The early 2000s were crazy. Philosophers would go on talk radio shows and accuse each other of covertly defending the OJ verdict through their theory of truth.
Ben Gross
@bengrossbg.bsky.social
Not a fox, not a hedgehog, but a secret third thing.
"After all, most of what I have done (I won't say accomplished) in philosophy, has been built on the foundations you laid in what, to my way of thinking, remains your most exciting book, Logical Syntax of Language." -- Wilfrid Sellars to Rudolf Carnap, August 4, 1954
Discussing Rawls’s A Theory of Justice earlier and was reminded of Hilary Putnam’s definition of a philosophical classic: The smarter you get, the smarter it gets.
Further proof that Mamdani is one of the few examples of Actually Existing Rawlsianism
we have an interview with Hannah Smart ! Ben Gross talks to Smart about her new book 'Meat Puppets' "the writer is sort of a puppeteer: the writer of fiction is controlling everything, manipulating everyone." xraylitmag.com/chatting-wit...
Chatting with the Meat Puppeteer: Ben Gross interviews Hannah Smart
Hannah Smart’s debut novel Meat Puppets (Apocalypse Confidential, 2026) is a metafictional romp through the lives of people who know they want more without being entirely sure of what they want more o...
xraylitmag.com
Life update: I’m going to CUNY Graduate Center for a PhD program in philosophy this fall! Couldn’t be more excited and grateful
Most mornings I have an apple juice with creatine and in my head I'm like "wow this is so healthy"
Richard Rorty was a 21st century philosopher stuck in the 20th century responding to the philosophy of the 19th century.
Spending the past month or so in Southern California has helped me realize that Stephen Miller must truly be a psychopath (he grew up here) because the best thing about this place BY FAR is the Mexican food.
Rorty has to be the funniest American philosopher of all time, right?
I am a proud owner of the issue of Philosophy and Public Affairs with Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” paper in it.
Wondering why conservatives keep blaming John Rawls for not understanding how birth works? Looking for an intuitive explanation of the original position? Check out my most recent substack post! open.substack.com/pub/grapheme...
Erasing A Blank Slate
There's no liberal mass delusion, only a conservative lack of imagination.
open.substack.com
They have a versions of Reese’s peanut butter cups which is a chocolate bar and good golly miss molly it is good
I’m finally reading a theory of justice, and frankly I don’t understand at this point why we’re not all rawlsian. Seems he cracked the nut no
Kant argues that if we’re not to loathe the human race, we must believe it’s our natural end to morally progress; and further, that like progress towards “aerostatic balloons,” repeated failure to reach our end doesn’t justify abandoning hope—only demonstrated impossibility does.
Rawls argues that your place in the natural distribution of talents is *morally arbitrary,* so justice should be assessed from the *point of view* of the original position, where you imagine not to know who you’ll be. It’s not about the literal possibility of being someone else!
Kant asks: “What is enlightenment?” But he never asks, “how is enlightenment?” :(
