“Hell Is Other People”: Sartre on Personal Relationships
What exactly is freedom of speech? And what does it permit us to say?
By Kiki Berk|2021-05-14T18:29:27+00:00March 12th, 2021|Theory|1 Comment
What exactly is freedom of speech? And what does it permit us to say?
By Hendrik van der Breggen|2021-02-24T01:33:43+00:00February 24th, 2021|Practice|1 Comment
By: Hendrik van der Breggen Next week the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on the so-called Equality Act. Ostensibly
By Mark Satta|2021-03-12T15:49:55+00:00February 18th, 2021|Practice, Theory|0 Comments
What exactly is freedom of speech? And what does it permit us to say?
By Nathan Nobis|2021-05-14T18:31:18+00:00February 2nd, 2021|Practice, Theory|0 Comments
Many of people’s most cherished beliefs—on important matters such as religion, health, science, ethics, justice, and more—are not based on strong evidence.
By Jared Millson|2021-02-18T20:13:25+00:00January 21st, 2021|Practice, Theory|0 Comments
What are conspiracy theories? Should we ever accept one? If so, when?
By Dennis Rohatyn|2020-12-11T21:12:58+00:00November 13th, 2020|Practice, Theory|0 Comments
Mr. Toobin is a celebrity. Therefore, he has no right (as it were) to lower himself to our level or at least not in such a way that we are made aware of it. Discretion is the better part of ardor, especially for those in the public eye. Since those who wield power (control over other people’s destinies) belong to the priestly caste of society, they must relinquish the life of the peasant in exchange for their rank as sanctified members of the hierarchy. The peasant is no better than an animal; the priest must not descend to the level of the peasant, or be witnessed doing so, lest the peasantry become disillusioned, and begin to question their lack of status, let alone, rebel against priestly authority. That violates the tacit social contract (or unstated Freudian bargain) that we make with our living symbols of supernal grace.
By Hendrik van der Breggen|2020-10-08T16:13:47+00:00July 17th, 2020|Theory|0 Comments
The two-wrongs-make-a-right fallacy is a misplaced appeal to consistency: accept, or condone, one thing that is wrong because another similar thing, also wrong, has occurred, or has been accepted and condoned. It's clearly flawed reasoning, which has led to many escalating feuds. Yet, it continues today.
By Dan Corjescu|2020-10-08T16:14:16+00:00June 12th, 2020|Theory|0 Comments
Our transient lives are governed by what I would call “mortal time”, an idea stretching its way through Western philosophy from Heraclitus through Socrates to at least Heidegger. It is a time curved to a specific end in death. All our society, culture, and even science is bent by our mortal temporal curvature. Our lives are sorted out and planned according to our inevitable decline and eventual total physical disappearance. The lens through which we view our entire existence is death, our consciousness is therefore a thoroughly mortal one.
By Dan Corjescu|2020-04-17T14:58:57+00:00April 3rd, 2020|Theory|0 Comments
By: Dan Corjescu Does Nietzsche have anything important to say to us, the current inhabitants of a hyperglobal age? Nietzsche
By Political Animal|2019-08-23T18:49:36+00:00August 23rd, 2019|Practice, Theory|0 Comments
How do we talk about abortion? How do we make arguments about a topic that evokes such strong reactions? In opposing articles, Nathan Nobis and Kristina Grob and Hendrick van der Breggen, approach the issue dialectically. One approach is to think dialectically--to critically examine arguments pro or con, in order to uncover the assumptions and grounds they rest on, and develop new arguments that respond to the faults we find in our prior positions.