Suggested readings, #16

Here are some interesting articles I’ve come across recently, for your consideration:

Pandora’s Vox: thousands of years ago, the ancient Greeks anticipated robots and artificial intelligence—and they didn’t trust them. (Foreign Policy)

In search of lost time: on the current role and future tasks of philosophy. (Eurozine)

Tainted by association: would you carve a roast with a knife that had been used in a murder? Why not? And what does this tell us about ethics? (Aeon)

The problem with HR: for 30 years, we’ve trusted human-resources departments to prevent and address workplace sexual harassment. How’s that working out? (The Atlantic)

Aristotle and the good ruler: what politicians can learn from Aristotle’s Politics. (Philosophy Now)

Advertisements

Published by

Massimo

Massimo is the K.D. Irani Professor of Philosophy at the City College of New York. He blogs at platofootnote.org and howtobeastoic.org. He is the author of How to Be a Stoic: Using Ancient Philosophy to Live a Modern Life.

3 thoughts on “Suggested readings, #16”

  1. The Foreign Policy piece seems overinterpretating. I do know classical Greece raised an eyebrow at robots; witness the myth of Hephaestos’ creation Talos. But to say kore or Pandora smiles show that?

    Aeon piece seems to make a different type of overjump. I get that it’s trying to move from bad people to bad things. But with people, the links aren’t necessarily chance; certainly not with the examples offered.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. What’s your take on that Eurozine, piece, Massimo?

    Contra Frodeman/Briggle, one need not look at the high tech of nanotech sensors swimming in the blood to ask questions of identity; one can look at the low-tech, and already-known, fecal bacteria, etc.

    Beyond their specific examples of applied philosophy, which I know is something they market, is the problem with academic philosophy as much a thing as the author indicates? And, to the degree it is a problem, while the author doesn’t place the blame entirely within academic philosophy, would you put it even as much there as he does?

    Like

  3. Socratic,

    not sure. I think there is a problem within academic philosophy, in terms of not being relevant enough and engaging in hair-splitting arguments to show how clever one is.

    Then again, I think a lot of science falls in a similar category. And science is far more expensive than philosophy…

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.