News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.
The stigmatisation of certain theories, counter-intuitive to many, as ‘preposterous’ should be avoided. It is not ultimately conducive to discovering…
I think Daniel and Bryan are both right. Peter Ludlow ends his piece cited in the report defending the Analytics…
Interesting that Daniel Came and I both have happy memories of being taught logic as undergraduates by Timothy Smiley even…
In partial contrast, I can’t think of a time when philosophy was more interesting or impressive compared to today. The…
I chatted with the Ludwig Wittgenstein bot and was overall quite impressed. It confirmed a hypothesis I previously had that…
I’m a little bit disappointed that no one here thus far has posted a comment on Iain Thomson’s recent Heidegger…
There was a moment, back in the mid-2010s, when these clowns were ascendent and in a position to impose real…
This seems right, but the monster child seems headed in that direction. Curious if well-informed readers have a different view and, if so, why?
Your question raises a more fundamental question: as a reader how do you even become well-informed? Is it just me or have the legacy media outlets become worse and worse … to the point where it’s impossible from reading them to know what’s going on. In the case of Ukraine it’s been especially striking. Last week the BBC was implying that the Ukrainians have it all but wrapped up provided they just hang in there for a few more weeks. And don’t get me started on Gaza. One can, I suppose, look here and there and everywhere and try to come to some sort of a coherent picture but that approach has its own obvious limitations. I suppose I should go back to getting the FT delivered every morning. Any other suggestions?
I am not Iranian, but if I were, I would be concerned that during a revolution, Iran would be exceedingly vulnerable to attacks by the US and certain regional partners intending to instigate a long-burning civil war. This would replicate, mutatis mutandis, the significantly weakened state of polities such as Iraq and Syria, not to speak of Lebanon and Libya (which are effectively non-existent states). The potential level of cultural destruction and human suffering tout court is all but unthinkable in light of the escalating destruction in other parts of the Middle East during the past couple of years. I am no admirer of the present regime, and a level of ‘liberalization’ akin to that of Turkey might help preserve the state—any state—in Iran. Then there is the question of the bomb: I do not think the religio-military hierarchy is any more irrational than that of Pakistan, and it seems more rational than other actors who already possess it. However, as it stands, the crux—the existential peril for Iran—may lie more in the pursuit of a nuclear defense than in what follows its actual acquisition.
Leave a Reply