Philosoffee

I take it as a matter of course that what we desire is some sort of open and honest communication. Such a thing is enshrined both in our popular culture, and in our formal culture. Popularly, we speak of a desire to "really get to know" someone, which of course implies clear and open communication with them. It implies that they speak to us without any deception, and that we understand them without our own biases getting in the way. There is also a desire that others "really know us", which would imply that we desire to speak clearly and honestly, and that others listen to us seriously. We want to be known, and to know others. Going in either direction, there must be communication that is honest, frank, and clear. We must challenge ourselves not to lie, bother to others and to ourselves. Much more could be said of this existential desire for open communication on an interpersonal level. Indeed, at a later time, I would like to say investigate these things more cl

So, one plus one equals two. We'll come back to that. Perhaps I am merely aging, nothing more, but I find that I am becoming a slightly more practically minded person. In my youth (which is perhaps a silly phrase, as I'm only 30) I was a bit more idealistic. Radical philosophical and political ideas were enticing to me, then. Now when I hear about radical ideas, I find myself first questioning the logistics involved. The twinkle went out of my eye when I began to realize just how clunky the actual gears of society are, and thus just how messy any change away from current political structures would be. I became a pragmatist. I say all that only to point out that I'm not some starry-eyed youngling who is about to suggest that Mr. Bezos is mean just for being a boss. I accept that there will always be some sort of hierarchy in life. In fact, I think that there should be (healthy, justified) hierarchies if for no other reason than because I cannot fathom a world in whi

(This post is another in the Self series. Themed around explorations of what it means to be a Self, what its like to be a Self, and whether or not "Self" is a meaningful concept, we'll be thinking today about some social and philosophical components of self-hood) This is not an essay where I'll be stating any kind of actual stance on something. To be honest, I'm working through some questions I have about the topics I'm going to raise below. However, rather than put up what was quickly becoming a too-lengthy post, I decided to bring up the background issues that are currently setting the stage for my thoughts on Self. The Self has taken a front and center seat in our national consciousness. This is a strange thing to say. After all, have people not always been concerned with their selves? Well, they have...but the nature of Self as a problem ; questions regarding"Who am I? What am I? What is my purpose?" have come to the forefront in an interest

No. But that's a claim I'll have to back up later on. However, there are some people who would answer that question in the affirmative. They would say that life is so bad. So bad, in fact, that it isn't worth living. So bad that conscious life (or at least life with consciousness like our own) should choose to die out. In fact, these people claim that life is so bad that it is actively immoral to have children, because doing so only perpetrates this bad condition. These people fall under the broad philosophy of anti-natalism. They think of themselves as standing opposed to "natalists", or people who are actively or passively pro-birth. The term 'natal' (as in prenatal care, post-natal ward, natality report) refers to one's birth. An anti-natalist is someone who, roughly speaking, thinks that no one should ever be born. Note that this has next to nothing to do with the abortion debate. The question here is not "Is it ever okay to terminate a fe

The following is another recording we made back when the site was going to be called Dubitandum. In it, we discuss some thoughts around the philosophy of anti-natalism, which is the belief that life is so horrible that having a child is actually immoral. Enjoy!

I am a free speech absolutist, and yet... Well, before I even finish that thought, let me point out why as a free speech absolutist I feel it is important to acknowledge and consider criticisms of absolute free speech. If having free speech means anything at all, it means that we can think about or debate any topic, no matter how abhorrent it may seem to some people. A society with truly free speech allows for heretics to critique the dominant religion; it allows for dissenting political views; it allows for competing moral claims. People can voice their dissent and voice their thoughts no matter how shocking. Someone, somewhere, will be egregiously offended, perhaps even to tears and panic attacks, at the content of some speech, but if we are to have genuine intellectual and moral freedom then this is simply a price we must pay. All topics are open for debate. But, if free speech advocates like myself are going to be consistent, then we must acknowledge that this even includ