
Freedom for the Power to be Believed: On Gaslighting
By: Daniel Tippens People speak of gaslighting quite often these days. So much so that I sometimes wonder if its the crime … Continue reading Freedom for the Power to be Believed: On Gaslighting
The writing featured here is inspired by a particular conception of how public philosophy should be done, which was articulated and published on the blog of the American Philosophical Association, and republished here upon the opening of this site. Broadly, on this view, what makes a good essay in public philosophy is that it be inspiring, imaginative, challenging, creative, illuminating, or insightful. This doesn’t mean that it need be a lengthy and searching work, but it certainly can be.
Philosophers have historically been some of the most inspiring people of their times, for better or worse. John Locke’s boldly expansive political philosophy gripped the founding fathers, and Karl Marx elicited the passions of millions, ideologically powering revolutions around the world. Hannah Arendt gave us a picture of Adolf Eichmann, such that we could grasp what she meant when she discussed, “the banality of evil.” In doing so, these philosophers and many like them — from all different backgrounds — resonated with the people in their historical contexts, and have followers to this day. They may be rare, and often products of their time, but philosophical visionaries like them will only have the chance of affecting us in our time if we agree to give public philosophers the latitude to think expansively and boldly, developing their own frameworks in an epistemically risky fashion, straining the limits of justification, and almost certainly going a bit beyond them.
When past visionaries from our discipline were writing, there was no “discipline” like what we have today. There was nobody demanding that each and every claim be empirically justified as scrupulously as possible. Nobody required them to cite the most recent 30 philosophers who have written on some related topic in philosophy, and certainly there was no incentive or pressure to use copious amounts of jargon or impenetrable science-speak. Thinkers weren’t institutionally pressured to deliberate narrowly and with unbelievable specialization, unless they happened to go that way on their own. Many of the most publicly influential philosophers seemed to just pay attention to the world around them, and then convey those observations to us. Funnily enough, people appreciated them for doing so. Philosophers haven’t always been needed, but the best of times were probably when they were wanted.
Public philosophers, on this view, should be encouraged to take their time, think big, spread their wings, and throw up their own visions of some aspects of the world they live in, despite being unsure of its airtight veracity or logical validity, and being artistically open with terminology and precision. This could be an extensive and searching work like Wealth of Nations, or it could be a short essay like Bertrand Russell’s In Praise of Idleness. The middle porridge suits some best, however, so a small booklet like Harry Frankfurt’s On Bullshit could work too. What is important is that these tickle the creative side of the audience, drawing out their imaginations. For this reason, this view also holds that all manner of illustrations should be promoted in public philosophy — iconography, photography, literature, cartoons, music videos, etc. — and that we worry a little less about whether these justify True Belief and little more about whether they evoke our imaginations, as readers. At times, public philosophers should have artistic liberty, like the directors of films that are based on a true story, to bend epistemic rules in order to evoke a reaction; the author may be trying to go beyond the evidence to show us something.
While all of the essays here are likely to have a philosophical bent, they need not be about philosophy. They can touch on literature, history, the social and natural sciences, and perhaps even mathematics. Part of the idea behind giving public philosophers latitude to think creatively is to ignore restrictions on what the philosopher can write about. Aristotle, after all, was influential on everything from physics to aesthetics, or biology to ethics. This part of the magazine features diverse writing which, while certainly falling short of Aristotelian caliber, strives in his direction.
APA Article: https://blog.apaonline.org/2018/06/29/the-devil-is-the-details-philosophys-pr-problem/
Bertrand Russel’s In Praise of Idleness: http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html
Harry Frankfurt’s On Bullshit (excerpt): http://www2.csudh.edu/ccauthen/576f12/frankfurt__harry_-_on_bullshit.pdf
By: Daniel Tippens People speak of gaslighting quite often these days. So much so that I sometimes wonder if its the crime … Continue reading Freedom for the Power to be Believed: On Gaslighting
Nobody has to force a smile for someone they resent. Continue reading Resentment Up, Gratitude Down
Here I will offer a defense of the right to privacy in terms of a check on power. Mass surveillance, I contend, erodes the citizenry’s ability to maintain what I’ll call a citizen image with respect to the state, and that this is problematic even if the state is operating benevolently. When there is an asymmetry between how much the state knows about the citizenry and the citizenry about the state — such that the asymmetry is in the state’s favor — the citizenry loses the capacity to bluff the government. This allows for easier state-intervention in the citizen’s lives, which everyone ought to be concerned about. Continue reading Mass Surveillance and the Citizen Image
What I submit is that to be inauthentic is to say you care about those normatively closest to you but to act for the approval of those normatively distant. In this sense, it is to care about those furthest from you, instead of those closest. What results, I submit, is an individual who has a mismatch between his public and private images. The individual appears great to those furthest from him, but in his private image — e.g with his family — he appears poorly. Harold Langston had an excellent image with his customers, but not with Jamie. Continue reading Authenticity, Fame, and Credentials
The problem of evil is a long-standing one and I don’t wish to delve into it here. Rather, I want to outline a new and similar kind of problem which I call the Problem of Guilt. The problem of guilt aims to show that there is a tension between God being all-good and all-knowing. Continue reading The Problem of Guilt
If someone were to ask me why I believe in God, then, I could legitimately and confidently tell them that it is because I wonder when I look into the unknown of the cosmos, and I don’t know of any reasons they could provide me with that could override this wondrous confidence, so long as I have done my due diligence in understanding contemporary physics. I sense something majestic in the mysterious, and that is enough. Continue reading God and Wonder
In the United States, mere birth is a sufficient condition for citizenship, and there is certainly no requirement that politicians prove a sense of honor before being elected into power. I worry about this, though, because it is precisely when someone has no honor the governed have no assurances that they won’t use their power to trade our ends, for possession of their own mere means. Continue reading A Brief Account of Honor
On this view of self-expression, people are expressed by others who care about and trust them, not by themselves. Our voices and actions express the commitments of people we love and trust. To have self-expression, then, is achieved when someone else props you up for display, taking your beliefs as givens, and enacting your tastes, desires, and beliefs. Continue reading Self-Expression and Our Need for Each Other
…the gaslighter doesn’t communicate with her victim or seek to understand him, but rather speaks over him, tailoring her speech for the legitimator’s sake. In doing so, she trades her expressive freedom for the power to be believed. This deal is one that only the devil would offer. Continue reading Freedom of Expression for the Power to be Believed: The Gaslighter’s Deal.
Comedians are Socratic Journalists, serving the public interest of combatting absurd rhetoric, advertising, and propaganda, and preventing us from losing our grip on reality. Continue reading Comedy as Socratic Journalism