Aristotle defined humans as the rational animal. But he was wrong! The human mind is riddled with cognitive biases. At last count, there are something like 150 named cognitive biases – confirmation bias, in group bias, loss aversion, the Ikea effect, the halo effect, endowment effects.
The Simpsons may not seem like a legitimate source for philosophical discourse and ideas. But the University of Glasgow just launched a successful one-day course entitled “D’oh! The Simpsons Introduce Philosophy” as an introduction to the world’s most eminent philosophical thinkers.
Video game use among young, lower skilled men has increased markedly in the past few decades. In general, the underemployment of this demographic has struck many as deeply worrying, foreshadowing changes in the future of work and creating a need for a universal basic income.
Contrary to popular belief, a philosophy degree may be useful in the job market. An education in philosophy teaches students critical thinking, precise analysis, and cogent writing, skills that essential for any professional career.
Why do we think it’s so important to assign a sex and gender to a baby at birth? Does it serve an important public policy or public health purpose, or does this practice more reflect our irrational need to classify people along these axes as quickly as possible?
It is said that taste is subjective. But are aesthetic judgments completely groundless? When we say something is in bad taste, does that statement have anything behind it at all, besides expressing our personal disapproval?
What ethical obligations do the makers of reality TV have to prevent harm to their willing participants? Or do reality TV participants give up certain rights when they agree to allow their lives to be commodified?
Does Habermas believe that factions are good because of the authenticity of their rationally discursive sources but bad because real discourse is limited by interfactional communication prohibition? -John in Berkeley
Habermas believes that genuine democracy is rooted in the principles of communicative rationality. Though I think it is very much an open question whether rational argument can ever take place in a democracy—especially one like ours that seems very far from what Habermas envisions—I do hold out some hope that we may eventually be able to design a public sphere in which reason regularly wins out over power and propaganda.
Wonder Woman is a wonderfully engrossing movie, but is it a feminist one? The answer depends on what you think it means to be a feminist and what you make of the beauty of Gal Gadot.
The belief that some things are natural while others are unnatural is part of the common currency of human thought, but we rarely pause to consider exactly what it means to say that something is unnatural. It’s important to do so because this concept is politically very potent.
We all have preferences around when good or bad experiences happen, but some of those preferences cause us to make poor or irrational choices. These are knows as time biases. But are time biases always harmful or can they sometimes be helpful? Would being temporally neutral lead to a better life?
Who exactly are the pawns of ISIS? There’s the stereotypical image of a Muslim young man, whose mind has been infected by ISIS propaganda. But there are also the Islamophobes, who take themselves to be fighting against any form of Islam, but who are unwittingly executing ISIS strategy.
Habermas has thought about the rise of a sort of authoritarian populism and the value of an inclusive and equal public sphere. On top of his intellectual pursuits, he has made a concerted effort to not to restrict his thoughts on democracy to the philosophy seminar room.
We might agree that the practice of racial profiling—police or security targeting individuals for investigation because of their race, ethnicity, or national origin—is wrong. But the question is, exactly why is it wrong?
We have a tendency to desire at least some degree of privacy, allowing us to live part of our lives outside of the public eye. Is privacy foundational to our lives? How much does privacy deserve to be protected when greater safety often comes with its sacrifice?