Sometimes I come across a piece of writing and think to myself: “This. If I could just get enough people to read this.” The thought is usally followed by imagining a kind of widespread epiphany that improves something, be it a social or political issue, a way of thinking, quality of life, etc.
“The success of a disagreement is not its resolution.” That was part of my answer to one of the questions I was asked during my guest appearance at The Stoa last week.
Philosophers lately have been writing about what is the proper reaction to Donald Trump’s COVID-19 diagnosis. Mostly, they have taken to writing how it is wrong to wish that the course of his illness goes badly for him. This is a mistake, for a couple of reasons.
One reason demographic diversity (in race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, etc.) is good for philosophy is that it provides new constituencies needed to foster the growth of philosophy–or so I argue here.
The famous Comedy Cellar in New York has a podcast called “Live from the Table“, in which the club’s owner, Noam Dworman, comedian Dan Naturman, and producer and writer Periel Aschenbrand converse with stand-up comics and a wide range of other folks, and recently I was one of those other folks.
I sometimes hear the question, “where are today’s great philosophers?” posed as a critique of contemporary philosophy. Yet of the explanations for the belief that “compared to the past, philosophy today lacks great thinkers,” the most plausible possibilities are compatible with philosophy being in better shape than ever.
In a recent essay, James L. Gibson and Joseph L. Sutherland summarize public opinion research over the past 66 years on responses to the question “Do you or don’t you feel as free to speak your mind as you used to?” They conclude, “Americans are much more likely to self-censor today than in the past.” […]
Society is not growing more intolerant. Why do so many people think it is? In this post I consider a few explanations having to do with increased social equality, cognitive biases, and current communications technology.
I’m Justin Weinberg, and Disagree is my place online for occasional and brief thoughts on philosophy, life, and culture, and for sharing various things I find interesting. The name for the site—“Disagree”—is the name of a project I’m working on about conflict, difference, and disagreement. Conflict, though it may sometimes have bad effects, is good […]