Monthly Archives: March 2009

Empty epistemological modesty

Back in February, Jim Manzi of The American Scene praised David Brooks for summarizing “most of what I write about. Here’s what Brooks said: The correct position is the one held by self-loathing intellectuals, like Isaiah Berlin, Edmund Burke, James Madison, Michael Oakeshott and others. These were pointy heads who understood the limits of what [...]

In support of Ross Douthat

The fact that Ross Douthat is getting a column in the NYT has recently become a controversy unto itself–as if things like the stimulus package, military policy, and healthcare reform didn’t give us enough to talk about. Most recent random example I’ve found is someone at The American Scene responding to Katha Pollitt. Notably, Brian [...]

Justify beliefs, not induction!

Or, why empiricism isn’t as crazy as Hume thought Awhile back I promised a post on “scientism”–a popular target of religious apologists, though it’s not always clear what it’s supposed to be. Before I discuss it, though, I want to discuss a more philosophically respectable idea, empiricism, and the very philosophically respectable objection to it: [...]

Why so serious? Notes on the rise of seriousporn, with reflection on the human condition

Ever heard of the Stephen Sondheim musical Sweeney Todd? The title character is a barber who was exiled from London because a judge was sexually interested in his wife. Fifteen years later, he returns to a London populated by such characters as a creepy beggar woman who osciallates between politely begging for money and soliciting [...]

Feser on John Searle

Since I’ve been being mean to Edward Feser recently, I think I should note that Vic Reppert has highlighted a good article on John Searle by Feser. Short version: Searle claims he isn’t a property dualist because, while he thinks the mind is not in any way physical, he still thinks that the mind has [...]