Mindblown: a blog about philosophy.

In reply to mlyoung57. Agree with you until the last paragraph. For one thing, I don’t think there’s any less of it than there used to be on the Right, but I would argue that the idea you’re describing as problematic has its source in…

In reply to Irfan Khawaja. Sure, yes. It makes sense that literal losers (those who have repeatedly lost in some competitive endeavor) be objects of something like contempt (and literal winners appropriate objects of adulation). This seems like a modul…

In reply to mlyoung57. That’s all part of Rousseau’s point, but his deeper point is both simpler and more fundamental. Ask yourself why the term “loser” is a term of derision and laughter: it’s because “losers” are automatically the objects of contempt…

If Rousseau is, in part, implicitly pointing out that the dominant norms and institutions of society (and hence you and me and especially the people that most benefit from them) can subtly victimize people (in ways not captured by rules governing speci…

My main work of 2022 has now been published in Reason Papers. KANT versus RAND: MUCH NO to WALSH and MILLER Click to access rp_431_5.pdf ~Kant’s Big Questions Are Not Rand’s ~Misdiagnoses of Kant’s Fundamental Errors ~The Springs of Form A Festschrift …

In reply to butimbeautiful. Rousseau is a complicated, mixed bag, but very much worth reading and engaging with. Ever since leaving academia, I’ve been taking online courses to fill the gaps in my education. I’d read Rousseau in college, bu…

I don’t know much about Rousseau other than that he was the noble savage guy. I think the winners and losers thing is more American than, say, Australian. The US tends to put the attainment of wealth and success on a pedestal; Australians are sus…