Podcast appearances and mentions of Robert Nozick

Filozofové a majetek: Kdo nic nemá, je ctnostnější?Co dělat s majetkem – a co majetek dělá s námi? Ludwig Wittgenstein si po první světové válce odpověděl přímočaře: Je třeba vše odevzdat. Zřekl se svého dědictví, které z něj učinilo jednoho z nejbohatších mužů Evropy. On byl však přesvědčen, že ponechat si majetek by mu neprospělo. Vše daroval sourozencům, něco zbylo i pro umělce. Jeho notář prý toto počínání označil slovy finanční sebevražda.Ale podobné pokušení – a rozpaky – nezažívají jen postavy z minulosti. Současný australský filozof Peter Singer se rozhodl kapitalismus morálně „hacknout“. Tzv. hnutí efektivního altruismu, jehož základy zformuloval, má dodat západním společnostem etický základ. Ač je kapitalismus prý nedokonalý systém, neznáme lepší. Lidé, kteří žijí v západních bohatých společnostech, mají zvláštní povinnosti. Jejich povinností je majetek vydělávat, ideálně hodně majetku – a s tímto záměrem volit i povolání – a následně peníze posílat do částí světa, v nichž se lidem žije řádově hůře.Že jde až o jakýsi filozofický asketismus, naznačuje radikalita. Nestačí rozdávat majetek. Zdravý člověk by si podle Singera mohl odpustit i jednu ledvinu. Sám si tím zdraví nepoškodí, zatímco jinému zachrání život. Tím se vracíme na začátek: Co všechno jsme ochotni darovat, abychom si zachovali čisté svědomí? Peníze? I orgány?KapitolyI. Dědictví? Nejen prachy, ale i odpovědnost nebo výška [úvod do 14:20]II. Politici nechť nic nevlastní. [14:20 až 25:40]III. Encyklika Lva XIII: Majetek zaručuje nezávislost na státu [25:40 až 33:50]IV. Stát nemá nutit lidi konat dobro [33:50 až 45:10]V. Přerozdělovat majetek? Nestačí. Přerozdělujte i tělo. [45:10 až konec]BibliografieValentin Dornis, Nils Heck, Michael Hartmann: „Die Leistungsgesellschaft ist eine Lüge“, in: Süddeutsche Zeitung, 27. September 2024, https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/karriere-eliten-erfolg-leistung-lux.V6C5ZBE3CuXQfZkESQtFXe?reduced=true.Ray Monk, The Duty of the Genius, London: Penguin Books, 1991.Robert Nozick, Anarchie, stát a utopie, přel. Zuzana Gabajová, Praha: Academia, 2015.Platón, Ústava, přel. František Novotný, Praha: OIKOYMENH, 2005.Peter Singer, The Most Good You Can Do. How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically, Yale, 2015.„Vzdělání dětí v ČR ovlivňuje sociální původ rodiny“, in: EDUin, 24. 10. 2018, https://www.eduin.cz/clanky/ctk-vzdelani-deti-v-cr-ovlivnuje-socialni-puvod-rodiny/

In this episode of Brain in a Vat, we examine two competing political visions through an AI debate between Plato and Robert Nozick. Plato defends rule by philosopher kings and a unified society, while Nozick argues for individual liberty and a minimal state. Following our previous episode featuring Mill and Kant, we continue investigating major philosophical divides through thought experiments like the Allegory of the Cave and the Experience Machine. The episode considers justice, autonomy, and the proper role of government. Join the conversation and decide which vision of society you find more compelling.[00:00] Introduction[00:30] Plato's Allegory of the Cave[01:30] Philosopher Kings and the Ideal State[03:28] Criticisms of Plato's Republic[18:54] Nozick's Experience Machine[24:04] The Minimal State and Taxation[26:14] Anarchy vs. State[36:12] Comparing Political Visions[47:14] Final Reflections

In this lecture, Stefan examines Ludovic Jullali's critique of anarcho-capitalism through the lens of Robert Nozick's philosophies. Jullali categorizes it as a "dangerous and contradictory doctrine," arguing that its intellectual shortcomings hinder its viability in practice. Jullali discusses natural rights, emphasizing the implications of mutual protection associations in a stateless society.Stefan contrasts voluntary private protection with state coercion, asserting that the competitive nature of markets limits any single agency's dominance. Stefan addresses economic inefficiencies of state systems and advocates for the evolution of protective agencies that prioritize prevention over reaction to crime. Throughout the lecture, he responds to critiques regarding external threats and competing legal systems, ultimately defending anarcho-capitalism as a framework that promotes individual rights and decentralized governance.Link to article: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374088008_A_Criticism_of_Anarcho-CapitalismGET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!https://peacefulparenting.com/Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!See you soon!https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2025

What is the role of vision in politics? Must politicians have a vision of what kind of society they're working towards, ultimately? What kind of role does this vision play in the day-to-day practice of working politicians? Or is this a misunderstanding of the nature of politics? We mark the anniversary of the landmark text of modern libertarianism, Anarchy, State & Utopia, by Robert Nozick. Anne McElvoy is joined by the politician Gisela Stuart, General Secretary of the Fabian Society Joe Dromey, and political philosophers Thomas Simpson and Jeffrey Howard. Plus, writer and lecturer Sarah Jilani on the case for revolution.Producer: Luke Mulhall

Show Notes: Gideon Yaffe and his then girlfriend-now wife, Sue Chan, drove across the country after graduation to San Francisco, where they had no jobs or prospects. Gideon had applied to graduate school in philosophy but didn't get in anywhere. They got married and his first job was at a pet store, Gideon worked there for a while, then at a computer magazine. Studying Philosophy at Stanford While hanging out in San Francisco, he started reading Proust's Remembrance of Things Past, which he loved and found to be hugely  rewarding. This inspired him to apply to grad school again and this time his application was accepted in a lot of places. He decided to study philosophy at Stanford, where he met Michael Bratman, a professor who worked on philosophy of action and related questions about the nature of action, agency, and intention. Gideon also became interested in the history of philosophy and wrote a dissertation about John Locke and contemporary problems related to the Free Will problem. Gideon went on the job market in academia.  He got some interviews but didn't get a job. The following year, he got a one-year job at UCSD. His wife, Sue, was working in the film industry, so they moved to LA and he commuted down to San Diego. Tenure at the University of Southern California He finally secured a tenure track job at the University of Southern California (USC) in 1999 and taught Philosophy of Law classes. He wrote a paper about addiction, which he found interesting due to his knowledge of addicts and interest in freedom and addiction and how addiction would undermine freedom. When a friend of Gideon's was a victim of a carjacking incident,  he became interested in the legal problem at the center of many carjacking cases that revolves around intention, so he wrote a paper about conditional intention. Gideon explains how carjacking differs from car theft, and the paper questioned whether a conditional intention was enough for the crime when the statute called for unconditional intention. Gideon felt that philosophy of law was important to work on but he needed to know more about the law, so he coerced USC into giving him a year in the law school. Gideon recounts his experience as a law student and how it led to teaching law in law school.  Collaborating on a Neuroscience and Legal Proceedings Think Tank The MacArthur Foundation launched the law and neuroscience project, which aimed to bring together various people from philosophy, law, and neuroscience to discuss the relevance of neuroscience to legal proceedings, particularly in criminal law. Gideon was invited to be part of this think tank. During this time, he collaborated with neuroscientists on various problems and experiments related to neuroscience that could be useful to the legal system. This led to a desire to learn more about neuroscience and he pursued a grant to support the project. He spent another year as a neuroscience student at Cal Tech which allowed him to learn a lot about neuroscience. Gideon also started writing a book about attempted crimes. Gideon talks about the importance of understanding the double failure of attempts, and inherent impossible attempts. He highlights the number of cases where individuals seem incapable of committing crimes. Gideon received a job offer from Yale University after being a part of the MacArthur think tank and his book. He decided to take the position and he and his family moved to New Haven.  Neuroscience, Law, and GenAI Intentions Gideon talks about the challenges faced by those who attempt to escape the harsh realities of the criminal justice system. His experiences highlight the importance of understanding the factors that contribute to attempted crimes. The conversation turns to Gideon's  involvement in generative AI and the potential of AI intentions. He is currently working on a project with neuroscientist Uri Maoz, which aims to understand, for example, the difference between self-driving cars and drones in terms of intentions. Another project involves a group funded by billionaire Sergey Brin, who has a daughter with severe autism. The group aims to build AI models of the brain of a person and use the model to see how it responds to various forms of surgery.  AI, Consciousness, and Intentions Organizing Behavior Gideon discusses the concept of AI consciousness. Gideon states that a lot depends on how consciousness is defined. One  understanding is that consciousness involves self-representation of certain kinds of thoughts. He suggests that understanding consciousness depends on what one thinks about it. One way of understanding consciousness involves self-representation of certain kinds, such as having a second-order thought about the thought. If that's all that's required for consciousness, then these LLMs can be conscious. Another way of understanding consciousness involves qualia, or ways of feeling, such as experiencing a particular sensation or feeling something. However, he acknowledges that it is difficult to know exactly what it is like to be an LLM or a toaster. He acknowledges that there are some similarities between the two, but acknowledges the challenges in determining their exact roles in AI and neuroscience. Gideon explains that intentions serve to organize behavior in various interesting ways. For example, if an AI has intentions, they can make decisions now so they don't have to think about them later. This is relevant for coordinating behavior with each other, as well as interpersonal organization. The question of whether AIs have intentions is more tractable than the question of whether they are conscious. Intentions play a crucial role in various aspects of law, such as contract interpretation and legal texts. Understanding the intentions of AI and their potential impact on these areas is essential for understanding the future of AI and its applications in various fields. Updating Law to Address AI Intention The conversation explores the need to rewrite laws or update them to address the issue of intention in AI. Gideon states that the intention of a person or AI and the textual language, and the interpretation of the text are all areas that need to be explored.  The project Gideon is working on aims to determine the intentions of AI by examining the role their representation plays in guiding their behavior. Gideon suggests that the question is whether inferences can be made about AI's intentions by looking at the role the representations plays from the AI behavior. Gideon talks about a project on criminal activity and neuroscience that he is proud of.  Leniency and Child Criminality Gideon goes on to talk about leniency and child criminality. He argues that the reason to give a break to kids who engage in criminal behavior is disenfranchisement, not neural immaturity. He talks about the age of maturity, lack of political participation. Gideon's book about kids was written after completing his studies at Yale. He also discusses his personal life, including being in a car accident which resulted in a severe brain injury and how he is immensely grateful for his recovery.  Influential Harvard Courses and Professors Gideon mentions a core class on the Baroque period by Simon Schama, which he found to be the most influential. The course focused on famous European paintings from the Baroque period, which he found to be a source of inspiration. Other influential courses include a seminar with Hilary Putnam, Rational Action with Robert Nozick.  Timestamps:  04:50: Philosophy Studies and Academic Challenges  11:18: Legal Philosophy and Collaborative Research  22:25: Transition to Yale and Continued Research  27:22: Philosophical Reflections on AI and Consciousness  39:36: Personal Reflections and Career Highlights  49:52: Courses and Professors at Harvard  52:27: Current Work and Future Directions  52:41: Personal Life and Family  Links: https://law.yale.edu/gideon-yaffe Featured Non-profit: The featured non-profit of this episode of The 92 Report is recommended by Michael Johnson who reports: “Hi. I'm Michael Johnson, class of 1992. The featured nonprofit of this episode of The 92 Report is Son of a Saint. Son of a Saint provides guidance, mentorship and opportunities to young boys in the New Orleans area who did not have a father in the home, usually due to death or incarceration. Founded in 2011 by Sonny Lee, who lost his own father, a defensive back of the saints from a heart attack at the age of 36, Son of a Saint is making a significant impact on the lives of young boys in the New Orleans area. My wife and I have been supporters for many years, as has my firm advantage capital, which recently endowed a scholarship that will cover high school tuition for two boys from the program. Although my circumstances were much different, having lost my own father when I was five years old, I know firsthand how important a male influence can be on a young boy. I luckily had family members and friends who stepped up from me and hope in some small way, my support of Son of a Saint and the work their mentors do can give the boys and their programs similar help. You can learn more about their work at Son of a Saint.org and now here's Will Bachman with this week's episode.” To learn more about their work, visit: www.sonofasaint.org.

******Support the channel******Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenterPayPal: paypal.me/thedissenterPayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuyPayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9lPayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpzPayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9mPayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao ******Follow me on******Website: https://www.thedissenter.net/The Dissenter Goodreads list: https://shorturl.at/7BMoBFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedissenteryt/Twitter: https://x.com/TheDissenterYT This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: http://enlites.com/ Dr. Tristan Rogers is a philosopher, author, and teacher. He teaches Logic and Latin at Donum Dei Classical Academy in San Francisco. He completed his Ph.D. at the University of Arizona in 2017. He works in political philosophy, ethics, and ancient philosophy. He is the author of Conservatism, Past and Present: A Philosophical Introduction. In this episode, we focus on Conservatism, Past and Present. We start by discussing philosophical conservatism, and the virtues of gratitude, humility, and justice. We then go through the history of conservatism, and talk about thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, Saint Augustine, David Hume, Edmund Burke, attitudes toward the American Revolution and the French Revolution, the 19th century and freedom through authority, the 20th century, Friedrich Hayek, Robert Nozick, Roger Scruton, and the present in Donald Trump and his supporters. We discuss issues surrounding immigration, the family, sexual ethics, responsibilities and rights, and religion. Finally, we talk about the future of conservatism.--A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: PER HELGE LARSEN, JERRY MULLER, BERNARDO SEIXAS, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, COLIN HOLBROOK, PHIL KAVANAGH, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, FERGAL CUSSEN, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, ROMAIN ROCH, DIEGO LONDOÑO CORREA, YANICK PUNTER, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, NICOLE BARBARO, ADAM HUNT, PAWEL OSTASZEWSKI, NELLEKE BAK, GUY MADISON, GARY G HELLMANN, SAIMA AFZAL, ADRIAN JAEGGI, PAULO TOLENTINO, JOÃO BARBOSA, JULIAN PRICE, EDWARD HALL, HEDIN BRØNNER, DOUGLAS FRY, FRANCA BORTOLOTTI, GABRIEL PONS CORTÈS, URSULA LITZCKE, SCOTT, ZACHARY FISH, TIM DUFFY, SUNNY SMITH, JON WISMAN, WILLIAM BUCKNER, PAUL-GEORGE ARNAUD, LUKE GLOWACKI, GEORGIOS THEOPHANOUS, CHRIS WILLIAMSON, PETER WOLOSZYN, DAVID WILLIAMS, DIOGO COSTA, ALEX CHAU, AMAURI MARTÍNEZ, CORALIE CHEVALLIER, BANGALORE ATHEISTS, LARRY D. LEE JR., OLD HERRINGBONE, MICHAEL BAILEY, DAN SPERBER, ROBERT GRESSIS, JEFF MCMAHAN, JAKE ZUEHL, BARNABAS RADICS, MARK CAMPBELL, TOMAS DAUBNER, LUKE NISSEN, KIMBERLY JOHNSON, JESSICA NOWICKI, LINDA BRANDIN, GEORGE CHORIATIS, VALENTIN STEINMANN, ALEXANDER HUBBARD, BR, JONAS HERTNER, URSULA GOODENOUGH, DAVID PINSOF, SEAN NELSON, MIKE LAVIGNE, JOS KNECHT, LUCY, MANVIR SINGH, PETRA WEIMANN, CAROLA FEEST, MAURO JÚNIOR, 航 豊川, TONY BARRETT, NIKOLAI VISHNEVSKY, STEVEN GANGESTAD, TED FARRIS, AND ROBINROSWELL!A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, TOM VANEGDOM, BERNARD HUGUENEY, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, THOMAS TRUMBLE, KATHRINE AND PATRICK TOBIN, JONCARLO MONTENEGRO, NICK GOLDEN, CHRISTINE GLASS, IGOR NIKIFOROVSKI, PER KRAULIS, AND BENJAMIN GELBART!AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MATTHEW LAVENDER, SERGIU CODREANU, ROSEY, AND GREGORY HASTINGS!

Puntata dedicata alle varie sfaccettature dell'economia e del lavoro.Nonostante le diseguaglianze ancora persistenti, i progressi economici e sociali sono di gran lunga superiori. Di questo e altro ne parliamo nella prima parte con Luciano Canova, autore del libro, Economia dell’ottimismo, Perché la speranza evita il fallimento delle nazioni, Il Saggiatore. Nella seconda parte sempre di economia le recensioni dei libri di Johan Norberg, Il manifesto capitalista, Come il libero mercato salverà il mondo, Liberilibri, di Luigi Einaudi, Insegnare l’economia, Lezioni al Politecnico di Torino, Aragno editore, di John Maynard Keynes, La riforma monetaria, Mondadori e di Robert Nozick, Anarchia, stato e utopia, Il Saggiatore.Il tema del lavoro con uno sguardo anche al passato con i libri di: Georges Vigarello, Storia della fatica. Dal Medioevo a oggi, Il Saggiatore;Manfredi Alberti, Il lavoro in Italia, Un profilo storico dall’Unità a oggi, Carocci; Cecile Boudin, La fabbrica dei destini invisibili, Nord editore.

Christine Rosen is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, cohost of the daily Commentary Magazine Podcast, and the author of The Extinction of Experience: Being Human in a Disembodied World.  This wide-ranging discussion delves into the pervasive impact of technology on human experience, relationships, and societal norms. Drawing from themes in her book, Rosen critiques how digital devices and virtual realities have increasingly supplanted direct human interaction and embodied experiences. She reflects on societal shifts including rising loneliness, diminished face-to-face communication, and the normalization of screen-mediated interactions. The conversation addresses philosophical inquiries, such as philosopher Robert Nozick's thought experiments on virtual reality and the risks of prioritizing simulated experiences over physical reality. The conversation concludes with notes of cautious optimism about younger generations' growing awareness of the trade-offs of technology. Rosen advocates for a more deliberate, community-driven approach to integrating technology, drawing inspiration from practices like those of the Amish. She calls for policies and cultural norms that prioritize humanity over convenience, aiming to preserve the richness of authentic human experience. Recorded on November 20, 2024.

Give to help Chris continue Truce Modern evangelicalism sometimes incorporates pieces of different ideas. Things that are in the air. Social messages. Political stances. But has evangelicalism been enchanted by libertarianism? In this episode, we cover a brief history of libertarianism. What is it and who are some of the main thinkers? We discuss Murry Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Friedrich Hayek, and Robert Nozick. What is a libertarian? Matt Zwolinski and John Tomasi define libertarianism by six characteristics. Libertarians are defined by a love of private property, they are skeptical of authority, and they like free markets, spontaneous order, individualism, and negative liberty. We will define each of these throughout the episode. Our special guest for this episode is Andrew Koppelman, law professor at Northwestern University. He's the author of the book Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed. Sources Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed. by Andrew Koppelman The Individualists by Matt Zwolinski and John Tomasi The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek Matthew 25 The Road to Serfdom cartoon version The Years of Lyndon Johnson by Robert Caro (for the Dust Bowl section in book 2) 99% Invisible episode The Infernal Machine for information on anarchists Teddy Roosevelt's first address to Congress Dark Money by Jane Mayer EPA.gov article about The Clean Air Act NPR story about law enforcement throwing protestors in unmarked vans Listen America! by Jerry Falwell Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand (I could only stomach maybe 1/4 of it. I promised myself if she wrote "Rearden Steel" one more time that I would stop reading. She did. So I did.) Discussion Questions What is libertarianism? How have you seen libertarianism crossing over into evangelicalism? Does libertarianism counter the story from Matthew 25? What is the impact of Ayn Rand? Have you read her books? Why did Atlas Shrugged suddenly become the "it" book among Republicans in 2020? Is there any place for selfishness in the Christian walk? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia is 50. Professor Eric Mack discusses its relevance today. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ilya Somin is a law prof and all-around intellectual. He is of a libertarian bent. He teaches at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University. He began life in the Soviet Union. He was but six when his family immigrated to America. He read Robert Nozick, and Tolkien, and others. He went to […]

Ilya Somin is a law prof and all-around intellectual. He is of a libertarian bent. He teaches at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University. He began life in the Soviet Union. He was but six when his family immigrated to America. He read Robert Nozick, and Tolkien, and others. He went to Amherst, Harvard, and Yale. He is a Boston sports fan. With Jay, he talks about life, the law, and the American experiment. A formidable mind, a formidable teacher. 

In this episode, we discuss Robert Nozick's libertarian political philosophy as presented in his 1974 book Anarchy, State, and Utopia. We consider his challenges to leftist thought, especially the sort of left liberalism championed by the likes of John Rawls. We take seriously his demand for an argument for egalitarianism and his critique of patterned accounts of distributive justice. But we also give him a hard time for some of his more absurd arguments, from those about swimming pools to those concerning wealthy basketball players and the all-important human need to feel like a very special boy. When it comes to libertarianism, this is in fact them sending their best.leftofphilosophy.com | @leftofphilReferences:Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (New York: Basic Books, 1974).Katrina Forrester, In the Shadow of Justice: Postwar Liberalism and the Remaking of Political Philosophy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2019).Music:“Vintage Memories” by Schematist | schematist.bandcamp.com“My Space” by Overu | https://get.slip.stream/KqmvAN

Are fantasies helpful or harmful? How is daydreaming like a drug? And what did Angela fantasize about during ninth-grade English class? SOURCES:Patrick Bet-David, YouTuber and founding C.E.O. of PHP Agency Inc.Barbara Corcoran, "Shark" and executive producer on ABC's Shark Tank and founder of The Corcoran Group.Peter Gollwitzer, professor of psychology at New York University.Danny Kahneman, professor emeritus of psychology at Princeton University.Robert Nozick, philosopher.Gabriele Oettingen, professor of psychology at New York University.Kim Scott, co-founder of Radical Candor and prominent C.E.O. coach in Silicon Valley. RESOURCES:"Dreamscrolling," by Empower (The Currency, 2024)."Most Americans Can't Afford a $1,000 Emergency: Survey," by Travis Schlepp (The Hill, 2024)."Positive Fantasies and Negative Emotions in Soccer Fans," by A. Timur Sevincer, Greta Wagner, and Gabriele Oettingen (Cognition and Emotion, 2019).Radical Candor: Be a Kick-Ass Boss Without Losing Your Humanity, by Kim Scott (2017)."Pleasure Now, Pain Later: Positive Fantasies About the Future Predict Symptoms of Depression," by Gabriele Oettingen, Doris Mayer, and Sam Portnow (Psychological Science, 2016)."Positive Fantasies About Idealized Futures Sap Energy," by Heather Barry Kappes and Gabriele Oettingen (Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2011)."Self-Regulation of Goal Setting: Turning Free Fantasies About the Future Into Binding Goals," by Gabriele Oettingen, Hyeon-ju Pak, and Karoline Schnetter (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2001)."Intuitive Prediction: Biases and Corrective Procedures," by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky (DARPA Technical Report, 1977).Anarchy, State, and Utopia, by Robert Nozick (1974). EXTRAS:"Can You Really 'Manifest' Success Through Positive Visualization?" by No Stupid Questions (2024).

क्या आपने कभी सोचा है कि एक न्यायपूर्ण समाज कैसा दिखता है? आज हम न्यायपूर्ण समाज की दो परिकल्पना को समझेंगे, जॉन रॉल्स और रोबर्ट नोज़िक के दृष्टिकोण से। जॉन रॉल्स करते हैं समानता की पैरवी, जब के नोज़िक रखते हैं स्वतंत्रता का पक्ष। इस पुलियाबाज़ी में हम दोनों पक्षों के तर्क को समझने की कोशिश करेंगे।  क्या इसमें कोई समाधान की आशा है? वो तो आप ही सुनिए, सोचिये और बताइये। In this episode of Puliyabaazi, we delve into the philosophical debate between John Rawls and Robert Nozick on what makes a just society. What is more important? equality or liberty?John Rawls proposes the "veil of ignorance" thought experiment, where individuals choose principles of justice for a society while not knowing their own social status. Robert Nozick, on the other hand, prioritizes individual liberty. His book Anarchy, State, and Utopia argues for minimal government intervention, emphasizing the right to keep what one has justly acquired. The Debate Heats UpThis episode is an exploration of these two differing points of view. We unpack their core arguments, identify their strengths and weaknesses, and delve into some real-world implications of their ideas.We discuss:* Is philosophy useful in crafting policy?* Rawls' Theory of Justice* Greatest Equal Liberty Principle* Maximin Principle* Do we really believe in equality?* Nozick's answer to Rawls* A patterned distribution will not workReadings:A Theory of Justice by John RawlsAnarchy, State and Utopia by Robert NozickListen to related Puliyabaazi:गांधी टैगोर की पुलियाबाज़ी. The Gandhi Tagore Debatesएक सवाल, कई जवाब: क्या सम्पत्ति कर आर्थिक असमानता से निजात दिला सकता है? Can wealth tax solve economic inequality?If you have any questions for the guest or feedback for us, please comment here or write to us at puliyabaazi@gmail.com. If you like our work, please subscribe and share this Puliyabaazi with your friends, family and colleagues.Website: https://puliyabaazi.inHosts: @saurabhchandra @pranaykotas @thescribblebeeTwitter: @puliyabaazi Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/puliyabaazi/Subscribe & listen to the podcast on iTunes, Google Podcasts, Castbox, AudioBoom, YouTube, Spotify or any other podcast app. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.puliyabaazi.in

Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia turns fifty this year, and this libertarian classic has stood the test of time.Original Article: Anarchy, State and Utopia: Robustly against Redistributive Taxation for 50 Years

Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia turns fifty this year, and this libertarian classic has stood the test of time.Original Article: Anarchy, State and Utopia: Robustly against Redistributive Taxation for 50 Years

In this episode of The Brainy Business podcast, Melina Palmer dives into the fascinating world of status quo bias. She delves into how our brains are wired to stick to what's familiar and how that impacts our decision-making. Melina talks about how our subconscious, or system one, is responsible for processing a whopping 99% of our decisions, and how it relies on biases and heuristics to navigate through the daily information overload.  From choosing familiar routes to work to hesitating to leave a job for something new, she walks through how status quo bias shows up in various aspects of our lives. Melina even shares a thought-provoking scenario about an experience machine that offers endless pleasure but detaches you from reality, and how our tendency to favor the familiar can be surprising. If you're into change management and want to enhance your decision-making strategies, this episode is a goldmine. Melina's insights are not just thought-provoking, but also offer practical ways to challenge the status quo and embrace change in both personal and professional spheres. In this episode: Uncover the impact of status quo bias on decision-making and how to mitigate its effects. Explore the psychology behind reluctance towards change and how to foster a culture of adaptability within organizations. Examine the influence of familiarity over authenticity and its significance in decision-making processes. Implement proven strategies for effective change management to drive organizational success. Harness the power of bias to enhance customer retention and loyalty through strategic decision-making. Show Notes: 00:00:00 - Introduction Melina introduces the concept of status quo bias and its impact on decision-making, highlighting its significance in understanding consumer behavior and business strategy. 00:05:40 - The Influence of Change The discussion delves into the subconscious's strong preference for predictability and the fear of the unknown, leading to resistance towards change, even in the face of potential benefits. 00:09:19 - The Experience Machine Thought Experiment The thought experiment by Robert Nozick and its variant, presented by Felipe de Brigard, illustrate the powerful influence of status quo bias on decision-making, as demonstrated by participants' preferences for familiarity over reality. 00:12:58 - Embracing Change Embracing the feeling of fear and uncertainty when embarking on something new is highlighted as a positive sign, indicating growth and the potential for a new, beneficial status quo. 00:14:30 - Lessons from the Pandemic The pandemic-induced shift in status quo bias is discussed, emphasizing the need for businesses to adapt and communicate effectively to facilitate organizational change and embrace new norms. 00:16:33 - Change Management and Internal Communication Melina teaches a class on change management and internal communication at Texas A&M, offering insights on applying behavioral economics concepts to big changes. She emphasizes working with biases to minimize their impact when presenting change. 00:17:02 - Importance of Timing in Change Presentation Melina discusses the impact of stress and overwhelm on people's resistance to change. It's crucial to be thoughtful and considerate of the circumstances before presenting a significant change, waiting for a better time or reducing stress can make a big difference. 00:18:46 - Influence of Status Quo Bias on Customers Status quo bias affects existing customers' inclination to stick with a brand. Melina highlights the need to consider the context of the customer relationship when presenting information and communicating changes. 00:19:27 - Framing Messages for Existing Customers Melina emphasizes the importance of framing messages to reinforce the customer's natural propensity for status quo bias. The way a message is framed can significantly impact retention rates and influence a customer's decision to renew or switch. 00:20:28 -  Conclusion Melina's top insights from the conversation. What stuck with you while listening to the episode? What are you going to try? Come share it with Melina on social media -- you'll find her as @thebrainybiz everywhere and as Melina Palmer on LinkedIn. Thanks for listening. Don't forget to subscribe on Apple Podcasts or Android. If you like what you heard, please leave a review on iTunes and share what you liked about the show.  I hope you love everything recommended via The Brainy Business! Everything was independently reviewed and selected by me, Melina Palmer. So you know, as an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. That means if you decide to shop from the links on this page (via Amazon or others), The Brainy Business may collect a share of sales or other compensation. Let's connect: Melina@TheBrainyBusiness.com The Brainy Business® on Facebook The Brainy Business on Twitter The Brainy Business on Instagram The Brainy Business on LinkedIn Melina on LinkedIn The Brainy Business on Youtube Learn and Support The Brainy Business: Check out and get your copies of Melina's Books.  Get the Books Mentioned on (or related to) this Episode: Good Habits, Bad Habits, by Wendy Wood What Your Employees Need and Can't Tell You, by Melina Palmer What Your Customer Wants and Can't Tell You, by Melina Palmer The Truth About Pricing, by Melina Palmer Atomic Habits, by James Clear   Top Recommended Next Episode: Bikeshedding (ep 99) Already Heard That One? Try These:  Endowment Effect (ep 139) Loss Aversion (ep 316) Framing (ep 296) Change Management (ep 226) Habits (ep 256) The Power of Habit (ep 368) Wendy Wood Interview (ep 127) Optimism Bias (ep 34) Time Discounting (ep 328) Planning Fallacy (ep 346) Other Important Links:  Brainy Bites - Melina's LinkedIn Newsletter Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias Status Quo Bias in Decision Making What is Status Quo Bias in Sales and Marketing? How Powerful Is Status Quo Bias?

Taylor Swift achieved her billionaire status because of her talent, work ethic, and support from her fans. But some question whether any individual should be able to accumulate so much wealth. Those arguing they should point to philosopher Robert Nozick, who says if someone acquires wealth through just means, they are entitled to it. Those arguing “no” say that luck and systemic advantages often play a role, sometimes involving exploitation, and that billionaires have an outsized influence on policy. Now we debate: Does Taylor Swift Deserve Her Billion Dollar Fortune?  Arguing Yes: Jessica Flanigan, Political Philosopher and Chair in Ethics and Democratic Values at the University of Richmond  Arguing No: Ingrid Robeyns, Chair in Ethics of Institutions at Utrecht University's Ethics Institute; Author of "Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth"  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

49W'da bu hafta Ömer ile İbrahim Türkiye'de yükselen bir akımı, "Liberteryenizm"i konuştu. Liberteryenizm'in özellikle gençler arasında neden bu kadar karşılık bulduğunun konuşulduğu videoda bazı sorulara cevap arandı. Liberteryenizm ne zaman ve nasıl ortaya çıktı? Liberalizm'le farkı ne? Robert Nozick'e göre Liberteryenizm neyi savunuyor? Liberteryenizm güvenlik ve adalet meselelerine nasıl çözümler sunuyor? sorularının ve daha fazlasının cevabı burada.

Dr. Aeon J. Skoble, Professor of Philosophy at Bridgewater State University and author of The Essential Nozick, once again joins host Rosemarie Fike to discuss Nozick's perennial philosophical insights and how they might be applied today, including personal autonomy, the inherent morality in limited government, and even what a future society based on these core principles could look like.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dr. Aeon J. Skoble, Professor of Philosophy at Bridgewater State University and author of The Essential Nozick, joins host Rosemarie Fike to talk about Nozick's somewhat unconventional rise to prominence in the field of philosophy, as well as discuss Nozick's key insights on morality, individual rights, limited government and the free market.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, we delve into the rich work of political philosophy by Leo Strauss, John Rawls, and Robert Nozick. We begin with Strauss's influential ideas on liberal education, examining how he views cultural cultivation as essential for intellectual development and a bulwark against the homogenization of mass culture. Strauss's Aristotelian perspective on nurturing the individual's nature through education sets the stage for a deeper exploration of societal structures.Transitioning to Rawls, we explore his innovative 'Veil of Ignorance' and the 'Original Position', concepts that have reshaped modern understandings of justice and fairness. Rawls' principles challenge us to consider a society where every individual's rights are safeguarded and inequalities are justified only if they benefit the least advantaged.Finally, we turn to Nozick's libertarian response, which emphasizes individual rights and the minimal state. Nozick's ideas on self-ownership and consensual contracts offer a stark contrast to Rawls, presenting a viewpoint where free exchange and personal liberty are paramount.Join us as we navigate these philosophical currents, understanding how each thinker builds upon or reacts against the others, shaping our views on education, justice, and the ideal society.Contact us via email at contact@opendoorphilosophy.com Open Door Philosophy on Instagram @opendoorphilosophyOpen Door Philosophy website at opendoorphilosophy.com

On today's show, writer Ken Silva discusses how the FBI has used undercover agents and informants posing as right-wing extremists in the past, leading to the creation of neo-Nazi organizations in the U.S. GUEST OVERVIEW: Ken Silva has been a reporter for more than 10 years, working in places such as the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, and the United States. His favorite writers include Annie Jacobsen and Wendy Painting, and he thinks Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" is highly underrated among libertarians today. https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/ken-silva/

Why does it always seem like it's the people who move to the village that complain about the church bells? Or it is those that move next to a pub that are irritated by noise? It seems to indicate that there is an optimal way to live harmoniously. But how does the idea of neighbourliness work and what does it tell us about the nature of society? In this week's podcast, we discuss noisy neighbours. Is annoying your neighbour a tale as old as time or is it a relatively recent phenomenon? We discuss trap and drill music, Horst-Wessel-Lied, whistling, Isaiah Berlin, Coase theorem, intentional communities, Nozick's framework for utopia and cohousing. Finally, we share when we've been annoying neighbours and when we've been most annoyed. A few things we mentioned in this podcast: - Classical musician forced out of London flat after noise complaints https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/may/14/musician-forced-london-flat-fiona-fey-mediaeval-babes-noise-abatement - The Independent Society of Musicians https://www.ism.org/?/join&gclid=CjwKCAjw6vyiBhB_EiwAQJRophs1VCEGCbtO6LFdOy9-016Q1kcqeGdUrttw82iys2x3KyUfmu2qmBoCNVEQAvD_BwE - Forager, Farmer Morals https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/forager-vs-farmer-moralityhtml - Adult ADHD: How to Succeed as a Hunter in a Farmer's World https://www.amazon.co.uk/Adult-ADHD-Succeed-Hunter-Farmers/dp/1620555751 - Robert Nozick's Political Philosophy https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nozick-political/ For more information on Aleph Insights visit our website https://alephinsights.com or to get in touch about our podcast email podcast@alephinsights.com

Introduction I was told not to think too much about love. Obsess over it, let it dye the very fabric of my being: but do not think about it. Why, after all, would I want to overanalyse the magic and mystery? Would this not reduce a storybook to words and pages? I was told that I was incomplete and was to search for another who would make me whole. This search, I was promised, would lead me to a partner I would love and be happy with forever. And are love and happiness not required for a good life? Yet, these demands, these stories, and these questions feel restrictive and misleading. Why must I not think about what you say is so important? Why must I believe a story I have seen end in tears countless time? It is time we started taking control of love rather than letting love control us. There is no one size fits all approach given to us by nature: not everyone finds ‘the one', not everyone wants to find the one, and not all relationships need to last. Imagine the lives we could craft if we loved proactively, with honesty and freedom. If we all did this together, we could choose what we wanted and not be pressured into what we've been told is good. And given the importance of love, is this not worth a try, even if the magic fades? Contents Part I. Happily Ever After Part II. What Love Is Part III. Sad Love Part IV. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Alain de Botton, Essays in Love. Skye Cleary, Existentialism and Romantic Love. Skye Cleary, How to Be Helen Fisher, Anatomy of Love. Helen Fisher, Why We Love. A. C. Grayling, Friendship. Bell Hooks, All About Love. Carrie Jenkins, Sad Love. Carrie Jenkins, What Love Is (And What It Could Be). Troy Jollimore, Love's Vision. Bertrand Russell, Marriage and Morals. Robert Nozick, Love's Bond.

Introduction I was told not to think too much about love. Obsess over it, let it dye the very fabric of my being: but do not think about it. Why, after all, would I want to overanalyse the magic and mystery? Would this not reduce a storybook to words and pages? I was told that I was incomplete and was to search for another who would make me whole. This search, I was promised, would lead me to a partner I would love and be happy with forever. And are love and happiness not required for a good life? Yet, these demands, these stories, and these questions feel restrictive and misleading. Why must I not think about what you say is so important? Why must I believe a story I have seen end in tears countless time? It is time we started taking control of love rather than letting love control us. There is no one size fits all approach given to us by nature: not everyone finds ‘the one', not everyone wants to find the one, and not all relationships need to last. Imagine the lives we could craft if we loved proactively, with honesty and freedom. If we all did this together, we could choose what we wanted and not be pressured into what we've been told is good. And given the importance of love, is this not worth a try, even if the magic fades? Contents Part I. Happily Ever After Part II. What Love Is Part III. Sad Love Part IV. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Alain de Botton, Essays in Love. Skye Cleary, Existentialism and Romantic Love. Skye Cleary, How to Be Helen Fisher, Anatomy of Love. Helen Fisher, Why We Love. A. C. Grayling, Friendship. Bell Hooks, All About Love. Carrie Jenkins, Sad Love. Carrie Jenkins, What Love Is (And What It Could Be). Troy Jollimore, Love's Vision. Bertrand Russell, Marriage and Morals. Robert Nozick, Love's Bond.

這幾天，不論是社會，還是自己身邊，都發生了不少事情，讓我想到了言論自由的問題。「甚麼是言論自由？」這個問題好像很簡單，但其實又不盡然。至少，社會上有很多不同的版本，但每個都好像差了點甚麼，總有人覺得不滿意。「言論自由，是用來保障那些令人反感的言論。」這定義是有點「偷換概念」；它不直接說甚麼是言論自由，只是說言論自由的其中一個意義。甚至乎，這個定義也意味著，言論自由必然是有一定的代價。「沒有自由是絕對的，所以言論自由也不是絕對的。」這個講法，相信大家都聽過，耳熟能詳。你想反駁嗎？又好像找不到它的重點，對吧？今日，我嘗試像數學解題一樣，拆解甚麼是言論自由。言論自由，從字面上，就是「言論」和「自由」。甚麼是言論，不用吹毛求疵，總之但凡不同形式的表達，語言文字當然是主流，聲音圖片舞蹈等等，都是廣義上的言論。真正的關鍵詞是「自由」；自由是否簡單的解作「做乜都得」？我知道有些人是這樣去理解自由，然後就想到了那些毫無自我約束的人，自把自為，做乜都得。然後，就會有人說：「不就是講過了，自由不是絕對的；所以自由必須要有所約束。」假如不是絕對，相對的界線應該在那裡？要約束，由誰去約束？怎樣約束？這幾個問題。其實都反映了一個更根本的現象，就是似乎在我們的意識當中，除了自由以外，還有其他的追求。究竟我們的追求是甚麼？每個人所追求的目標都不一樣。循這條思路繼續下去，最終的結論就是：「無錯，自由雖然不是絕對的，但只要不影響到別人，每個人都應該有自由去選擇自己所相信的事吧」以上，大概就是自啟蒙時代以來，對自由的辯證。不少人都滿足於以上的講法；我亦曾經如是。但也有些人不認同，卻說不出一個所以然。我發現，認為「自由不是絕對」的人，其實心底裡都覺得，自由以外還有一些恆久而普世的價值，例如平等、友愛、公義；他們心目中，這些價值或許比自由更崇高；最低限度，也應該與自由平衡對等。對數學有點認識的朋友，都應該看得出，自由其實只是人世間眾多不同價值觀，不同追求的「集合」（Set）；也可以說，自由只是一個變數，不但因人而異，甚至乎會隨時代，環境轉變。如果這樣講，自由的確不是「絕對」。但以上的推理，起點是將自由解作「做乜都得」。有位哲學家 Robert Nozick 就提醒，自由除了「做乜都得」之外，還有也「說不的自由」；換句話說，就是「唔聽」「唔講」「唔做」的自由。「做乜都得」，Nozick 稱為「正面自由」（Positive Freedom）；至於「唔聽」「唔講」「唔做」等，他叫做「負面自由」（Negative Freedom）。將自由分為「正負」兩極，意義在於，兩種自由其實是有本質上的區別。「負面自由」在大多數情況下，是不影響別人的。當然，推到極致，始終還是有「人有沒有見死不救的自由」等的爭議。「見死不救，是不道德，但人的確有這種不道德的自由呀。」假如這樣回答，就有人反駁：「既然自由可以是不道德，自由又是否神聖不可侵犯的價值？」雖然開始的時候，我說是用數學解題的思維去拆解言論自由是甚麼，但本質上這是哲學問題。所以，接下來我想請各位想像一下，在沒有「負面自由」的世界生活是怎樣？你沒有自由去拒絕別人向你發出的命令，連保持沉默的自由也沒有。這樣的世界，你真的是連基本的自由都沒有。為了讓大家更清晰地去分別甚麼是「負面自由」，從這裡開始，我們叫這些最基本自由做「人權」。在日常語境中，很多事情都被冠以「人權」；我希望大家從今起，學會從「負面自由」，「說不的自由」去思考甚麼才是真正的人權。另一邊廂，究竟甚麼是「正面自由」？想說甚麼便說甚麼，就是否正面的言論自由？之前，在網上流傳一條短片，Rapper MC 仁說，可以選擇自己想聽甚麼就聽甚麼，那才是真正的言論自由。驟耳聽來，好像有點道理。你想說，不代表別人想聽；人家也有選擇聽甚麼的自由，對不對？以上所講的「正面自由」，其實不論是言論自由，抑或是其他範疇，都會涉及到別人的自由，換句話說又回到自由是否「絕對」的這個問題上。別人沒有義務去成全你的個人追求， 這是常識吧？你要其他人與你同行，可以動之以情，可以說之以利，就是不可以強迫，也不應偷呃拐騙。別人不願聽，你迫人家去聽，說不過去。說到底，如果發揮「正面自由」，反映一個人的品德。當我們說一個人有沒有品德，究竟是甚麼意思？強迫別人。又或者是張著眼睛說瞎話，凡此種種，就是沒有品德。回到以上提到的問題：「有自由沒有品德，那自由還算不算是神聖不可侵犯的價值？」我的答案是：「人權仍然是不可侵犯的；但神聖的是，在人權的基礎之上，做對得住自己和別人的事，更進一步，甚至能成為別人認為值得仿效、學習的行為。」我們都是平凡人，要神聖是很難，但做到「有品，有德」，就已經不錯了。順帶一提，我聽說過一個解釋，「品」這個字的意思，就是「眾人的評價」。眾人的評價是甚麼？那就是社會普遍價值觀，大眾共識。Adam Smith 在《道德情操論》裡面，提到一個叫「公正的旁觀者」（Impartial Spectator）的概念，意思就是指我們每個人心目中，其實都某程度上感受到別人的感受，從而得知社會大眾，對自己的所作所為，會有怎樣的評價，也就是「品」這個字的意思。那麼「德」這個字，又是甚麼意思？我聽過有人將「德」這個字拆成三份，左邊的部分是「行」，右上的是「腦袋」也就是思考，而右下是「心」代表了感受。當行為思想感受，都是正面而善良，就稱為「德」。兩者加起來：當你不論從社會群眾的評價，以及個人角度的行為思想感受，都合情合理，那就是品德。可能有人會覺得，有沒有必要將事情拆到那麼細緻？反正大多數人都是率性而為吧。但社會能夠進步，正是因為有人追求精益求精。早兩年寫了一篇導讀，介紹 Steven Pinker 寫的 The Better Angels of Our Nature ，當中講到現代人的道德標準進步，暴力減少，原來是因為社會普遍識字率的提升，讓更多人可以從文字和各種文化產物，代入別人的處境，令人更具同理心；同理心令人與人之間的關係變得更良善（Benevolent），這也是 Adam Smith 在《道德情操論》裡面的其中一個主旨。有人擔心，在互聯網世界，尤其是被演算法主導的社交媒體，會否令人的言行變的更乖張偏激，嘩眾取寵。但我相信，社會上從來都有些人，就是語不驚人誓不休。過去的世界，他們找不到聽眾觀眾，但經過社交媒體，這些本來在社會不同角落的人終於連結起來，音量也經過迴音谷效應放大。言論自由，是否等於「鬥大聲」？剛才不是提到 MC 仁說，言論自由重點不是人人口沒遮攔，而是在於我們有沒有自由去聽到自己想聽的聲音？他的這句話能夠引起不少人共鳴，我想是因為在互聯網上，有太多嘈音，令人感到不安和疲倦。以我的個人經驗，找上門，鬥大聲的人，亦根本沒有意圖去說服別人；他們或許想借機讓自己感覺良好，又或者想滋擾別人，令別人感到氣餒，要別人收聲。要別人收聲，動機是侵犯別人的基本權利。幸好，我們只要簡單幾個按鍵，就可以回復耳根清靜。但是當政府官員先口誅筆伐，再「拉人封鋪」，那就是另一回事。尤其是專制政權，更加會無所不用其極控制言論。這點早兩天在另一邊文章分享過，不贅。但今天想補充一點：很多時社會言論自由萎縮，不單是因為人民怕了政府，同時還有剛才所提到的「人民內部矛盾」；兩股力量，相輔相成。當越來越多人習慣「沉默」，結果可能連丁點「沉默的自由」，基本人權也最終失守。另外，我的觀察是，在言論自由被限制的國度，人們理性辯論的能力和水平，都普遍較低；這也是為甚麼小粉紅網上大軍出征的時候，往往只有幾句粗鄙的謾罵，然後便沒有然後。所以，讓更多人學會如何去理性討論事情，求同存異，解決紛爭，也是維繫一個自由社會必須的。當「正面自由」得不到正常發揮，就會有更多人相信了「自由不是絕對」的謬誤。當主流社會接受了「自由不是絕對」，就有人想到要在這裡劃一條紅線，那裡設一道界限。言論的空間收窄，自由的消亡，並不是一朝一夕的事，亦不是單憑統治者的主觀意志就可以做得到。當社會風氣在不經不覺間改變，人們漸漸不敢據理力爭，最後到發現自己想表達意見的時候，已經沒有聽眾，也沒有公共空間。走到那一步，就已經太遲。後記再一次跟大家說聲多謝；謝謝你耐心閱讀。有位讀者希望我可以讀出每篇文章。其實之前我也有講過，寫得好的文章應該是可以朗朗上口，至少作者自己讀一次，對編輯行文用語有很大的幫助；尤其是我沒有其他人幫忙編輯。所以，這個步驟本來是不可以忽略的。多一重的步驟，時間耗費也更多，我亦必須作出取捨；所以可能在其他的平台，例如 YouTube Live ，就只有重複一些內容。希望你看完這篇，覺得我的觀點有用，又或者覺得我提出的觀點與別不同，考慮付費訂閱支持。我也明白，有些朋友暫時不想以付費訂閱的方法支持。希望你能夠向你的朋友推薦這個地方。常言道，免費的最貴，你的推薦和肯定，是很難得的價值。請你將推薦分享，視為一種普及教育，讓更多人接觸得到我的觀點， This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit leesimon.substack.com/subscribe

Introduction I was told not to think too much about love. Obsess over it, let it dye the very fabric of my being: but do not think about it. Why, after all, would I want to overanalyse the magic and mystery? Would this not reduce a storybook to words and pages? I was told that I was incomplete and was to search for another who would make me whole. This search, I was promised, would lead me to a partner I would love and be happy with forever. And are love and happiness not required for a good life? Yet, these demands, these stories, and these questions feel restrictive and misleading. Why must I not think about what you say is so important? Why must I believe a story I have seen end in tears countless time? It is time we started taking control of love rather than letting love control us. There is no one size fits all approach given to us by nature: not everyone finds ‘the one', not everyone wants to find the one, and not all relationships need to last. Imagine the lives we could craft if we loved proactively, with honesty and freedom. If we all did this together, we could choose what we wanted and not be pressured into what we've been told is good. And given the importance of love, is this not worth a try, even if the magic fades? Contents Part I. Happily Ever After Part II. What Love Is Part III. Sad Love Part IV. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Alain de Botton, Essays in Love. Skye Cleary, Existentialism and Romantic Love. Skye Cleary, How to Be Helen Fisher, Anatomy of Love. Helen Fisher, Why We Love. A. C. Grayling, Friendship. Bell Hooks, All About Love. Carrie Jenkins, Sad Love. Carrie Jenkins, What Love Is (And What It Could Be). Troy Jollimore, Love's Vision. Bertrand Russell, Marriage and Morals. Robert Nozick, Love's Bond.

Introduction I was told not to think too much about love. Obsess over it, let it dye the very fabric of my being: but do not think about it. Why, after all, would I want to overanalyse the magic and mystery? Would this not reduce a storybook to words and pages? I was told that I was incomplete and was to search for another who would make me whole. This search, I was promised, would lead me to a partner I would love and be happy with forever. And are love and happiness not required for a good life? Yet, these demands, these stories, and these questions feel restrictive and misleading. Why must I not think about what you say is so important? Why must I believe a story I have seen end in tears countless time? It is time we started taking control of love rather than letting love control us. There is no one size fits all approach given to us by nature: not everyone finds ‘the one', not everyone wants to find the one, and not all relationships need to last. Imagine the lives we could craft if we loved proactively, with honesty and freedom. If we all did this together, we could choose what we wanted and not be pressured into what we've been told is good. And given the importance of love, is this not worth a try, even if the magic fades? Contents Part I. Happily Ever After Part II. What Love Is Part III. Sad Love Part IV. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Alain de Botton, Essays in Love. Skye Cleary, Existentialism and Romantic Love. Skye Cleary, How to Be Helen Fisher, Anatomy of Love. Helen Fisher, Why We Love. A. C. Grayling, Friendship. Bell Hooks, All About Love. Carrie Jenkins, Sad Love. Carrie Jenkins, What Love Is (And What It Could Be). Troy Jollimore, Love's Vision. Bertrand Russell, Marriage and Morals. Robert Nozick, Love's Bond.

The national purpose of the American state is to realize and then sustain the democracy and the equality that was the promise of our founding. I believe that requires perennial struggle and … groups like Black Lives Matter are an essential part of that struggle … Those are the social movements I hope to join, support, and that I hope will always be qualified by the adjective ‘liberal'. – Michael Walzer, NBN interview (2023) In the 1990 collection What is Justice? Classic and Contemporary Readings edited by Solomon and Murphy and published by Oxford, teachers had a textbook to help introduce students to a broad cross-section of political thinkers ranging from Hobbes to Hegel to Hayek to Mill, Nozick, Rawls, Sandel, Taylor and Walzer among others. It is worth mentioning because Michael Walzer insists he is not a formal philosopher, does not in fact, deserve to be grouped with the likes of a Dewey or a Hegel, as Richard Rorty had done in the introduction of his 1999 collection of essays in Philosophy and Social Hope: ‘Recently Michael Walzer, a political philosopher best known for his earlier work, Spheres of Justice, has come to Hegel's and Dewey's defense. In his more recent book Thick and Thin, Walzer argues that we should not think of the customs and institutions of particular societies as accidental accretions around a common core of universal moral rationality, the transcultural moral law. Rather, we should think of the thick set of customs and institutions as prior, and as what commands moral allegiance.' Rorty's broader point remains as relevant as arguably, the positions of the political philosophers as collected in the Solomon and Murphy reader mentioned above, What is Justice?, which also recognized the appeal of Walzer's ‘very different approach' to the Rawls' paradigmatic A Theory of Justice. That same collection also shares Nozick's critical response to Rawls - mentioned because of the well-known course, ‘Capitalism and Socialism', that Robert Nozick and Michael Walzer taught together at Harvard. A former student, the Washington Post columnist, Brookings senior fellow, and policy professor E.J. Dionne once said: it was one of the best courses he ever took, adding, it was Michael Walzer ‘who very much shaped my view'. A short list of Professor Walzer's book titles include Just and Unjust Wars, Spheres of Justice - A Defense of Pluralism and Equality, The Company of Critics, Thick and Thin - Moral Argument at Home and Abroad, On Toleration, Politics and Passion, The Jewish Political Tradition, The Paradox of Liberation: Secular Revolutions and Religious Counterrevolutions, A Foreign Policy for the Left, as well as a published conversation - Justice is Steady Work: A Conversation on Political Theory - published by Polity in 2020. This interview focuses primarily on his latest book, The Struggle for a Decent Politics: On “Liberal” as an Adjective (2023, Yale University Press) which does much to clarify a simple, yet crucial distinction, between liberal and illiberal sensibilities underlying the pluralism, populism, and polarization today. Michael Walzer is professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, and editor emeritus at Dissent magazine. Professor Walzer studied on a Fulbright Fellowship at Cambridge and completed his PhD in government at Harvard University. Keith Krueger can be reached at keithNBn@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The national purpose of the American state is to realize and then sustain the democracy and the equality that was the promise of our founding. I believe that requires perennial struggle and … groups like Black Lives Matter are an essential part of that struggle … Those are the social movements I hope to join, support, and that I hope will always be qualified by the adjective ‘liberal'. – Michael Walzer, NBN interview (2023) In the 1990 collection What is Justice? Classic and Contemporary Readings edited by Solomon and Murphy and published by Oxford, teachers had a textbook to help introduce students to a broad cross-section of political thinkers ranging from Hobbes to Hegel to Hayek to Mill, Nozick, Rawls, Sandel, Taylor and Walzer among others. It is worth mentioning because Michael Walzer insists he is not a formal philosopher, does not in fact, deserve to be grouped with the likes of a Dewey or a Hegel, as Richard Rorty had done in the introduction of his 1999 collection of essays in Philosophy and Social Hope: ‘Recently Michael Walzer, a political philosopher best known for his earlier work, Spheres of Justice, has come to Hegel's and Dewey's defense. In his more recent book Thick and Thin, Walzer argues that we should not think of the customs and institutions of particular societies as accidental accretions around a common core of universal moral rationality, the transcultural moral law. Rather, we should think of the thick set of customs and institutions as prior, and as what commands moral allegiance.' Rorty's broader point remains as relevant as arguably, the positions of the political philosophers as collected in the Solomon and Murphy reader mentioned above, What is Justice?, which also recognized the appeal of Walzer's ‘very different approach' to the Rawls' paradigmatic A Theory of Justice. That same collection also shares Nozick's critical response to Rawls - mentioned because of the well-known course, ‘Capitalism and Socialism', that Robert Nozick and Michael Walzer taught together at Harvard. A former student, the Washington Post columnist, Brookings senior fellow, and policy professor E.J. Dionne once said: it was one of the best courses he ever took, adding, it was Michael Walzer ‘who very much shaped my view'. A short list of Professor Walzer's book titles include Just and Unjust Wars, Spheres of Justice - A Defense of Pluralism and Equality, The Company of Critics, Thick and Thin - Moral Argument at Home and Abroad, On Toleration, Politics and Passion, The Jewish Political Tradition, The Paradox of Liberation: Secular Revolutions and Religious Counterrevolutions, A Foreign Policy for the Left, as well as a published conversation - Justice is Steady Work: A Conversation on Political Theory - published by Polity in 2020. This interview focuses primarily on his latest book, The Struggle for a Decent Politics: On “Liberal” as an Adjective (2023, Yale University Press) which does much to clarify a simple, yet crucial distinction, between liberal and illiberal sensibilities underlying the pluralism, populism, and polarization today. Michael Walzer is professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, and editor emeritus at Dissent magazine. Professor Walzer studied on a Fulbright Fellowship at Cambridge and completed his PhD in government at Harvard University. Keith Krueger can be reached at keithNBn@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

The national purpose of the American state is to realize and then sustain the democracy and the equality that was the promise of our founding. I believe that requires perennial struggle and … groups like Black Lives Matter are an essential part of that struggle … Those are the social movements I hope to join, support, and that I hope will always be qualified by the adjective ‘liberal'. – Michael Walzer, NBN interview (2023) In the 1990 collection What is Justice? Classic and Contemporary Readings edited by Solomon and Murphy and published by Oxford, teachers had a textbook to help introduce students to a broad cross-section of political thinkers ranging from Hobbes to Hegel to Hayek to Mill, Nozick, Rawls, Sandel, Taylor and Walzer among others. It is worth mentioning because Michael Walzer insists he is not a formal philosopher, does not in fact, deserve to be grouped with the likes of a Dewey or a Hegel, as Richard Rorty had done in the introduction of his 1999 collection of essays in Philosophy and Social Hope: ‘Recently Michael Walzer, a political philosopher best known for his earlier work, Spheres of Justice, has come to Hegel's and Dewey's defense. In his more recent book Thick and Thin, Walzer argues that we should not think of the customs and institutions of particular societies as accidental accretions around a common core of universal moral rationality, the transcultural moral law. Rather, we should think of the thick set of customs and institutions as prior, and as what commands moral allegiance.' Rorty's broader point remains as relevant as arguably, the positions of the political philosophers as collected in the Solomon and Murphy reader mentioned above, What is Justice?, which also recognized the appeal of Walzer's ‘very different approach' to the Rawls' paradigmatic A Theory of Justice. That same collection also shares Nozick's critical response to Rawls - mentioned because of the well-known course, ‘Capitalism and Socialism', that Robert Nozick and Michael Walzer taught together at Harvard. A former student, the Washington Post columnist, Brookings senior fellow, and policy professor E.J. Dionne once said: it was one of the best courses he ever took, adding, it was Michael Walzer ‘who very much shaped my view'. A short list of Professor Walzer's book titles include Just and Unjust Wars, Spheres of Justice - A Defense of Pluralism and Equality, The Company of Critics, Thick and Thin - Moral Argument at Home and Abroad, On Toleration, Politics and Passion, The Jewish Political Tradition, The Paradox of Liberation: Secular Revolutions and Religious Counterrevolutions, A Foreign Policy for the Left, as well as a published conversation - Justice is Steady Work: A Conversation on Political Theory - published by Polity in 2020. This interview focuses primarily on his latest book, The Struggle for a Decent Politics: On “Liberal” as an Adjective (2023, Yale University Press) which does much to clarify a simple, yet crucial distinction, between liberal and illiberal sensibilities underlying the pluralism, populism, and polarization today. Michael Walzer is professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, and editor emeritus at Dissent magazine. Professor Walzer studied on a Fulbright Fellowship at Cambridge and completed his PhD in government at Harvard University. Keith Krueger can be reached at keithNBn@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

The national purpose of the American state is to realize and then sustain the democracy and the equality that was the promise of our founding. I believe that requires perennial struggle and … groups like Black Lives Matter are an essential part of that struggle … Those are the social movements I hope to join, support, and that I hope will always be qualified by the adjective ‘liberal'. – Michael Walzer, NBN interview (2023) In the 1990 collection What is Justice? Classic and Contemporary Readings edited by Solomon and Murphy and published by Oxford, teachers had a textbook to help introduce students to a broad cross-section of political thinkers ranging from Hobbes to Hegel to Hayek to Mill, Nozick, Rawls, Sandel, Taylor and Walzer among others. It is worth mentioning because Michael Walzer insists he is not a formal philosopher, does not in fact, deserve to be grouped with the likes of a Dewey or a Hegel, as Richard Rorty had done in the introduction of his 1999 collection of essays in Philosophy and Social Hope: ‘Recently Michael Walzer, a political philosopher best known for his earlier work, Spheres of Justice, has come to Hegel's and Dewey's defense. In his more recent book Thick and Thin, Walzer argues that we should not think of the customs and institutions of particular societies as accidental accretions around a common core of universal moral rationality, the transcultural moral law. Rather, we should think of the thick set of customs and institutions as prior, and as what commands moral allegiance.' Rorty's broader point remains as relevant as arguably, the positions of the political philosophers as collected in the Solomon and Murphy reader mentioned above, What is Justice?, which also recognized the appeal of Walzer's ‘very different approach' to the Rawls' paradigmatic A Theory of Justice. That same collection also shares Nozick's critical response to Rawls - mentioned because of the well-known course, ‘Capitalism and Socialism', that Robert Nozick and Michael Walzer taught together at Harvard. A former student, the Washington Post columnist, Brookings senior fellow, and policy professor E.J. Dionne once said: it was one of the best courses he ever took, adding, it was Michael Walzer ‘who very much shaped my view'. A short list of Professor Walzer's book titles include Just and Unjust Wars, Spheres of Justice - A Defense of Pluralism and Equality, The Company of Critics, Thick and Thin - Moral Argument at Home and Abroad, On Toleration, Politics and Passion, The Jewish Political Tradition, The Paradox of Liberation: Secular Revolutions and Religious Counterrevolutions, A Foreign Policy for the Left, as well as a published conversation - Justice is Steady Work: A Conversation on Political Theory - published by Polity in 2020. This interview focuses primarily on his latest book, The Struggle for a Decent Politics: On “Liberal” as an Adjective (2023, Yale University Press) which does much to clarify a simple, yet crucial distinction, between liberal and illiberal sensibilities underlying the pluralism, populism, and polarization today. Michael Walzer is professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, and editor emeritus at Dissent magazine. Professor Walzer studied on a Fulbright Fellowship at Cambridge and completed his PhD in government at Harvard University. Keith Krueger can be reached at keithNBn@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

The national purpose of the American state is to realize and then sustain the democracy and the equality that was the promise of our founding. I believe that requires perennial struggle and … groups like Black Lives Matter are an essential part of that struggle … Those are the social movements I hope to join, support, and that I hope will always be qualified by the adjective ‘liberal'. – Michael Walzer, NBN interview (2023) In the 1990 collection What is Justice? Classic and Contemporary Readings edited by Solomon and Murphy and published by Oxford, teachers had a textbook to help introduce students to a broad cross-section of political thinkers ranging from Hobbes to Hegel to Hayek to Mill, Nozick, Rawls, Sandel, Taylor and Walzer among others. It is worth mentioning because Michael Walzer insists he is not a formal philosopher, does not in fact, deserve to be grouped with the likes of a Dewey or a Hegel, as Richard Rorty had done in the introduction of his 1999 collection of essays in Philosophy and Social Hope: ‘Recently Michael Walzer, a political philosopher best known for his earlier work, Spheres of Justice, has come to Hegel's and Dewey's defense. In his more recent book Thick and Thin, Walzer argues that we should not think of the customs and institutions of particular societies as accidental accretions around a common core of universal moral rationality, the transcultural moral law. Rather, we should think of the thick set of customs and institutions as prior, and as what commands moral allegiance.' Rorty's broader point remains as relevant as arguably, the positions of the political philosophers as collected in the Solomon and Murphy reader mentioned above, What is Justice?, which also recognized the appeal of Walzer's ‘very different approach' to the Rawls' paradigmatic A Theory of Justice. That same collection also shares Nozick's critical response to Rawls - mentioned because of the well-known course, ‘Capitalism and Socialism', that Robert Nozick and Michael Walzer taught together at Harvard. A former student, the Washington Post columnist, Brookings senior fellow, and policy professor E.J. Dionne once said: it was one of the best courses he ever took, adding, it was Michael Walzer ‘who very much shaped my view'. A short list of Professor Walzer's book titles include Just and Unjust Wars, Spheres of Justice - A Defense of Pluralism and Equality, The Company of Critics, Thick and Thin - Moral Argument at Home and Abroad, On Toleration, Politics and Passion, The Jewish Political Tradition, The Paradox of Liberation: Secular Revolutions and Religious Counterrevolutions, A Foreign Policy for the Left, as well as a published conversation - Justice is Steady Work: A Conversation on Political Theory - published by Polity in 2020. This interview focuses primarily on his latest book, The Struggle for a Decent Politics: On “Liberal” as an Adjective (2023, Yale University Press) which does much to clarify a simple, yet crucial distinction, between liberal and illiberal sensibilities underlying the pluralism, populism, and polarization today. Michael Walzer is professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, and editor emeritus at Dissent magazine. Professor Walzer studied on a Fulbright Fellowship at Cambridge and completed his PhD in government at Harvard University. Keith Krueger can be reached at keithNBn@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

The national purpose of the American state is to realize and then sustain the democracy and the equality that was the promise of our founding. I believe that requires perennial struggle and … groups like Black Lives Matter are an essential part of that struggle … Those are the social movements I hope to join, support, and that I hope will always be qualified by the adjective ‘liberal'. – Michael Walzer, NBN interview (2023) In the 1990 collection What is Justice? Classic and Contemporary Readings edited by Solomon and Murphy and published by Oxford, teachers had a textbook to help introduce students to a broad cross-section of political thinkers ranging from Hobbes to Hegel to Hayek to Mill, Nozick, Rawls, Sandel, Taylor and Walzer among others. It is worth mentioning because Michael Walzer insists he is not a formal philosopher, does not in fact, deserve to be grouped with the likes of a Dewey or a Hegel, as Richard Rorty had done in the introduction of his 1999 collection of essays in Philosophy and Social Hope: ‘Recently Michael Walzer, a political philosopher best known for his earlier work, Spheres of Justice, has come to Hegel's and Dewey's defense. In his more recent book Thick and Thin, Walzer argues that we should not think of the customs and institutions of particular societies as accidental accretions around a common core of universal moral rationality, the transcultural moral law. Rather, we should think of the thick set of customs and institutions as prior, and as what commands moral allegiance.' Rorty's broader point remains as relevant as arguably, the positions of the political philosophers as collected in the Solomon and Murphy reader mentioned above, What is Justice?, which also recognized the appeal of Walzer's ‘very different approach' to the Rawls' paradigmatic A Theory of Justice. That same collection also shares Nozick's critical response to Rawls - mentioned because of the well-known course, ‘Capitalism and Socialism', that Robert Nozick and Michael Walzer taught together at Harvard. A former student, the Washington Post columnist, Brookings senior fellow, and policy professor E.J. Dionne once said: it was one of the best courses he ever took, adding, it was Michael Walzer ‘who very much shaped my view'. A short list of Professor Walzer's book titles include Just and Unjust Wars, Spheres of Justice - A Defense of Pluralism and Equality, The Company of Critics, Thick and Thin - Moral Argument at Home and Abroad, On Toleration, Politics and Passion, The Jewish Political Tradition, The Paradox of Liberation: Secular Revolutions and Religious Counterrevolutions, A Foreign Policy for the Left, as well as a published conversation - Justice is Steady Work: A Conversation on Political Theory - published by Polity in 2020. This interview focuses primarily on his latest book, The Struggle for a Decent Politics: On “Liberal” as an Adjective (2023, Yale University Press) which does much to clarify a simple, yet crucial distinction, between liberal and illiberal sensibilities underlying the pluralism, populism, and polarization today. Michael Walzer is professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, and editor emeritus at Dissent magazine. Professor Walzer studied on a Fulbright Fellowship at Cambridge and completed his PhD in government at Harvard University. Keith Krueger can be reached at keithNBn@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/communications

The national purpose of the American state is to realize and then sustain the democracy and the equality that was the promise of our founding. I believe that requires perennial struggle and … groups like Black Lives Matter are an essential part of that struggle … Those are the social movements I hope to join, support, and that I hope will always be qualified by the adjective ‘liberal'. – Michael Walzer, NBN interview (2023) In the 1990 collection What is Justice? Classic and Contemporary Readings edited by Solomon and Murphy and published by Oxford, teachers had a textbook to help introduce students to a broad cross-section of political thinkers ranging from Hobbes to Hegel to Hayek to Mill, Nozick, Rawls, Sandel, Taylor and Walzer among others. It is worth mentioning because Michael Walzer insists he is not a formal philosopher, does not in fact, deserve to be grouped with the likes of a Dewey or a Hegel, as Richard Rorty had done in the introduction of his 1999 collection of essays in Philosophy and Social Hope: ‘Recently Michael Walzer, a political philosopher best known for his earlier work, Spheres of Justice, has come to Hegel's and Dewey's defense. In his more recent book Thick and Thin, Walzer argues that we should not think of the customs and institutions of particular societies as accidental accretions around a common core of universal moral rationality, the transcultural moral law. Rather, we should think of the thick set of customs and institutions as prior, and as what commands moral allegiance.' Rorty's broader point remains as relevant as arguably, the positions of the political philosophers as collected in the Solomon and Murphy reader mentioned above, What is Justice?, which also recognized the appeal of Walzer's ‘very different approach' to the Rawls' paradigmatic A Theory of Justice. That same collection also shares Nozick's critical response to Rawls - mentioned because of the well-known course, ‘Capitalism and Socialism', that Robert Nozick and Michael Walzer taught together at Harvard. A former student, the Washington Post columnist, Brookings senior fellow, and policy professor E.J. Dionne once said: it was one of the best courses he ever took, adding, it was Michael Walzer ‘who very much shaped my view'. A short list of Professor Walzer's book titles include Just and Unjust Wars, Spheres of Justice - A Defense of Pluralism and Equality, The Company of Critics, Thick and Thin - Moral Argument at Home and Abroad, On Toleration, Politics and Passion, The Jewish Political Tradition, The Paradox of Liberation: Secular Revolutions and Religious Counterrevolutions, A Foreign Policy for the Left, as well as a published conversation - Justice is Steady Work: A Conversation on Political Theory - published by Polity in 2020. This interview focuses primarily on his latest book, The Struggle for a Decent Politics: On “Liberal” as an Adjective (2023, Yale University Press) which does much to clarify a simple, yet crucial distinction, between liberal and illiberal sensibilities underlying the pluralism, populism, and polarization today. Michael Walzer is professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, and editor emeritus at Dissent magazine. Professor Walzer studied on a Fulbright Fellowship at Cambridge and completed his PhD in government at Harvard University. Keith Krueger can be reached at keithNBn@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

Today, Matt Slick of CARM explains how atheists have no basis for morality, all while ignoring the fact that Christians have to appeal to secular morality in order to rescue god from being an immoral monster. And as it turns out, the way that works is by believing that god is Robert Nozick's Utility Monster.Order Sometimes Illness Wins here: https://fillingthegappublishing.comOriginal Video: https://tinyurl.com/2mm9rn7k All my various links can be found here:http://links.vicedrhino.com

Dr. James (Jim) R. Otteson is the John T. Ryan Jr. Professor of Business Ethics at the University of Notre Dame and a senior scholar at The Fund for American Studies. As a renowned political economist, he specializes in business ethics, political economy, the history of economic thought, and eighteenth-century moral philosophy. For over 25 years, Jim has dedicated himself to teaching economics at some of the country's most prestigious schools including New York University, Yeshiva University, Georgetown University, and the University of Alabama. Jim holds a bachelor's degree from the University of Notre Dame and a doctorate from the University of Chicago. In this week's Liberty + Leadership Podcast, Roger and Jim take a deep dive into economic theory, discussing Adam Smith's seminal book, The Wealth of Nations; the defense of economic liberalism in Robert Nozick's book Anarchy, State, and Utopia; the juxtaposition between reducing poverty and increasing inequality; and why Jim's next book will focus on universal concepts of human dignity. The Liberty + Leadership Podcast is hosted by TFAS President Roger Ream and produced by kglobal. If you have a comment or question for the show, please drop us an email at podcast@TFAS.org.Support the show

A discussion of the main points of Kerry Baldwin's article on economics, social relations, and the question of the inevitability of the state in a properly-functioning society. Robert Nozick's economic argument for the immaculate conception of the state, and Russel Kirk's social argument for states are both answered. A non-monopolistic view of civil governance is placed in terms of "sphere sovereignty" and a non-individualistic and non-collectivistic view of society. https://reformedlibertarians.com/009/ 00:00 Start 00:32 Episode description Article: https://libertarianchristians.com/2018/04/11/economics-hierarchy-states-inevitability/ Part 1 on law and order and the question of civil governance legitimacy: https://reformedlibertarians.com/003 Part 2 on human sinfulness and the question of civil governance necessity: https://reformedlibertarians.com/005 01:45 Summary overview of article 03:20 The economic argument for the state's supposed inevitability, as presented by Robert Nozick in his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465051006?tag=kerrybaldwin-20 04:24 Murray Rothbard's refutation of Nozick's hypothetical "immaculate conception of the state" Text: https://mises.org/library/robert-nozick-and-immaculate-conception-state Audio: https://mises.org/library/29-robert-nozick-and-immaculate-conception-state 04:43 Nozick's false assumption about contract and Rothbard on title-transfer view of contract Text: https://mises.org/library/property-rights-and-theory-contracts Audio: https://mises.org/library/19-property-rights-and-theory-contracts 06:39 Nozick's false assumption about dispute resolution and Bob Murphy's "Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?" on the realistic alternative to combat Text: https://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7fJCtv90Pc 07:55 Nozick's false assumption about agreements and organizational merger and the counter-example of Ancient Ireland's non-monopolistic legal order https://mises.org/library/private-law-emerald-isle 09:53 The social argument for the state's supposed inevitability, as presented by Russel Kirk in his 10 Conservative Principles, from the principle of variety https://kirkcenter.org/conservatism/ten-conservative-principles/ from his book The Politics of Prudence https://www.amazon.com/dp/1932236554?tag=kerrybaldwin-20 12:09 The Reformed Libertarianism statement https://reformedlibertarians.com/reformed-libertarianism-statement/ Why the worst rise to the top of the state https://fee.org/articles/hayek-was-right-the-worst-do-get-to-the-top/ 13:10 The neocalvinist and reformational view of society (sphere sovereignty) as a superior alternative to individualistic and collectivistic views of society https://www.academia.edu/32356017/Dooyeweerds_Societal_Sphere_Sovereignty_2017_revision_ 14:56 Praxeological / methodological individualism (recognizing that only individual persons properly act) is not an individualistic view of society 16:35 Society is not a single thing, nor something normatively governed "overall" 18:44 No specific community normatively governs all the others of that same kind, whether familial, ecclesial, or civil (or any other kind) The Reformed Libertarians Podcast is a project of the Libertarian Christian Institute: https://libertarianchristians.com and a member of the Christians for Liberty Network: https://christiansforliberty.net Audio Production by Podsworth Media - https://podsworth.com  

In today's episode, Nat Neil and Adil discuss the Tao Te Ching by Laozi. We each picked a few of our favorite chapters from the book to read and discuss, resulting in a wide-ranging discussion of work, happiness, ambition, finance, philosophy, and all our usual favorite subjects.  Some of the topics we covered were: The importance of not over-extending yourself, being moderate and patient What does it mean to prioritize “inaction”?  The balance between short and long-term productivity Which parts of the Tao do we each struggle with the most What it means to seek a “middle path.”  Plus lots of tangents around fitness, entrepreneurship, work, other books, and more. Be sure to stick around for the end, where Nat and Neil discuss our new plans for the show and where it's going in 2023.  Remember to subscribe if you haven't, and leave us a review on iTunes or Spotify if you liked the episode! Timestamps (1:10) - How different drugs created different financial crashes & philosophies (3:22) - Background on the Tao Te Ching (11:15) - Variations in the translations of the Tao Te Ching (17:00) - What is the “real” version of old texts? (21:20) - The theme of finding the middle ground, and inaction. Chapter 64. “If you rush into action, you will fail. If you hold on too tight, you will loose your grip. Therefore the Master lets things take their course and thus never fails.” (27:00) - The importance of doing nothing. Chapter 48. “He who conquers the world often does so by doing nothing. When one is compelled to do something, The world is already beyond his conquering.” (33:50) - The difference between short-term and long-term productivity. Sometimes doing nothing in the short term is the best strategy for the long term.  (42:00) - Chapters 68, 24. The importance of being balanced, avoiding going to extremes. Avoiding the consequences of intense competition. “He who stands on tiptoe does not stand firm.” (51:00) - What's something you're doing that's incongruous with the advice in the Tao? Neils: Shiny object syndrome. (54:00) - Nat's: Impatience with professional success. (1:05:00) - Adil's: Shiny object syndrome. (1:07:00) - The problem with the practical vs. the ideal, giving and receiving advice.  (1:15:00) - Unintuitive advice in fitness. (1:21:00) - Aiming at a specific goal vs. aiming in abstract. (1:24:00) - The power of having a good adversary for bringing out your best. (1:28:00) - Wrapup: Upcoming books, plans for the podcast Mentioned in the Show Byrne Hobart (on Lunar Society) (1:10) Analects of Confucius (two episodes from now) (4:51) Tao in You Website (11:15) ChatGPT (14:00) Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle (25:00)  The Alchemy of Finance by George Soros (29:05) Tyler Cowen (31:50) Cal Newport on Sam Harris (33:40) John McPhee (34:00) Children of Time, Adrian Tzchaicovsky (Nat got the age wrong, he was 46) (56:00) Godel Escher Bach, Douglas Hofstadter. Episode link (1:04:00) Antifragile, Nassim Taleb. Episode link (1:12:00) The Gibraltar skull (1:14:00) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Episode link. (1:15:00) Finite and Infinite Games. Episode link. (1:22:00) The Inner Game of Tennis. Episode link. (1:23:00) Robert Nozick (1:24:00) John Rawls (1:24:00) Huberman Lab Podcast (1:25:00) The Comfort Crisis (next episode!) (1:29:00)

IT teacher Mr Kolawole teaches his favourite lesson to Greg and Bella – after 18 months of WFH, home learning and video calls – could we ever live our whole lives online? He starts by looking our current internet and social media usage, encouraging Greg and Bella to bare all when it comes to their own screentime figures. He then discusses Dunbar's Number - the idea that humans only have the capacity for a certain number of real life connections - and how the internet might be a brilliant way of finding your own tribe. They'll discuss the potential of the Metaverse and the experiences that could be possible there. To end the lesson, he introduces Greg and Bella to a thought experiment put forward by philosopher Robert Nozick in the 1970s called The Pleasure Machine, to find out what they would make of a world where we get everything our hearts desire, without question. Is this a healthy way to live? Bad students of all ages are welcome. Expect brilliant teachers, captivating subjects but absolutely no homework. Get in touch with the podcast - email us at teachme@bbc.co.uk

https://youtu.be/IHenu8z3H9A The socialist society would have to forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults.   – Robert Nozick, Ph.D., Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974 [2013] Basic Books), p. 163.   Watch full debate here: Democratic Socialism v. Free Market Economics - Dr. Phil Armstrong vs. Keith Knight BitChute Minds Flote Archive

On this episode of Unsupervised Learning Razib discusses approaching politics through philosophy, political philosophy, and what it's like being an excessively online academic in 2022 with Oliver Traldi. Currently working on a book on understanding politics through a philosophical lens, Traldi explains the relevance of epistemology to the project, while Razib queries the role that deductive, abductive and inductive reasoning might play in political views. Both also consider that political orientation is just a form of tribalism, as made clear when individuals chart a wholesale shift in a cluster of “beliefs” on topics as diverse as abortion and trade within just a few years. Traldi and Razib also discuss ancient political philosophy and its relevance to the modern era, as well as John Rawls and Robert Nozick, the two political philosophers most prominent in late 20th-century America. Traldi also mentions that American academia has developed a recent interest in Chinese and Indian philosophy, both of which have extensive areas of focus on politics. They cap their discussion of politics by discussing the role of intellectual movements like libertarianism on mainstream political parties like the American Republicans. Finally, Razib discusses Traldi's experience of being a “very online” academic philosopher early in his career, and his contributions to various online publications, and how they relate to his scholarship.

On this edition of Parallax Views, Andrew Koppelman, award-winning John Paul Stevens Professor of Law at Northwestern University, joins us to discuss his new book Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed. We discuss libertarianism from a number of different angles and the ways in which Andrew argues it does not fulfill its promises related to freedom and the functioning of society. Among the topics covered: - The origins of libertarianism, the philosophy of Fredrich Hayek, centrally-planned economies, and The Road to Serfdom - Atlas Shrugged author Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick, and the influence of Murray Rothbard and "anarcho-capitalism" on the libertarian movement - An explanation of what Liberalism means within the context of political science/philosophy - The Koch Brothers and climate change - Rich and corporate moochers - Libertarianism in relation to debates about gay marriage and healthcare - Andrew's thoughts on Jacobin and the socialist Left; his disagreements with them - Illiberal liberalism and libertarianism - COVID and libertarianism; the argument that erupted between libertarians Lew Rockwell and Walter Block over COVID - Privatization of fire departments and the story of Gene Carrick's house burning down (where the book gets its title) - Is there possible points of agreement between centrist liberals, libertarians, and socialists? - Libertarianism and drug law/The War on Drugs - And much, much more!

durée : 00:58:12 - Les Chemins de la philosophie - par : Géraldine Mosna-Savoye - Quelle vie veut-on mener ? Une vie d'accomplissement personnel ou une vie d'accomplissement à travers les autres ? Quand on est libéral, comment ne pas sacrifier l'égalité ? Les libertariens auraient-ils les réponses... ?

Today we’re looking at Robert Nozick’s classic work of libertarian philosophy, Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Released in 1974, it’s the book that put libertarianism on the map within contemporary academic philosophy. Nozick argued for a strong conception of rights and then traced out what that means for government, including whether rights allow for any government at all. Anarchy, State, and Utopia deserves its classic status and is a genuine delight to read. But that doesn’t mean that its arguments are air tight or that it’s the best defense of libertarianism. To help me (re)assess Nozick’s book, I’m joined by professor Matthew McManus (@MattPolProf), author of The Rise of Post-Modern Conservatism: Neoliberalism, Post-Modern Culture, and Reactionary Politics, and Julian Sanchez, senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Whether you agree or disagree with Nozick’s arguments in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, is a terrifically fun book to discuss. ReImagining Liberty is a project of The UnPopulist, and is produced by Landry Ayres. Podcast art by Sergio R. M. Duarte. Join the ReImagining Liberty Discord community and book club. Music: Finding the Balance by Kevin MacLeod | Link | License

Subscribe to the show: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Google PodcastsWelcome to the very first bonus episode of (Re)Imagining Liberty. Today we're looking at Robert Nozick's classic work of libertarian philosophy, Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Released in 1974, it's the book that put libertarianism on the map within contemporary academic philosophy. Nozick argued for a strong conception of rights and then traced out what that means for government, including whether rights allow for any government at all. Anarchy, State, and Utopia deserves its classic status and is a genuine delight to read. But that doesn't mean that its arguments are air tight or that it's the best defense of libertarianism. To help me (re)assess Nozick's book, I'm joined by professor Matthew McManus (@MattPolProf), author of The Rise of Post-Modern Conservatism: Neoliberalism, Post-Modern Culture, and Reactionary Politics, and Julian Sanchez, senior fellow at the Cato Institute.Whether you agree or disagree with Nozick's arguments in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, is a terrifically fun book to discuss. Support the show and get every episode two weeks early, as well as access to the Discord community. Sign up here: https://www.reimaginingliberty.com/subscribeProduced by Landry Ayres. Podcast art by Sergio R. M. Duarte.Music: Finding the Balance by Kevin MacLeod | Link | License This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.reimaginingliberty.com/subscribe

Esoteric Eddie, author of The Lucifer Mystery Revealed, joins Luxa to talk about the history of the name of the Lightbringer as well as how it might have ended up in the bible, and how the context surrounding its conceptualization has shifted over time. Rachael from Fourth Dimension Fitness stops by for an episode within the episode to talk about how she's incorporating her work with Chaos Magick and The Green Mushroom project into her fitness practice. Also discussed is Robert Nozick's “Experience Machine” thought experiment, functionalism, and learning from failure. This episode also features a musical surprise, thematically appropriate poetry and lots more! Much Love. Thank you for listening to the Lux Occult Podcast! If you'd like to support the show by helping Luxa buy books and curtail other costs, as well as taking a bibliomancy break, consider giving on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/luxoccult We would love to hear from you! Please send your thoughts, questions, suggestions or arcane revelations to luxoccultpod@gmail.com or message on Instagram @luxoccultpod https://www.instagram.com/luxoccultpod/ Check out the Lux Occult YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCn8n4oQIH1uo08NhMvjjlB Esoteric Eddie's stuff: https://youtube.com/channel/UCrJ3NWs-P2O2_52K1okDA8w https://www.instagram.com/esotericeddie/ Rachael's stuff: https://www.instagram.com/_.rachael.elizabeth._/ https://www.fourthdimensionfitness.com/ For Full Show Notes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSt0ZAX_BANPUfDpRIS3ksQVEX0WmcP8Mf6KyyBRyP5SdQQhA4yMjFeJCMD8iJ6zbfEhy9VEMN1mFx_/pub

Would you willingly plug yourself into an experience-simulating machine such as The Matrix? What would happen to society if robots suddenly became conscious? What would you do if, for some reason, you encountered an utterly alien life form? Many of us first ponder big philosophical questions such as these through  exposure to science fiction stories  in books or movies. In episode 42, Ellie and David explore the power of sci-fi. After considering the origins of this genre, they interview Dr. Helen De Cruz, an expert on the philosophy of science fiction, about how our brains process sci-fi stories differently than other speculative narratives, including philosophical thought experiments!Works DiscussedHelen De Cruz, Johan De Smedt, and Eric Schwitzgebel, Philosophy Through Science Fiction Stories: Exploring the Boundaries of the PossibleJohan De Smedt and Helen De Cruz. "The Epistemic Value of Speculative Fiction"Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and SimulationThe Matrix Decoded: Le Nouvel Observateur Interview With Jean Baudrillard, 2004Ted Chiang, "Story of Your Life"Ursula K. Le Guin, The DispossessedUrsula K. Le Guin, The Left Hand of DarknessZhuangzi, The Inner ChaptersMary Shelley, FrankensteinPhilip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?The Matrix (film)Zenon, Girl of the Twenty-First Century (film) Arrival (film)Dune (film)I, Robot (film)Robert Nozick, “The Experience Machine"Ruth Garrett Millikan, “On Swampkinds"Website | overthinkpodcast.comInstagram & Twitter | @overthink_podEmail |  Dearoverthink@gmail.comYouTube | Overthink podcast