15 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2016
    1. millenarian

      Not a key term within the discourse, so it's fine to use something like Wikipedia to get a simple understanding of the reference being made here (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenarianism)

    2. George Monbiot’s website here.

      It's worth thinking about who George Monbiot is. Does he gain anything by writing this article?

    3. We appear to accept the proposition that this utopian, millenarian faith describes a neutral force; a kind of biological law, like Darwin’s theory of evolution

      Sofa and Clive make a similar point here.

    4. the philosophy arose as a conscious attempt to reshape human life and shift the locus of power.

      Do we have any evidence that it is indeed a "conscious attempt"?

    5. It has played a major role in a remarkable variety of crises: the financial meltdown of 2007-8, the offshoring of wealth and power, of which the Panama Papers offer us merely a glimpse, the slow collapse of public health andeducation, resurgent child poverty, the epidemic of loneliness, the collapse of ecosystems, the rise of Donald Trump.

      Do we need convincing of neoliberalism's role in any of these "crises"?

  2. Aug 2016
  3. Mar 2016
    1. Richard Kearney is illuminating on this point in The Wake of Imagination, establishing a difference between the Modern and the Postmodern imaginations. Contemporary academia is "Modern" and values PRODUCTION, not pomo, with a PARODIC imagination.

    2. Reading my own words and concepts appearing as unattributed “received wisdom” identifies a brilliant follower clearly deserving high accolades, — or at least an A!

      But this says a lot about how the writer (or who they claim to represent) a) teaches, and b) assesses student writing. If students are set an essay question that could feasibly be answered by regurgitating a lecture then there's something wrong with the approach to teaching and learning

  4. Nov 2015
    1. he Nexus of Contracts Theory
    2. Milton Friedman

      See Milton Friedman defending the "morality" of profit-seeking here.

      In the second part of the video, the wonderful young man asking the questions brings up the case of the Ford Pinto.

      Image Description

    3. …A corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the business. He has direct responsibility to his employers. That responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society.”

      How much do we still sympathise with this perspective in 2015?

    4. a Kantian stance (categorical imperative)

      The Categorical Imperative

      Image Description

      Kant believed that as rational human beings we have certain duties. These duties are categorical: in other words they are absolute and unconditional – duties such as “You ought always to tell the truth” or “You ought never to kill anyone”. They apply whatever consequences might follow from obeying them. Kant thought morality was a system of Categorical Imperatives: commands to act in certain ways. This is one of the most distinctive aspects of his ethics. He contrasted categorical duties with hypothetical ones. A hypothetical duty is one such as “if you want to be respected, you ought to tell the truth” or “If you want to avoid going to prison, then you ought not to murder anyone”. Hypothetical duties tell you what you ought or ought not to do if you want to achieve or avoid a certain goal. He thought there was only one basic Categorical Imperative: “Act only on maxims which you can at the same time will to be universal laws”. ‘Will’ here means ‘rationally want’. In other words, the message of the Categorical Imperative is only act on a maxim you would rationally want to apply to everybody. This principle is known as the principle of universalizability.

      Source: Warburton, N. (2004) Philosophy, The Basics: Fourth Edition, London : Routledge