In this second episode of a three part series on PF Strawson's 1978 lecture Perception and Its Objects, I focus on Strawson's criticism of AJ Ayer's portrayal of the average adult human's process of perception. Through his criticism of Ayer's account, Strawson elaborates on the features of his own account - what he calls a real realism but what PF Snowden calls a relaxed realism. Can we divide our perceptual experiences into a division of raw data and theory? Strawson attempts to answer this question and comes to some Kantian conclusions.

in this first episode of a three part series, I will focus on PF Strawson's 1978 lecture written for the Royal Institute of Philosophy but never delivered 'Perception and Its Objects'. In this lecture, Strawson develops a theory of common sense realism and illustrates his idea of how the average adult perceives the world by contrasting his outlook with AJ Ayer and JL Mackie. In this episode, I mainly focus on AJ Ayers variety of empiricism and ramble on about that thing we do when we open our eyes and see the world and its objects in our visual range. Plus, the usual trivia and whatnot.

I'm trying some short episodes here and there along with the usual full length episodes. The aim is to allow me to digest interesting things that I read and hopefully you can get something out of it. Today, the topic is electromagnetic fields. Cognitive science has been looking for clues to understanding how the physical touches base with the mental in consciousness by looking at neurons. Often this method focuses on mapping the firing and wiring of neurons and the corresponding thoughts that correlate with specific firings. But, this approach always leaves us just short at the most important point: the gap between the mental and the physical. Instead of a neoronal code encrypted in the wiring of our brains, could consciousness be found in the brain’s electromagnetic field? Does consciousness reside in the brain's electromagnetic field?

In this last episode of a three part installment, I look at whether reflective equilibrium is stuck with the same problems of pragmatism - namely a favoring of our already held considered convictions. I say no it isn't and attempt to illustrate why by looking at the work of Canadian philosopher Kai Nielsen's work on wide reflective equilibrium. Reflective equilibrium when conducted widely enough can be quite emancipatory. It allows us to escape from our comfortable, long held beliefs to venture into new territory while still being tied to a rational framework. I end on examining a more pecculiar part of Nielsen's work - his idea that wide reflective equilibrium could allow us to theoretically have a dialogue with long lost figures of history. Care for a chat Genghis Khan? 

In the second episode of a three part series on reflective equilibrium, I look at the historical roots of this philosophical tool. Reflective equilibrium has its roots in the procedural liberalism that developed out of necessity as a means to peacefully resolve the Wars of Religion engulfing Europe in the 16th, 17th and early 18th centuries. Political structure began to emphasize procedural rules that enabled people to live together peacefully rather than substantive moral principles that appealed to some citizens but alienated others in increasingly diverse nations. Thus, the birth of liberal values such as the principles of religious toleration and principles of compromise. In this way, justice was to be found in the fairness of the procedures that led to the conclusions rather than the conclusions themselves. Reflective equilibrium finds its place amongst this history of procedural liberalism. This plus the usual trivia and diversions.