I’m mostly struck by the whole “I read a book. Then I read another book. Then I read another book. Then I read another book” thing that it’s got going on. Would I write this paper differently today?
Throughout the Baroque, there are many paradoxes, so many, that it could be said that paradox is a defining characteristic of it
I’m completely wrong in my conclusion, of course, but I do think that there is a nut of something worth exploring about religion in the middle parts
Questioning the work of Haidt work on how liberals fail to understand conservatives and how conservatives very much understand liberals.
Logical Positivism made a valiant attempt to create a perfect philosophical language: a language with no emotive content whatsoever
A recurring subject is the nature of intelligence. What makes a person smart? These are people that consider and argue.
It seems that the role of revelation in religious epistemology is to pick up where the a priori leaves off, by giving experiences that are self-justified and can provide a foundation for other beliefs
A fable by Bryan O’Nolan: “You have lived in a land of wonder. I have had every error, every fault, written indelibly upon my name.”
I present to you Obsolete Philosophy. To kick us off, comparing Marx’s Utopia with Nietzsche’s… whatever it is that Nietzsche saw coming.
Developing virtues should be a prerequisite to political engagement and are vastly more important than jumping into any ‘culture war’ battle
I hereby confess to you, dear reader, that when I consider you, I am pitiless. In what manner do you deal out in judgment to me?
Why does the middlebrow matter? Who cares what a Jane or John Doe has to say about the Great Books or politics? The answer is obvious…
A moral gerrymandering of my personal Ludditism can become disciplined if I filter that jagged line through the lens of the human condition.