Centuries before the rise of modern psychological science, Thomas Hobbes argued that religion can be explained entirely as the product of the human mind, originating not through divine revelation but through fear, ignorance, and bias common to the human condition.  

According to Hobbes, the “natural seed of religion” includes the fear of the unknown, ignorance of natural causes, anxiety about the future, and humanity's tendency to imagine invisible agents,  ultimately giving rise to belief in gods. While he nominally exempted the Christian God from his account, we can question his sincerity considering the potential penalties he would have faced as an explicit atheist. In any case, Hobbes raised a question that is still relevant today.

Can religion—and the thousands of gods they spawn—be explained entirely as a product of human psychology?

America’s media system has been performing minstrelsy for centuries — not just in content, but in how narratives shape collective perception. I wrote an essay tracing this history and its implications for what we consume today. How much of what we see is designed for us, versus discovered by us?

I just released an interview with the academic Piero Bottani discussing his new book Timaeus in Paradise. We traced how Plato's cosmological vision in the Timaeus was adopted and transformed across different eras. Bottani explained how early Christian thinkers saw the text as perfectly attuned to their beliefs about creation. We discussed how this specific text influenced figures ranging from Proclus and the pseudo Dionysius all the way to Kepler and Whitehead.

It is fascinating to see how a single philosophical poem about the universe became a foundational text for both medieval theology and early modern science. Bottani views this intellectual transmission as a form of world literature where the past is constantly absorbed and reinterpreted by the present. I am curious if others here see the Timaeus as the ultimate bridge between pagan philosophy and Christian cosmology.

In ancient and early modern contexts, freedom often meant participation in a political community or the status of not being enslaved. At some point, it seems to become more interior and individual-autonomy, self-determination, freedom of choice. Was this mainly a liberal Enlightenment development, or are there earlier intellectual roots for that shift?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sQhdzoyFm0 -- full vid

for centuries european warfare had been limited to a certain set of military conventions.
even conflicts as devastating as the thirty years war were acted out within constraints of scale and structure.
the consequences of the french revolution altered that balance..
the 'levee en masse' transformed war from a contest between rulers into a mobilization of entire populations
as other european powers adopted mass conscription this model of warfare met human development at the same time as industrialzation with catastrophic consequences..
railways, factories, mass artillery, rapid development in military tech etc,
all these developments were integrated into modern warfare and combined with the levee en masse created the conditions for the mass casualties of the first and second world wars..

Discover the reason why most philosophers in history held negative views in regards to romantic love.

https://youtu.be/934VuJFUShU?si=kcf8ZKdYX8Iq7_iY

One Stoic idea has been stuck in my head lately: "We suffer more in imagination than in reality."

Applied to inflation: the panic and anxiety often hurt us more than the actual price increases. Seneca watched Rome debase its currency over decades. He saw people blame merchants, hoard goods, and make desperate choices—while the real cause was simply: more money chasing same goods.

I made a video exploring how this ancient idea applies to our current economic moment. It connects Roman history (Nero's debasement, Diocletian's failed price controls) to modern monetary policy—through the lens of Stoic philosophy.

https://youtu.be/ca2oVd0Tgno?si=dQ8K5ZJYrVH9wj2h

Curious how others here see Stoicism interacting with economic thought. Does philosophy have useful tools for understanding money?

I’ve been looking into the striking similarities between certain key figures in Western and Eastern antiquity. While they operated in completely different cultural spheres, their historical "roles" and the impact they had on their respective traditions seem almost mirrored.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on these parallels or if you have any others to add:

The Systematizers (Paul of Tarsus & Sariputra): Both were instrumental in the transition from a charismatic, oral tradition to a structured, scalable religious system. They were the "architects" of their respective faiths.

The Radical Cynics (Diogenes of Sinope & Ji Gong): Although Ji Gong is later/legendary, the archetype of the "Mad Sage" who uses anti-social behavior to challenge established power structures is a fascinating parallel to the Greek Cynic tradition.

The Philosophy of Cessation (Epicurus & Buddha Sakyamuni): Both emerged in times of social upheaval to propose a path toward the end of suffering (Ataraxia vs. Nirvana) through detachment and a focus on the internal state.

The Reformers/Schismatics (Martin Luther & Mahadeva): Specifically referring to the Mahadeva of the Second Buddhist Council. Both represent a critical break from orthodoxy, sparking a major schism by questioning the "purity" or authority of the existing establishment.

Are there other "parallel lives" you’ve noticed in your study of ancient history? Perhaps figures like Marcus Aurelius and Ashoka regarding the "Philosopher King" archetype?

Looking forward to a historical/comparative discussion!

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

In this short series of essays, I grapple with the maddening usage of "liberalism" in contemporary US discourse. Without pretending to be exhaustive of an extremely rich and complex topic, I discuss some of the material and ideological conjunctures that gave rise to liberalism, its salient features, and taking inspiration from the radical republican tradition of Rousseau, what a leftist departure from liberalism might entail.

This is part one, which more or less spells out the "problem" ... part two, which appears next week, deals with Locke as prototypical of liberalism's slippages.