Hello! The following cartoon accompanied the print version of Daniel Tippen’s article: “Why Self-Interest Makes Relationships Valuable” (Issue 112 of Philosophy Now). In this article the author discusses the nature of friendship and its relationship to altruism. As altruism can take many forms, in this case it is argued that it is only genuine altruism that is the basis for true friendship.
The following cartoon accompanied the print version of Francisco Uribe’s article “The Paradox of Liberalism” (Philosophy Now, Issue 110). In this article, the writer discusses why the rise of fundamentalism poses particular challenges for liberalism given the latter’s core tenet that individuals should be able to act as they see fit…
The following cartoon accompanied the print version of Brian Kings’s article “The Prisoner’s Dilemma and The Evolution Of Morality” (Philosophy Now, Issue 109). In this article, the writer explores the evolution of morality through game theory, specifically: The Prisoner’s Dilemma. This is a game that you “win” by getting the lowest number of years in jail. The outcome depends on whether or not you decide to rat out your partner in crime, thereby exemplifying either selfish or cooperative behaviour. Ideally, both partners would remain silent… ideally.
Feel free to read more about the game and its tenets here, which is summarized in the following image. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
The following cartoon accompanied the print version of Samuel Kaldas’s article Descartes vs. Cudworth on The Moral Worth of Animals (Philosophy Now, Issue 108). In this article, the writer compares two views on the nature of animals and their implications for our moral responsibility towards them. It’s interesting to compare Descartes views – disturbing to many today – to those of his contemporary Cudworth, who held surprisingly modern views for his time. Article link provided below. https://philosophynow.org/issues/108/Descartes_versus_Cudworth_On_The_Moral_Worth_of_Animals
The following cartoon accompanied the print version of Joshua Farris’s What’s So Simple About Personal identity? (Philosophy Now, Issue 107). The article discusses the various theories about what makes up personal identity. For example, some feel that identity is ultimately the result of the collection of memories over time, whereas others argue that it is more attributable to the persistence of character over time, among many other competing theories that I’m not sure we will ever be able to truly resolve.
The following cartoon accompanied the print version of A Justification of Empirical Thinking (Philosophy Now). The article got me to thinking about the Matrix film where Neo is asked whether he wanted to take the blue pill (fabricated reality) vs. the red pill (the truth behind the reality). This fork in the road seems loosely based on a classical philosophical problem, that being Hume’s problem of induction, that is, how do we know whether reality is real? Can we trust our experience of our senses? Or, is this all an illusion as we row, row, row our boats, gently down the stream?
“You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.“
This cartoon was published in the August issue of Philosophy Now. This issue focused on how we define the idea of ‘self’, which was an interesting question to think about.
So, how would you define self? 🙂
Here’s a piece published in Philosophy Now’s very cool zombie issue. The article was about how zombies could technically have meaningful existence as they have both purpose (‘get brains’) and satisfaction (‘eat brains’). I’m simplifying it a bit, but was fun to read. 🙂
Update: I just found out the text for the article is available on-line for those who are curious, but the cartoon above is for subscribers/print version – you saw it here first!