In the grim darkness of the immediate present, there is only despair

(Warning: people struggling with depression and/or suicidal ideation may want to avoid reading this article)

Image for post
Image for post

Let’s not kid ourselves. We’re pretty f****d aren’t we?

Where to begin…how about a run-down of the present moment we’re in?

It is October in the year of our Dark Lord 2020. At this time there are more than 220,000 Americans that have died from the novel Coronavirus-19 and we’re adding roughly 1,000 Americans a day to the pool of victims losing their lives to this illness. There has been a total of 36,000,000 worldwide Covid-19 cases and more than 1,100,000 deaths globally. This pandemic and the resulting mitigation policies that were rolled out to combat the virus have resulted in an economy that is teetering on the brink, threatening the country and the world with the worst economic downturn since the great depression. Record breaking forest fires magnified by record breaking temperatures have been tearing through the West, displacing many thousands of Americans, destroying towns, killing countless animals and suffocating many millions of Americans in seemingly never-ending blankets of smoke. A rising tide of neo-fascism lead by a dangerously narcissistic president is taking the country hostage, emboldening an increasingly militarized and racist policing and criminal justice system with the fascistic “law and order” mantra. In all of this the only hope we have on the horizon is an impotent, blithering neoliberal incrementalist that participated in the decades of United States federal policy-making and governance that landed us in this moment of calamity to begin with. …


Image for post
Image for post

In the 21st century modern social science is suffering from what appears to be a fatal flaw, the is-ought problem. First described by the 18th century philosopher David Hume, the is-ought problem is also known as the Hume’s law or the fact-value gap. In short, the is-ought problem can be described as the gap that exists between what is in the real world, and how philosopher’s think the world ought to be. To David Hume, it is unreasonable to take facts about the way that the world is and conclude from those facts statements about the way the world should be. This idea severed the relationship between facts and values, giving rise to yet another name for Hume’s law; Hume’s guillotine. Modern social scientists and philosophers are to this day struggling to close this gap and reestablish the relationship between facts and values, with little to no progress. …


Image for post
Image for post

While the world continues to go through its usual paces and people seem content to be glued to their smart phones, a looming threat to the world has appeared on the horizon: climate change. Does that sound exaggerated and alarmist to you? It is possible that your unfavorable reaction to that statement is the normalcy bias in you making an appearance. Normalcy bias is the tendency for people to underestimate the possibility of a disaster, and the possible effects of that disaster, because it is so far outside what typically happens in “normal” life. It is the same bias that overcame the Japanese people when the United States detonated an atomic bomb in Hiroshima. They believed that because the bomb was so incredibly destructive that it could not have possibly originated from a man made device such as a bomb. …


Image for post
Image for post

In his ancient classic The Republic, Plato writes his Allegory of the Cave. In this allegory, we learn Plato’s conceptualization of the human condition, which is analogous to people watching shadows being cast on a cave wall, believing those shadows to be reality. Plato describes to us how through the process of acquiring wisdom (philosophy), we can move further and further away from the shadows (ignorance) and closer to the actual outside world that was casting the shadows (truth, reality). However, partly due to the collapse of Judeo-Christian metaphysics in the Western tradition, a new kind of philosophy has appeared in the contemporary period; a philosophy of skepticism. This skepticism seems to call into question any and all claims to knowledge, leaving those who engage with it and are convinced by its arguments, in a sort of agnostic paralysis. To me, this scenario seems to be the reverse of Plato’s allegory. Those who engage with this philosophy and are convinced by it’s arguments are unable to move toward something (wisdom, truth, reality) and instead remain intellectually immobile because of the implications of the metaphysics assumed by these skeptical arguments. In this article I will respond to Peter Unger’s skeptical argument outlined in his book Ignorance, why I feel the foundational premises of his arguments simply do not work, and why where you come down on these arguments is so significant. After I make these arguments, I will attempt to preemptively defend them from potential responses. …


Image for post
Image for post
Alexandre Kojeve

For having been an outspoken Marxist, Alexandre Kojeve was quite different from an average member of the socialist intelligentsia. Alexandre leaned heavily on the importance of the individual; in some ways making him much closer to a Western philosopher than a Marxist or Eastern philosopher. When it came to the individual, Kojeve felt it was of the highest importance that people better themselves to the fullest extent, and in order to fully self-actualize, people need to receive recognition from those they themselves “recognize as worthy of recognizing [them].” Kojeve holds this to be true for the tyrant and the philosopher alike, “And that is as true of the statesman as it is of the philosopher.” But how does one gain this recognition? How does one self-actualize? …

About

Critical Discourse

Narrating the Anthropocene.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store