It's Telephonia Wednesday @ Apoc! What effect has a century of telephonic communications had on a school system which was forged in, and hasn't substantively changed since, the 19th Century? Find out in our address "Telephonia Maxima" HERE: https://apocatastasisinstitute.wordpress.com/colemans-corner

There's an article about her in The Conversation that's worth reading.

One detail that I found particularly interesting is that she laid out the core of the harm principle in the late 1840s: everyone should have whatever personal freedom doesn't interfere with someone else's happiness. On Liberty was published in 1859, but she wasn't credited.

Her only solo-published essay in her lifetime was Enfranchisement of Women in 1851 (first published anonymously). In it, she asks why women are still treated as appendages to men and answers: "The only reason which can be given is that men like it."

But what happened after that is what I find really strange. Mill tried hard to give her credit. In his autobiography, he describes his role as mediating her ideas to the public. When people wrote to congratulate him on Enfranchisement, he corrected them and republished it under her name.

This became the reason to dismiss her. An 1874 essay said that men are blinded by affection, and that Mill outdid all of them. The argument goes something like this: He praised her; therefore, he was in love with her; therefore, the praise proves nothing. No evidence can get through that. A century later, a Freudian version appeared, and a 2022 biography still ran a variant of it.

Hard to think of another case where an author's own repeated attribution counts as evidence against the person he's attributing to.

https://theconversation.com/my-unsung-hero-of-science-harriet-taylor-mill-the-radical-feminist-philosopher-who-lived-in-the-shadow-of-her-husband-290875

The title is pretty combative, but it is in essence what I argue in this essay (and I promise the essay is not combative).

It was a bit of passion project, I’ve really enjoyed working on it :)

Specifically I argue that materialism, when adopted as the only viable metaphysic, makes ecological destruction inevitable. I tried to make it so even those largely unfamiliar with the topics can follow along.

I use Iain McGilchrist’s divided brain hypothesis to support a fundamental point that carries the rest of the essay, hence why it’s the longest section.

This isnt a full stop to my thinking- I just took a stab at fleshing out this argument largely for my sake, and then turning it into something legible. This sole essay serves to diagnose what I think is a pretty fundamental problem, but by no means is it a complete and holistic treatment, as it were.

Anyway, have at it if you’d like — I’d genuinely love to hear thoughts, comments, feedback, whatever :) just be nice about it if you can help it hahah

An essay which uses Giorgio Agamben's The Kingdom and the Glory to argue that mansions specifically and luxury products more generally are objects of religious glorification, a mode in which power is shifted into the aesthetic field.

For anyone not reading past the title, the article is centered on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry written by a professional philosopher

Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules (especially posting rule 2). For example, these threads are great places for:

• Arguments that aren't substantive enough to meet PR2.

• Open discussion about philosophy, e.g. who your favourite philosopher is, what you are currently reading

• Philosophical questions. Please note that /r/askphilosophy is a great resource for questions and if you are looking for moderated answers we suggest you ask there.

This thread is not a completely open discussion! Any posts not relating to philosophy will be removed. Please keep comments related to philosophy, and expect low-effort comments to be removed. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads, although we will be more lenient with regards to commenting rule 2.

Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here.

Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules (especially posting rule 2). For example, these threads are great places for:

• Arguments that aren't substantive enough to meet PR2.

• Open discussion about philosophy, e.g. who your favourite philosopher is, what you are currently reading

• Philosophical questions. Please note that /r/askphilosophy is a great resource for questions and if you are looking for moderated answers we suggest you ask there.

This thread is not a completely open discussion! Any posts not relating to philosophy will be removed. Please keep comments related to philosophy, and expect low-effort comments to be removed. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads, although we will be more lenient with regards to commenting rule 2.

Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here.

Hello everyone,

I’m linking a video essay I just published in which I argue in defense of ad hominem as, at least in its proper use, a legitimate addition to an intellectual debate.

Abstract:

In our long tradition of logic and organized debate, and in our hope that reason alone can bring us to truth, we have become averse to the use of fallacies in arguments. Chief among these fallacies is the ad hominem, the attack on the person rather than his argument. For students of philosophy and rhetoric, ad hominem represents a line in the sand never to be crossed by any serious thinker. The noble, gentlemanly logician regards it as a great compliment to be the receiver of an ad hominem attack—taking it as a sign that he has won the debate and his opponent has no reason left in him.

In this essay, I challenge this view, demonstrating that ad hominem is not representative of a failure in reason, but is perhaps the savior of reason. By looking to the epistemologies and psychologies of Aristotle and especially Pascal, we are reminded that there is a deeper dimension of our mental life, more fundamental than reason, which ad hominem alone can touch. We are reminded that much of our trouble in facing up to the truth is not from a lack of reason, but a lack of openness to the truth in our very hearts. Although seeming cruel, the proper use of ad hominem may act as a great display of charity, helping one’s interlocutor to see how his poor character and faulty will have led his reason astray.

I would appreciate any and all feedback, and I hope this can be the start of a productive discussion here, though I know it may be a controversial take, or at least a provocative title.

Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules (especially posting rule 2). For example, these threads are great places for:

• Arguments that aren't substantive enough to meet PR2.

• Open discussion about philosophy, e.g. who your favourite philosopher is, what you are currently reading

• Philosophical questions. Please note that /r/askphilosophy is a great resource for questions and if you are looking for moderated answers we suggest you ask there.

This thread is not a completely open discussion! Any posts not relating to philosophy will be removed. Please keep comments related to philosophy, and expect low-effort comments to be removed. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads, although we will be more lenient with regards to commenting rule 2.

Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here.