Retirement, as we think of it, goes like this. A person has a right, or maybe a duty, but at least a choice, to retire at a certain age, and between the government, his or her employers, and their own diligence, should have a pension to live on for the rest of their days.
The recent Twitter popularity of the #MeToo movement has shone a public spotlight on ongoing conversations about rape and sexual assault. There is no single, magical solution to the problem of sexual assault, but an important piece of the puzzle is changing the way we understand sex and consent.
“Can Speech Kill?” The obvious answer, it seems, should be: yes, but not directly. However, if one person engages in hate speech against another—using racial slurs or de-humanizing language such as “cockroaches” or “rats”—can that language be counted as killing or contributing to killing other people?
As automation displaces human labor, a universal basic income plan may seem like the perfect solution. But are we being too fatalistic in accepting that automation will eventually obviate the need for human labor?
Can mere words be used to kill? Words can hurt and offend, but can they be lethal weapons? I don’t mean that in a metaphorical sense. We all can admit that words can hurt or offend. But I’m asking if they can literally kill?
Why do many of us assume that Buddhism and science are polar opposites—that Buddhist teachings are so paradoxical and mysterious they are not even meant to be understood? Is it possible instead that the teachings of Buddhism actually predate certain scientific conclusions the West is just now discovering?
I’m reaching the end of a semester-long sabbatical, and will soon have to start thinking about preparing for the courses that I will be teaching in the spring semester. I love teaching. However, this time I’m rather less enthusiastic about climbing back in the academic saddle.
What exactly is a midlife crisis? One way to think about it is that it’s the creeping feeling that what we’re doing with our lives isn’t worthwhile. Or worse: the midlife crisis can be the feeling that no choice of life could ever have been worthwhile.
The first woman to translate The Odyssey, Emily Wilson, tells the famous story of Odysseus, Homer’s cunning Trojan war hero, in a radically different way. She tells it in plain English. Wilson’s translation is direct, and her effort raises important questions around the translation of classical works.
Thanksgiving can be a joyous celebration of family and community. But its festivities can serve to cover up, and encourage, ongoing injustice. So how should we understand Thanksgiving? Is it a wholesome celebration of family and connectedness, or a cover-up for continued injustice?
What is the value of philosophy of science? What do philosophers even know about science? Shouldn’t we just trust scientists when it comes to questions of science? Philosopher Subrena Smith says there are presuppositions in science worth analyzing from a philosophical perspective.
Thor: Ragnarok is funny, exciting, and visually nifty. The third in a series, it’s a great two-plus hours of entertainment. But it’s not just entertainment; there’s more in Thor philosophically than you might think of when you are caught up in the action.
Male philosophers may think feminist philosophy has nothing to offer them. Yet feminist philosophy has already enriched analytic philosophy and promises to deepen philosophers’ “serious engagement” with continental thinkers, argues Gary Gutting.
What’s goes on in the mind of a hypocrite, like “pro-life” congressman Tim Murphy, who had to resign when it was discovered he encouraged his mistress to have an abortion? Is he a craven liar? Or is there another psychological model that explains his hypocrisy?
Philosopher Simon Critchley offers his take on continental philosophy and some of its biggest hits. He discusses how the continental approach to philosophy is more practically relevant to lived experience and, interestingly, more aware of its history.
Suppose we were to ask for each country on Earth how many people would willingly choose to live in it, given complete freedom of choice, but under a modified version of the veil of ignorance. Which country would you choose?