I love humanities and philosophy in particular. I'm also a layman in both counts. Nevertheless, sometimes I wanna post some personal/informal essays on these subjects, but I have no idea if my fellow Tilderinos have any interest in those at all.

So here are as some subjects I have in mind, please tell if you're interested in of those or anything relatead:

• The Philosohy of Love
• Possibile World Semantics
• Philosophical zombies
• Albert Camus
• The Kyoto School
• The Paradox of Fiction
• The Paradox of Suspense
• Aristotle's Rhetoric
• Informal Logic
• John Austin
• Speech Acts
• Fallacies

The idea is not to make anything resemble a professional take of these subjects, but rather informal commentaries that might serve as starting points for interesting discussions.

Sadly, I don' have the knowledge or disposition to comment on subjects that are typically popular on Tildes, such as those more directedly related to computer science and artificial intelligence.

In terms of reference, I won't go much beyond the refereed links, which are reasonably exhaustive for the purposes of this project. The periodicity will be once every two months (counting starts tomorrow), with the first post that comes in next Septemper 16, 2020 (Monday). 60 days from now. Because of that, it wil be probably long form (no quarantees!).

This would come in addition to my project of going through each informal fallacies in the Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments, but I don't have any concrete plans for that now.

In any case, these things take time and effort, and I'll only then if and only if you guys and girls demonstrate interest. So please be vocal!

I'll choose the next subject of discussion base on public interest.

An interesting thought experiment that I vividly remember from undergrad philosophy courses is the trolley problem:

You see a runaway trolley moving toward five tied-up (or otherwise incapacitated) people lying on the main track. You are standing next to a lever that controls a switch. If you pull the lever, the trolley will be redirected onto a side track, and the five people on the main track will be saved. However, there is a single person lying on the side track. You have two options:

1. Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.
2. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

A variation of the problem that we were also presented with was:

You see a runaway trolley moving toward five tied-up (or otherwise incapacitated) people lying on the main track. You are standing on a bridge that runs across the trolley tracks. There is a large man on the bridge next to you, who if pushed over the bridge and onto the track, would safely stop the trolley, saving the five people but killing the large man. Do you:

1. Push the man over the bridge, saving the five people.
2. Allow the trolley to kill the five people

Which is the more ethical options? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?

... The very insistence on the one historical incarnation as a unique step in a course of events leading to the future Kingdom of God reveals the psychology of Western culture most clearly. It shows a mentality for which the present, real world is, in itself, joyless and barren, without value. The present can have value only in terms of meaning—if, like a word, it points to something beyond itself. This "beyond" which past and present events "mean" is the future. This the Western intellectual, as well as the literate common man, finds his life meaningless except in terms of a promising future. But the future is a "tomorrow which never comes", and for this reason Western culture has a "frantic" character. It is a desperate rush in pursuit of an ever-receding "meaning", because the promising future is precisely the famous carrot which the clever driver dangles before his donkey's nose from the end of his whip. Tragically enough, this frantic search for God, for the ideal life, in the future renders the course of history anything but a series of unique steps towards a goal. Its real result is to make history repeat itself faster and more furiously, confusing "progress" with increased agitation.

—Alan Watts, Myth and Ritual in Christianity. 1954