In Harry Frankfurt’s famous paper “On Bullshit” he argues that because bullshit is “indifference to the truth,” silence is better than bullshit. Stefano Zorzi challenges this view arguing that bullshit can actually help us reach the truth.
James Baldwin, essayist, novelist, playwright, and searing social critic, has been enjoying a resurgence of interest recently. There is no doubt that Baldwin’s thinking is just as relevant today as it was in the mid twentieth century. Sadly, there is so much that has not yet changed.
Millennials are taking part in a dangerous and bizarre activity, the “Tide Pod challenge,” which has gone viral across social media. Perhaps a far more interesting and real hysteria is the moral panic that ensued among the public in reaction to the challenge.
Interested in learning more about 17th-century philosophy, but from a graphic novel? Father-son duo Steven Nadler and Ben Nadler co-authored Heretics!—a graphic novel that explains the history of philosophy during this period.
People who have been grievously harmed may be angry and may believe that such anger is morally justified. But under what circumstances is such anger justified? In what forms may it be permissibly expressed? Three Billboards provides a rich basis for considering themes about the morality of anger.
Regular readers know that I have a longstanding interest in the appeal of Donald Trump, and the social and psychological forces that catapulted him into power. What is this personal magnetism certain people who rise to leadership positions seem to exude that many find irresistible?
In a polemical critque, author Nikil Saval argues that Amazon has bankrupted “the ideology of urbanism.” So what was this ideology? And how has Amazon’s search for new urban headquarters revealed “the urbanist delusion”?
A recent donation by a billionaire investor challenges the common perception that philosophy is impractical and disconnected with the pursuit of economic gains. Bill Miller gave $75 million to the philosophy department at Johns Hopkins University, saying that philosophy benefitted him incredibly as an investor.
At much insistence from my friends, I’ve started watching the Netflix hit series Stranger Things. One of the great things about the show is that it raises philosophical questions about emotions people experience when taking in frightening fictional events.
It is popular in certain circles to think of gender as a fluid spectrum: People can fall on many points between “very feminine” and “very masculine,” and where they fall can change over time. But perhaps the gender spectrum is more viscose than fluid.
Frantz Fanon was quite a provocative fellow. In his most influential work, The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon says that “For the colonized, life can only materialize from the rotting cadaver of the colonist.”
Often we are told that spending time alone, meditating, taking the Meyers-Briggs test, or traveling…
Is morality like a leaning tower, with virtue increasing as the floors increase? If so, how would the tower be supported, especially considering self-sacrficing altruistic behavior, a type of behavior at the very top?
What does it mean to have a fractured identity? And what can we do when our sense of self is fractured? Can we choose from the many parts which aspect to identify with? Is it up to us? Or is identity something foisted upon us by others?
While victims may not be responsible for being chosen as the unlucky targets of perpetrators or unfortunate circumstances, once they escape their immediate ordeal, victims play an important role in restoring justice by holding perpetrators to account or informing bystanders and potential victims.
When is the slippery slope argument fallacious and when is it—if ever—compelling? This video from Wireless Philosophy gives a helpful explanation of the slippery slope argument and how to avoid committing a logical fallacy.