Please visit the new home of Majikthise at bigthink.com/blogs/focal-point.

« Drug firms inventing diseases | Main | The bizarre case of Ada L. Smith »

April 11, 2006

Philosophy blog roundup

Some recommended reading from the philosophical blogosphere...

A new philosophy blog, What is it like to be a blog?, by the grad students at the University of Connecticut, Storr.

A philosophy blog new to me: Prima Facie by Ben Miller.

A philosophical discussion of open relationships.

Helmut of phronesisaical on rationality and Iran's nuclear program.

A pointless and gross story that tangentially involves philosophy.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c61e653ef00d834b771b369e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Philosophy blog roundup:

Comments

RE: Open relationships

Aye, jealousy. There's the rub. It's undoubtedly easier to be open for the warrior bodisafas out there, but for them there's little need for the relationship anyway. Given that reproduction is the engine of evolution, from a male perspective (mine) it seems like there would be a hard wired urge to prevent this from occuring. Picture 2 male hippos sparring for the harem. We humans are reasoning creatures (that is to say we have the capacity for such...) so this makes things more complicated and opens more possibilities. At least to be a sustainable relationship, there would have to be some parity. It couldn't be, as Adam Corolla once so eloquently said "...the chick goes out and does a hocky team while the guy sits home and spanks it."

I went for this one because that damn philo-jargon is translucent at best to this sci-naut.

Ah, sunny Storrs, CT. Home of a new philosophy blog, and as good at surpressing free speech as the Department of Homeland Security

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/11/muzzle.awards.ap/index.html

Rationalizations for more sex in the guise of relationships. "Philosophers" too. You gotta love it.

Personally, if my girlfriend still wanted to be my girlfriend, and the hockey team didn't annoy me about it afterwards, I'd be fine with the situation described in ectoterrestrial's post.

good!!!!

blogging is a nice thing: i have just learned that i am fucked (see the top of the right sidebar at this page), thank you for informing i'm not going to rage but i have to admit that i feel uncomfortable that the left wing fucked me.

ps. as for Iran's nuclear program, you are lucky guys that you far away from Iran, Europe is not so lucky...

If I had known I would get such linkage from zit stories, I'd've instituted, like, Wednesday pus-blogging, or something.

Hi! Long time popper, first time commenter here! Thanks for the "gross" link--it's nice to read one of those stories that doesn't end with a "why I'm stronger because of cancer" lessons. Your link has been forwarded to many :)

Why should more sex need to be rationalized?

Well, Neil, if your girlfriend is having sex with an entire hockey team, there's probably a pretty good chance of her catching something unpleasant in the process (condoms can fail, and they do not always protect you from everything), which she could well pass along to you.

That's, IMHO, a relatively reasonable reason not to be comfortable with your partner having sex with "lots of" other people. And, to the extent that you enjoy sex, the possibility of contracting something that could be an obstacle to future enjoyment of sex should be a more significant concern.

Richard Chappell's discussion of open relationships seems dry and bloodless to me, as if he's making an abstract case for use by the debate team.

I'd find it easier to take seriously if he were more clear about his own emotional stake, whatever it should be, in the topic.

The substance of his arguments are nothing new. They've been hashed out over and over again for the past fourteen years on Usenet newsgroup alt.polyamory.

Personally, if my girlfriend still wanted to be my girlfriend, and the hockey team didn't annoy me about it afterwards, I'd be fine with the situation described in ectoterrestrial's post.

Agreed. The lacrosse team, though, is right out.

Alan, making the "abstract case" was precisely my purpose. I'm not clear on why you find philosophy hard to take "seriously", however. (Also, I wouldn't conflate philosophy with a debater's rhetoric - they have rather different aims!)

Finally, I don't believe that my "own emotional stake, whatever it should be," is anybody else's business.

Logic of an 18 year old mind will come around to the thought of :http://gmancfyvr.blogspot.com/2004/12/noahs-ark-theory.html

> Finally, I don't believe that my "own emotional stake, whatever it should be," is anybody else's business.

It isnt directly relevant to the debate, philosophy should generally be dry and bloodless. But, to the "womans day" part of me, it is very interesting that you/richard responded in that way.

The comments to this entry are closed.