There are three different feeds you can subscribe to, which correspond to the different types of content. Links are short posts of one or two paragraphs which simply share an interesting link with brief commentary. Entries are longer prose pieces of at least 300 words. If you subscribe to everything, you'll get everything I publish, including approximately one entry and five links a week. Comments are not included in the everything feed. If you want to subscribe to comments, you can keep up with the conversation using the comments feed.

Tag Archive of “philosophy”

George Orwell posited that thought could be controlled and manipulated through the language we speak (in his case, Newspeak). Many other philosophers and scientists have pondered this question, while most politicians simply accept it as fact and use it to their advantage. However, there has been a disturbing lack of empirical evidence for this phenomena. A psychologist at Stanford has conducted a study showing that the gender of nouns in a language influence our perceptions of that noun. The French, who use the masculine pont for bridges, generally highlight their elements of power and strength, while Germans (who use the feminine Brücke) describe bridges as elegant and airy. You can see the bridge for yourself at NPR and see which set of adjectives matches your perceptions. Does this make English more neutral and accurate, since it largely lacks gender?

Via the excellent linguistic twit ThatWhichMatter.

Spying Suit 1

You can’t change the world if you ignore it.

Among the progressive base, there seems to be this idea that corporations and society are inherently bad. This attitude, which leads to growing isolation, doesn’t help to advance progressive causes. Instead, it just stigmatizes good ideas as dangerously radical.

Make no mistake: this world isn’t perfect. Society, at all levels, is rampart with corruption, greed, and other “sins.”2 Unfortunately, the typical progressive/radical response to this is to simply abandon society. But in reality, substantive change only comes from the inside. We can’t all be Thoreau. To change society, you have to be part of it.

In a plethora of situations, I run into the conflict between ideals and practicality. It is better to build a good compromise than to ride the high horse into the sunset. Though some call it Machiavellian, I call it pragmatic. Everything should be analyzed as a cost vs. value equation. What is the cost to my moral integrity? What is the benefit to society?

The world isn’t painted in black and white, but in shades of grey. Nothing is inherently evil and nothing is inherently bad. Corporations are just a collection of people, and all people are just trying to do what they think is best.

I run into this conflict all the time, both in work and school. Sure, I don’t believe there is any point to an assignment. But that doesn’t mean I won’t do it: in the end, it’s better for me to ace a pointless class than to fail it. It’s better to accept that job at Goliath National Bank than to barely make ends meet elsewhere.

Society doesn’t give a damn about you unless you give a damn about it.

It’s fun to wear band shirts, but eventually we have to “suit up.”3