Scientists tell us that space and time are really aspects of a single thing, the space-time continuum, that time has no intrinsic direction, and that there is really no such things as objective, observer independent simultaneity, and maybe time travel is possible after all.
Should your race restrict what you’re allowed to paint? Is it wrong for white artists to depict black suffering? Or is this just political correctness overdone?
Fichte, Nietzsche, Hegel, and Kant sit down for some No-Limits Texas Hold ’em. What could possibly go wrong?
How should we respond to the suffering of those who vote against their own best interests? Is unadulterated cruelty a good political strategy? Or does a just social order depend upon our ability to empathize with all human beings?
If the mind and the body are two separate things, as substance dualists believe, then how are the two connected to one another? Part 2 of our blog series on the mind-body problem.
Do we need a major catastrophe, like the bubonic plague or the small pox epidemic, in order to solve economic inequality? That’s what one author, historian Walter Scheidel, thinks.
When YOU look at yourself in a mirror, WHO do you see there? The mirror test is a technique developed by psychologist Gordon Gallup Jr. as an attempt to determine whether a non-human animal possesses the ability of self-recognition.
Is it a contradiction to be gay and Christian? Is it possible to preserve a traditional religious identity, while maintaining a lifestyle and identity that—ostensibly—the religion’s canonical texts say is wrong? The answer depends on how we think about religious identities.
It has been described as a revolution in philosophy and a new way to approach age-old questions in the discipline. But what exactly is contrastivism?
Prominent philosophers go head to head in this New York Review of Books piece. Thomas…
This week’s episode is the first in a new six-part series on the topic of Intellectual Humility. We tackle the big question, whether we can know what we know and what we don’t, since knowing what you do and don’t know is the first step to true intellectual humility.
“Neoliberalism” is one of those terms tossed around by both those who know what they’re talking about and those who have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about. But like any other complex concept, the definition of neoliberalism is often in contestation.
What happens when a society, once a model for enlightened progress, threatens to backslide into intolerance and irrationality? How should that society’s stunned and disoriented members respond? Do they engage in kind, resist, withdraw, even depart?
What does it mean to know something? How is knowing different from merely thinking of believing? Can we establish strict rules for what constitutes knowledge and what does not?
Crony beliefs are beliefs you have partly because you want to believe them. But is it really possible to form beliefs because you want to have them? Does that explain why so many people seem to believe things that serve their self-interest? Or is there another explanation for that?
Should we encourage students to study philosophy because it turns out that it’s actually a great way to make money and have a lucrative career? Or in doing so are we losing sight of the value of a philosophical education? Isn’t philosophy essential for a democratic citizenry, for example?