Check out this discussion featuring Mark Rowlands on the possibility. Of course, Mark aside from being a preeminent extended mind philosopher has the unusual experience of having lived with a wolf for a decade.
Philo as a proto-modern Jew
This old review of Alan Mendelson’s Philo’s Jewish Identity validates the view that I’ve held since the mid-90s. That is, enabling us to see Philo as a proto-modern Jew.
Can Faith Ever Be Rational?
An NPR discussion by Tania Lombrozo motivated by the work of Lara Buchak, her paper available here.
My concern in this paper is the relationship between faith and rationality. I seek to develop a unified account of statements of faith concerning mundane matters and those concerning religious faith. To do so, I consider the sense in which faith requires going beyond the evidence, and argue that faith requires terminating the search for further evidence. Having established this, I turn to the question of whether it can still be rational to have faith; arguing that, contrary to common assumptions, there need be no conflict between faith and rationality. We shall see that whether faith can be practically rational depends both on whether there are extrinsic costs associated with postponing the decision to have faith and the extent to which potential counter evidence would be conclusive.
Ant wars
Here is a lovely excerpt from the one and only David Attenborough, the drama heightened by the music. Check out all things swarm related on this excellent website run by Simon Garnier of the Rutgers Swarm lab.
Before they make me run
Keef always worked well within the limitations of his voice: you can hear that he feels what he sings. This song is from the bleakest period of his life, his major contribution to Some Girls. To to Jagger’s credit he pulled off the strongest of the late Stones albums while Keef was otherwise engaged. The “another goodbye to another good friend” refers to Gram Parsons. Listen to any interview and you will hear a charming, dignified, frank and a very wise old goat and of course his marvelous autobiography is the best instantiation of this.
Worked in bars and sideshows along the twilight zone
Only a crowd can make you feel so alone
And it really hit home
Booze and pills and powders, you can choose your medicine
Well it’s another goodbye to another good friend
After all is said and done
Gotta move while it’s still fun
Let me walk before they make me run
After all is said and done
I gotta move, it’s still fun
I’m gonna walk before they make me run
Watched the taillights fading, there ain’t a dry eye in the house
They’re laughing and singing
Started dancing and drinking as I left town
Gonna find my way to heaven, `cause I did my time in hell
I wasn’t looking too good but I was feeling real well
After all is said and done
I gotta move I had my fun
Let us walk before they make me run
After all is said and done
I did alright, I had my fun
I will walk before they make me run
THIS is/was a library
Philanthropic Institutional Design and the Welfare State
Here is the abstract to David’s and my paper just published in Conversations on Philanthropy, Vol. IX: Law and Philanthropy
The topic of philanthropy has a great deal of philosophical interest because it exists at the nexus of issues surrounding distributive, remedial, and commutative justice, perennial issues in political philosophy (Ealy 2010, vi). It is perhaps because of this that, conceptually speaking, philanthropy seems to have a twilight existence, typically laboring under one of the most prevalent confusions—the synonymous usage of the terms “nonprofit” and “philanthropy” (McCully 2010). Yet, discussion of the philosophy of philanthropy is surprisingly neglected. The present discussion examines the relationship between private philanthropy and the welfare-oriented state: Is it possible for the philanthropic sphere and/or indeed the philanthropic impulse to coexist in an expansive governmental environment that sees health care as a natural part of its administrative monopoly? We answer with a qualified “yes.” Our paper, however, is not concerned with an appraisal of welfarism in its many guises nor with recommendations for reform, but with the pragmatics of operating within such an environment. As such we: (a) assess the philosophical presuppositions that animate recent discussion of the “Big Society” and the role philanthropy is accorded within it; and (b) offer practical guidance about protecting and encouraging the philanthropic impulse when a climate of welfarism prevails.
A Confederacy of Dunces – quotes and extracts – 28
He was four workers in one. In Mr. Reilly’s competent hands, the filing seemed to disappear. He was also kind to Miss Trixie; there was hardly any friction in the office. Mr. Gonzalez was touched by what he had seen the previous afternoon – Mr. Reilly on his knees changing Miss Trixie’s socks. Mr. Reilly was all heart. Of course, he was part valve, too. But the constant conversation about the valve could be accepted. It was the only drawback (p. 94).
Image courtesy of Miles to Go
Taleb on Skin in the Game
Nassim Taleb talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about his recent paper (with Constantine Sandis) on the morality and effectiveness of “skin in the game.” When decision makers have skin in the game–when they share in the costs and benefits of their decisions that might affect others–they are more likely to make prudent decisions than in cases where decision-makers can impose costs on others. Taleb sees skin in the game as not just a useful policy concept but a moral imperative. The conversation closes with some observations on the power of expected value for evaluating predictions along with Taleb’s thoughts on economists who rarely have skin in the game when they make forecasts or take policy positions.
Dennett on Wieseltier vs. Pinker
This from Edge
Postmodernism, the school of “thought” that proclaimed “There are no truths, only interpretations” has largely played itself out in absurdity, but it has left behind a generation of academics in the humanities disabled by their distrust of the very idea of truth and their disrespect for evidence, settling for “conversations” in which nobody is wrong and nothing can be confirmed, only asserted with whatever style you can muster.
