A mugging can overwhelm our ability to apply moral principles. When words fail, we still need advice that allows us to remain moral in the face of an attack. Self-defense offers just such advice and can be supported by utilitarian, deontological, and virtue approaches to ethics. Self-defense increases safety and security that enhance our freedom and well-being, which, in turn, allow us to survive and flourish as moral agents. Self-defense must, however, itself be qualified because its violent treatment of muggers (...) may produce human time bombs that reduce the safety and security of society.The martial art of Aikido trains our hand to act morally in the face of a physical attack when our mind is otherwise occupied. Aikido teaches self-defense, but it goes beyond self-centeredness to also protect the attacker. Such concern helps build community because it reduces vectors of resentment that spread when violence is perpetuated. The defense-only nature of Aikido teaches virtues in an embodied form on the mat. It offers philosophers an experiential and kinesthetic view of moral conduct that supplements and complements an exclusively intellectual approach. Moral philosophy cannot demand that we learn a martial art since it is only one of many possibilities to assist us in living a moral life; nevertheless, a reasonable attention to those conditions necessary for freedom and well-being entails an awareness of self-defense. (shrink)

Someone who has more sympathy with traditional empiricism than with much of present-day philosophy may ask himself: 'How do my experiences give rise to my beliefs about an external world, and to what extent do they justify them?' He wants to refer, among other things, to unremarkable experiences, of a sort which he cannot help believing to be so extremely common that it would be ridiculous to call them common experiences. He mainly has in mind sense-experiences, and he thinks of (...) them in a particular way. His way of thinking of them, roughly speaking as something 'inner', is one on which recent logico-linguistic philosophy has thrown a good deal of light. The relevant special notion of an experience contrasts, among other things, with a certain more general biographical notion of an experience, which some dictionaries indicate by the definition, 'an event of which one is the subject'. This book explores the concept of experiences, focusing on the disjunctions between perception and illusion. (shrink)

Paranoias are unconscious desires that are represented in consciousness as fears. In being paranoid, one unconsciously desires what one consciously fears.

In this paper, it is shown that an event E can be the cause of an event E* even if there is a less than 100% likelihood that, given an arbitrary E-similar event, an E*-similar event will ensue.

Insurance agents are confidence-men--con men--and that is what psychopaths are; and that is why psychopaths are drawn to the insurance industry, which is the insurance industry is so tightly regulated.

A bureaucrat is somebody who has surrendered all of his decision-making responsibilities to the bureaucracy that employs him. So long as a given person’s decision-making protocol is capable of being in conflict with the bureaucracy that hosts him, that person is not a bureaucrat. And so long as that condition obtains, he can be internally conflicted, since, under that circumstance, he has two decision-making protocols, one corresponding to the bureaucracy in question and one that is his own. For this reason (...) mutatis mutandis, the bureaucrat is incapable of being internally conflict. And this lack of internal conflict makes him emotionally sterile and unable to act. (shrink)

A context that is not expanded by the intelligence within it---that is only internally articulated by that intelligence---is a zero-sum context and is therefore not worth being in.

If S is any well-formed and significant question or command having the form "...the phi...", Russell's Theory of Descriptions entails (i) that S is syntactically ambiguous, and (ii) that there is at least one disambiguation of S that is syntactically ill-formed. Given that each of (i) and (ii) is false, so is the Theory of Descriptions.

There are two kinds of bureaucracies: those that serve some non-bureaucratic purpose, albeit in a bureaucratic way, and those whose only purpose is to create more bureaucracy.

Wittgenstein and Brandom both say that knowledge of a language constitutes one's ability to think. Further, they say that a language is an essentially public entity: so to know a language, and to be able to think, consist in one's being embedded in a public practice of some kind. Wittgenstein provides two famous arguments for this: his "private-language" and "rule-following" arguments. Brandom develops these arguments. In this paper, I argue that the Wittgenstein-Brandom view strips anyone of the ability to mean (...) anything by anything. Indeed, it strips anyone of the ability to think at all; the Wittgenstein-Brandom view is really just a version of Pavlov's stimulus-response psychology, and shares all its deficiencies. The rule-following argument is shown to be nothing more than a failure to register the fact that, in certain contexts, epistemic operators can be given either wide or narrow scope with respect to other operators. The private-language argument is shown to be based on a failure to distin-guish the conditions that are causally necessary for language from those that are constitutive of it. Brandom's argument involves a massive over-extension of the concept of a "linguistic community". The result is that his view becomes trivial: anything that can speak or think is by definition a member of a linguistic community; so Brandom's "demonstration" that only encultured beings can think turns out to be an artifact of his definitions. (shrink)

This volume contains lively, yet penetrating examinations of issues of crucial importance, including: the nature of rationality, the different ways in which rationality can be corrupted, the nature of persistence in time, the nature of our knowledge of the future, and the nature of purely conceptual truths and our knowledge thereof.

This is my response to a book, Globalize Liberation, edited by David Solnit and published in 2004. Media activists James John Bell and Patrick Reinsborough sent me a copy and asked for my thoughts about it; the result turned into an essay of some length, which got a certain amount of exposure and discussion online. Looking at the travails of progressive activism since its publication, I find very little that needs revision, except the tone of relative optimism expressed toward (...) the end. (shrink)

Key terms of analytic philosophy defined.

It is made clear what discursive knowledge is and how we acquire it, and some age-old skeptical views are shown to be incoherent. It is shown that all knowledge is to some degree inferential. At the same time, it is shown that there are three quite distinct senses in which empirical knowledge can be inferential. It is proved that we have a priori knowledge, and also that knowledge of non-empirical truths is needed to acquire empirical knowledge. Finally, it is clearly (...) explained what prediction is, what explanation is, how the two differ, and how they are similar. (shrink)

It is argued that the quantum realm is deterministic.

Une introduction rapide aux problèmes fondamentaux de l'éthique, ce travail consiste en des réponses pointues et profondes aux questions fondamentales: * les obligations légales ont-elles un poids moral? * peut-on agir immoralement envers soi-même? * Quelle est la base objective des revendications morales légitimes? * Comment savons-nous le bien du mal? * Comment peut-il y avoir une responsabilité morale dans un monde déterministe? -/- Rigoureux mais accessible, ce travail est une introduction idéale à l'éthique analytique et à la théorie de (...) la valeur. (shrink)

Gottlob Frege (1848-1925) invented the discipline of mathematical logic. In this short work, it is clearly stated what Frege did and did not accomplish.

In this book, Kant's ethical system is clearly stated and carefully critiqued. In the process, cogent answers are given to the following questions: -/- *What is the relationship between self-interest and morality? *What is the relationship between morality and rationality? *What is the nature of rationality? *What is the difference between rationality and intelligence? *What is the relationship between awareness of moral norms and awareness of logical norms? -/- A must-read for anyone interested in philosophical psychology, moral epistemology, or Kant-interpretation, (...) this brisk monograph provides a long-overdue alternative to the dreary and opaque tomes on which Kant-aficionados have thus far had to rely. (shrink)

Neuroses are secondary mental illnesses, it being their purpose to contain psychoses.

There is no difference between autonomy and non-psychopathy or, equivalently, between psychopathy and non-autonomy. Or rather, there is a difference, but it is tenuous, in that someone who is non-autonomous is non-psychopathic only as long the institution that hosts him is non-psychopathic. So his non-psychopathy, being borrowed, is both weak and ultimately devoid of reality.

Obsessive fears are unconscious desires. The woman who is obsessively afraid that her phone is tapped actually wants her phone to be tapped; that is, she wants someone to pay attention to her. A neurotic fear of such and such is actually an unconscious desire for such and such, this being the topic of this brutally honest exchange.

Some psychoanalytic truths are identified and some of their practical corollaries are identified.

In June 21, 1990, the Joneses, an African-American family living in the mainly white and working-class neighbourhood of St. Paul in Minnesota, saw a small white cross burning in their yard. By placing the burning cross on the yard, the Minnesota Supreme Court argued that one of the accused, Robert A Viktora, had engaged in ‘fighting words’. However, the US Supreme Court reversed this decision, arguing that the local authority in St Paul only legally banned certain ‘fighting words’, but not (...) others. Judith Butler explores this legal case, R.A.V. v. St. Paul. Judith Butler argues in her earlier work that the Supreme Court in effect represented the burning cross as being non-performative and simply a vehicle of expression rather than a historical symbol of hate speech towards African-Americans. In this paper, I look again at the R.A.V. case. But I do so by both drawing on what Butler explicitly says about the case in her early work and integrating this with her later work on the ethics of grief, state hegemony and public assemblies. Furthermore, I also incorporate some of the insights of the Bakhtin Circle into Butler’s work to strengthen her arguments. The paper then revisits R.A.V. v. St. Paul and shows how Reaganite state hegemony effectively transformed issues of racism surrounding this free speech case into ‘monologic’ and ‘ungrievable’ public matters of concern. The paper concludes by briefly discussing counter-hegemonic politics of free speech. (shrink)

It is said what aggregative properties are and also what emergent properties are, and examples are given each of kind of property. It is also explained why, even though all emergent properties are aggregative properties, not all aggregative properties are emergent properties. It is further made clear that, strictly speaking, emergence is a property of one's knowledge of a given kind of aggregate, and not of such aggregates themselves, this being why a property that is emergent at one time will, (...) when additional information becomes available, cease to be emergent. And it is explained why, for this very reason, the right answer to the question 'why does X exist?' is never 'because X is an emergent property.'. (shrink)

Does the conceit in question expand awareness or narrow it? If it narrows it, then it is pathological. It if expands it, it is non-pathological.

The theorems of the propositional calculus and the predicate calculus are stated, and the analogous principles of Boolean Algebra are identified. Also, the primary principles of modal logic are stated, and a procedure is described for identifying their Boolean analogues.

A system is counterentropic to the extent that it has a fractal structure and entropic to the extent that it doesn't.

It is shown that institutions are fractals, meaning that are structurally the same as their parts, and that for this reason liberal institutions are quicker than conservative institutions to decay into a condition of abject psychopathy.

Solutions to ninety paradoxes, some old, some new.

The term 'psychopath' is ambiguous. Sometimes it refers to people who have no integrity. And sometimes it refers to people are misanthropic but may nonetheless have integrity.

Freud said that 'the essence of neurosis is the inability to tolerate ambiguity.' In this short work, it is explained what this means and why it is true.

A brief statement of the most basic principles of the discipline of Knowledge Management (KM).

This article is concerned with the question of whether, and to what extent, the concept of metaphor properly applies to pictures (e.g., paintings or photographs). The question is approached dialectically through an examination of the views of Sonia Sedivy, who advances the following 4 claims: (a) that pictures possess propositional content, (b) that there are metaphoric pictures, (c) that metaphoric pictures do not possess metaphoric content, and (d) that there can be no theory of pictorial metaphor. Although the first of (...) Sedivy's claims is rejected in this article, the existence of pictorial metaphors is not denied. Thus, the fact that pictures do not possess propositional content does not preclude the possibility of pictorial metaphors. What are required, though, are changes to the conception of pictorial metaphor that Sedivy advances. (shrink)

An explanation of the psychology of the bureaucrat and of bureaucratic institutions.

This short work puts forth two answers to the question: In what ways are Jesus and Socrates similar? One of these answers is put forth by a Christian and embodies a deeply Christian perspective, and the other is put forth by two non-Christians, working jointly, and embodies a decidedly secular perspective. The question was first raised by the Christian author.

This paper shows that Russell’s theory of descriptions gives the wrong semantics for definite descriptions occurring in questions and imperatives. Depending on how that theory is applied, it either assigns nonsense to perfectly meaningful questions and assertions or it assigns meanings that diverge from the actual semantics of such sentences, even after all pragmatic and contextual variables are allowed for. Given that Russell’s theory is wrong for questions and assertions, it must be wrong for assertoric statements; for the semantics of (...) ‘the phi’ obviously doesn’t vary depending on whether it occurs in a question or an assertion or a command. (shrink)

The most basic laws and principles of the Predicate Calculus, also known as Quantification Theory, are stated, as clearly and concisely as possible.

Les sciences empiriques font des suppositions qu'elles ne sont pas elles-mêmes capables de justifier. La philosophie justifie ces hypothèses; C'est son travail.

The significance of the concept of a mathematical transformation is explained. In particular, it is explained how to construct true statements concerning n-dimensional spaces, for arbitrary n, on the basis of true statements concerning two-dimensional spaces.

This book concisely states the main laws and precepts of formal logic along with their immediate corollaries. Commentary is kept to a minimum.

The bureaucrat's intellectual configuration is identical with the psychopath's.

Les préceptes fondamentaux de la discipline de la philosophie analytique sont couverts à la fois vivement et complètement. Une attention particulière est accordée à la philosophie du langage et à la relation de conséquence logique.

It is said what it is to persist in time, and on that basis it is shown that time-travel, teleportation, and other mainstays of science fiction are impossible.

Non-biological systems are entropic systems. Biological systems are counter-entropic systems.

What we call "neurosis" is psychosis about specific facts, but not about the logical instruments used to judge relations between facts. What we call "psychosis" is psychosis about both facts and the aforementioned logical instruments.