<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Philosophical Misadventures</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?feed=rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com</link>
	<description>The Thin Ice Of Reason</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2009 02:40:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Ayn Rand and the Virtue of Self-Delusion</title>
		<link>http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=168</link>
		<comments>http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=168#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2009 02:34:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Mathews</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bad Arguments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=168</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In <em>The Virtue of Selfishness</em> Ayn Rand sets out the basis for her Objectivist ethics. “An organism's life is its <em>standard of value</em>: that which furthers its life is the <em>good</em>, and that which threatens it is the <em>evil</em>.” The problem with this definition, of course, is that it runs headlong into the is/ought fallacy: we can't go from <em>descriptions</em> of the world to making <em>prescriptions</em> about how things should be done. Simply describing <em>facts</em> about the world does not give us <em>moral guidlines</em> for our behavior.<br/>
Rand, however, is aware of this problem, and provides a response to it ...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=168</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Heidegger and Nazism</title>
		<link>http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=122</link>
		<comments>http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=122#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2008 11:52:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Mathews</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=122</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[During the 1930s, the <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">impenetrable Teutonic obscurant</span> esteemed German philosopher Martin Heidegger was notoriously complicit with the Nazi regime. Debates have long been waged over just how deeply involved he was, and this topic is subject matter of the following BBC documentary. Focusing very little on Heidegger’s actual philosophy—other than to offer a few general observations—the documentary instead concentrates on detailing what is now known about his relationship with and true attitude toward Nazism. Covering his 1930s academic career under Hitlerism, campaigns against other academics (including his one-time mentor Husserl), the post-war rehabilitation provided by his former lover, Hannah Arendt, and featuring interviews with a number of prominent figures, it is a very interesting work that appears to remove any doubts about just how unequivocally Heidegger supported the Nazis ...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=122</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Aristotle and Caustic Projectile Defecation</title>
		<link>http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=46</link>
		<comments>http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=46#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Nov 2008 13:24:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Mathews</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=46</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Given the title of this post, you may be wondering what on earth this could possibly be about. Well, deep within the bowels (sorry!) of Aristotle’s œuvre lurks this fragrant little gem regarding the defensive capabilities of the bison.
<blockquote>It tosses up dust and scoops out the ground with its hooves, like the bull. Its skin is impervious to blows. Owing to the savour of its flesh it is sought for in the chase. When it is wounded it runs away, and stops only when thoroughly exhausted. It defends itself against an assailant by kicking and projecting its excrement to a distance of eight yards; this device it can easily adopt over and over again, and the excrement is so pungent that the hair of hunting-dogs is burnt off by it.</blockquote>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=46</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hume on Crooked Politics</title>
		<link>http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=14</link>
		<comments>http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=14#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:47:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Mathews</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bad Arguments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=14</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a passage in his essay ‘Of National Character’, David Hume offers this defence of political treachery:
<blockquote>Treachery is the usual concomitant of ignorance and barbarism; and if civilized nations ever embrace subtle and crooked politics, it is from an excess of refinement, which makes them disdain the plain direct path to power and glory...</blockquote>
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=14</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Philosophy = &#8216;love of wisdom&#8217; ?</title>
		<link>http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=45</link>
		<comments>http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=45#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Aug 2008 12:29:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Mathews</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bad Arguments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=45</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It is frequently noted (especially around here) that the original meaning of philosophy is <i>philos sophia</i>, 'love of wisdom', and that this definition greatly informed how the Greeks practiced the discipline in its earliest days. Therefore, it is sometimes claimed, philosophy today is defined by 'love of wisdom' and must pursue similar goals and proceed by similar means as it did in its earliest days...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=45</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>23</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Schopenhauer on Women</title>
		<link>http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=21</link>
		<comments>http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=21#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 04:08:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Mathews</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Sexism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=21</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Arthur Schopenhauer, acclaimed philosophical curmudgeon, was rumoured to be quite the ladies’ man. One wonders how, given the views espoused in the infamous essay <em>On Women</em>: 
<blockquote>
[N]ature has equipped women, as it has all its creatures, with the tools and weapons she needs for securing her existence, and at just the time she needs them; in doing which nature has acted with its usual economy. For just as the female ant loses it's wings after mating, since they are then superfluous, indeed harmful to the business of raising the family, so the woman usually loses her beauty after one or two childbeds, and probably for the same reason ...
</blockquote>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=21</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>33</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Plato on Atheism</title>
		<link>http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=44</link>
		<comments>http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=44#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:38:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Mathews</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Religion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=44</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Seeing as it was mentioned in the comments of the <a href="http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=41#comment-7686" title="Philosophical Misadventures, Locke on Atheism">Locke on Atheism</a> post, I might as well prolong the recent <em>prominent-philosopher-bashes-atheism</em> theme a while longer by looking at Plato's comments on the topic. At  the beginning of Book 10 of the <em>Laws</em>, Plato turns his attention to the state-imperilling problem of atheism.
<blockquote>...we have already said in general terms what shall be the punishment of sacrilege, whether fraudulent or violent, and now we have to determine what is to be the punishment of those who speak or act insolently toward the Gods...</blockquote>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=44</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Descartes on Atheism</title>
		<link>http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=42</link>
		<comments>http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=42#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 05:08:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Mathews</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=42</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As anyone with anything more than a passing acquaintance with early modern philosophy knows, Descartes rather famously enlisted the help of God to guarantee the validity of his perceptions (for God would not be so cruel as to deceive us). But did you ever consider what the consequences of this solution would be for <em>non-believers</em>? ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=42</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hate Traffic</title>
		<link>http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=43</link>
		<comments>http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=43#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:23:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Mathews</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bad Arguments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Race]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=43</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A curiosity in my webtraffic stats has brought something to my attention: a <a href="http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2008/03/30/what-the-greatest-philosophers-said-about-nigger-animals/" title="Warning: You Are Now Entering the a Domain Utterly Devoid of Balanced, Informed Debate"> recent post on a racialist hate site</a> has lifted the race-related comments of Hume, Hegel, Schopenhauer and Kant that I've collected here and posted them in a radically different context ... ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=43</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Locke on Atheism</title>
		<link>http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=41</link>
		<comments>http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=41#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:14:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Mathews</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=41</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Many people are aware of President George Bush (senior)’s <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/arguments.html#bush" title="George Bush snr, bigoted ass">notorious assertion</a> “I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.” It seems that the 41st president isn’t the only one who basic rights and dignities are not entirely universal. In <em>A Letter Concerning Toleration</em> (1689), John Locke places an important caveat on the bounds of religious toleration
 ...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=41</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
