insightfully and constructively (here) to an essay I recently published @Liberal Currents. Subsequently, he did a follow up piece in which he assimilated my stance on what I call the 'platonic skepticism' (more on that below) of liberalism into a larger framework about different kinds of skepticism exhibited by liberals. In the piece that triggered […]

A few weeks ago I read Ecotopia: The Notebooks and Reports of William Weston by Ernest Callenbach (1975) for the first time. It is worth doing so if you are one of the few who have not because it very neat to see how ideas around ecological sustainability were conceived back then. In what follows, I will […]

In my first post (here) on Mary Harrington's (2023) Feminism Against Progress, I focused on her views on the family and suggested that not unlike Yoram Hazony (in his (2022) book, Conservatism: A Rediscovery), she rejects the patriarchic 'nuclear family' embraced by American, Christian-ethno-nationalists. Instead they both defend what they call the 'traditional family,' which in Harrington's argument […]

Late July, The Wall Street Journal published five short pieces under the title, "Have We Ruined Sex?" Among the five pieces was one by Mary Harrington. In her contribution she argues that the sexual revolution has mainly benefitted the "entrepreneurial class." Since this appeared not in The Nation but WSJ, I was amused, so I decided to read her (2023) Feminism […]

A few weeks ago, Daniel Dennett published an alarmist essay ("Creating counterfeit digital people risks destroying our civilization") in The Atlantic that amplified concerns Yuval Noah Harari expressed in the Economist.+ (If you are in a rush, feel free to skip to the next paragraph because what follows are three quasi-sociological remarks.) First, Dennett's piece is (sociologically) notable because in […]

Richard Bourke's (2018) "What is conservatism? History, ideology, party" critically discusses (inter alia) Samuel P. Huntington's (1957) "Conservatism as an Ideology." Yes, that Huntington (1927–2008). What follows is not about the clash of civilizations, promise. Bourke claims that "the conservatism of Oakeshott and Huntington, like the liberalism of Hayek and Rawls, reflects an effort to fabricate an […]

Novel externalities are social activities for which the emerging cost (or benefit) of the spillover is unknown and must be discovered. Negative novel externalities have regained international salience following the COVID-19 pandemic. Such cases frequently are invoked as evidence of the limits of liberal political economy for dealing with public emergencies. Through a re-reading of classical political economy with the modern state's confrontation with infectious disease in mind, we defend the comparative efficacy of liberal democracy against authoritarian alternatives for coping with these social problems. Effective responses to novel externalities require producing and updating trustworthy public information and an independent scientific community to validate and interpret it. Those epistemic capacities are prevalent in liberal democratic regimes with multiple sources of political power, an independent civil society, and practices of academic freedom. Our analysis highlights the theoretical value of polycentrism and self-governance beyond their more familiar role, of increasing accountability and competition in the provision of local public goods, towards facilitating effective national policy.

"In this introduction I use Bertrand Russell's (1945) The History of Western Philosophy (hereafter: History), to introduce the meta-philosophical themes that recur throughout the chapters of this book. In particular, I focus on the way the distinction or opposition between rustic thought, which is supposed to characterize barbarous societies, and the urbane thought that is purported to characterize civilized society can help explain some entrenched patterns of exclusion visible in contemporary philosophy. I embed these remarks in a larger, speculative historiography of the very idea of 'western philosophy.' Along the way, I provide an overview of the chapters of this volume"--

In this collection of new and previously published essays, noted philosopher Eric Schliesser offers new interpretations of the signifance of Isaac Newton's metaphysics on his physics and the subsequent development of philosophy more broadly. In particular, he explores the rich resonances between Newton's and Spinoza's metaphysics. The volume includes a substantive introduction, new chapters on Newton's modal metaphysics and his theology, and two postscripts in which Schliesser responds to some of his most important critics, including Katherine Brading, Andrew Janiak, Hylarie Kochiras, Steffen Ducheyne, and Adwait Parker. The collection provides new and varied analyses on familiar focuses of Newton's work, adding important perspectives to the recent revival of interest in Spinoza's metaphysics.