Almost all philosophers are giving out hints about their views on what philosophy is or frequently express their metaphilosophy explicitly. Uniquely amongst academic disciplines, philosophy has the tools to conceptualise itself and its methods. I’m not a particularly metaphilosophical philosopher but it seems that for a more complete analysis of Open Lifespan philosophy it’s better to develop the outlines of the metaphilosophy behind to stay on the exoteric side.
Here’s a quick metaphilosophy in a nutshell Continue reading “Daily Effort: The task of philosophy is thought experimenting with relevant possible worlds”
The main proposition of this study is to suggest that Open Lifespan/Open Life should be the central possible world and the default underlying anthropology behind moral and political philosophy. I think morality should be redefined by making the case for moral persons with open-ended lifespans. This Open Lifespan sub-study is being published in several subsequent posts, here are the ones already published.
Open Lifespan within the possible world framework
Open Life as the central possible world and default anthropology in moral philosophy
Open Life’s temporal value-pluralism enables neutrality towards different concepts of good life
Let’s see some high-level details concerning political philosophy, some of them already investigated and summarised here, some of them to be investigated further. Continue reading “Open Life as the central possible world and default anthropology in political philosophy”
This is my first, separate and somewhat rudimentary take on investigating a crucial moral and political problem in the context of Open Lifespan: value-pluralism and the different concepts of a good life. Hence, the concepts used and the argument developed are in their initial form and it may well be that the second, third … formulation will lead to different concepts and modify the argument. Continue reading “Open Life’s temporal value-pluralism enables neutrality towards different concepts of good life”
In Open Lifespan within the possible world framework I have worked out the possible world structure and angle am using to study the philosophy of longevity.
Today I’m trying to show you, by quickly annotating the earlier figures, the difference between thinking about Open Life from a philosophical and from a direct political point of view. If you are following this blog you might have noticed that I got fairly political recently (even given talks), and actively thinking about how to introduce and represent longevity within politics, also making some commitments along the way. So it is important to demonstrate here the difference between the two kinds of thinking.
Consider then the following 2 maps or universes of morally, politically, technologically relevant possible worlds. Continue reading “Difference between philosophical and political thinking expressed via possible world trajectories”
The main proposition of this study is to suggest that Open Lifespan/Open Life should be the default underlying anthropology behind moral and political philosophy. I think morality should be redefined by making the case for moral persons with open-ended lifespans. This study will be published in 5 subsequent posts, the first, mainly methodological post has been already published and showed how Open Life can be handled as a limiting possible world within the framework of morally relevant possible worlds. The second post here details the main proposition in the context of moral philosophy and the third, upcoming post details the proposition concerning political philosophy. The fourth post will mention some problems where assuming Closed Lifespan leads to preventable troubles in moral and political philosophy and the fifth post will raise constructive objections that help to further sharpen this Open Lifespan angle by posing further limits on it.
Next I provide details, descriptions, analytical elaborations, arguments mixing object with meta level in 6 different but connected points. Continue reading “Open Life as the central possible world and default anthropology in moral philosophy”
Studying and writing philosophy is many times a sole enterprise. Certainly for me, being outside of academical philosophy , working on the Open Lifespan study/book, and only in ‘stolen’ hours, feels like sandboxing myself. But this study really needs feedback from people, comments, discussion, proper philosophical debates, lots of pro, even more contra. 🙂 Lively debate is the best tool to make the argumentation tight.
This is an online blog, the format only available for what I’m doing concerning my current non-academic philosophical situation. In terms of comments blogs are anything but ideal these days (10 years ago it was different, my other blog had real commenters some of them turned out to be my friends and colleagues eventually), all comments up to date have been spam comments. But the great thing is that the content here has actual readers as the wordpress statistics plugin tells me on a daily basis. And I’d like to acknowledge here my readers and especially would like to thank some returning persistent readers by mentioning the city, region they are located in no particular order. Continue reading “Thanking Persistent Readers and encouraging them to be proactive”
This is my first separate take to apply the possible world methodology to Open Life. It is going to be informal and I try to avoid to use logical formulae to express the matter. The background study this section grew out from is arguing for the claim to make Open Life(span) as the default possible world in moral and political philosophy. We need this current preparation to elaborate some detailed points for the background theory later. And I will use possible worlds throughout the Open Lifespan book to elaborate on other problems as well.
Ever since I studied modal logic and got to know possible world semantics, Lewisian modal realism and the counterfactual structure of thought experiments in details as a philosophy undergrad, thinking on philosophical problems with the possible world toolset became a second instinct. Continue reading “Open Lifespan within the possible world framework”
Experimenting with a new format in this book blog: notes on philosophy texts I study. I’m reading almost all philosophy with a focus on Open Lifespan in the back of my mind and most of these materials will find their way into the study and book. Explaining the title: ‘Live’ means that am continuously updating these posts as am working through the material, so the date of the post won’t do justice with how it is actually made, never mind. ‘Live’ also means that most of the materials are coming from living philosophers, thereby enabling a chance encounter with them, facilitating communication and feedback that stays alive. ‘Extract’ means notes, making a solution containing the active, concentrated principles of the matter. The structure of a post: default text is my extracts or phrasings of what I read, sometimes direct quotes denoted with single quotes. ‘COMMENT’ means immediate question or actual comment when I read the text.
To be extracted: David Enoch: Against Utopianism: Noncompliance and Multiple Agents, Philosopher’s Imprint, 2018, VOLUME 18, NO. 16, PP. 1-20 Continue reading “Live Philosophy Extracts: David Enoch’s Against Utopianism”
The following is a concise introduction into the philosophy project of Open Lifespan. This week a I put together a research proposal to apply for a philosophy PhD program. The excerpt here is from the introductory project description section of that Research Proposal.
During the last 200 years life expectancy has doubled in developed countries, the global increase in life expectancy between 2000-15 was 5 years, out of which 4.6 years count as healthy longevity. Continue reading “Open Lifespan, a view between Closed Lifespan and sub specie aeternitatis”
In Celebrate World Philosophy Day: ideas of philosophers helping Open Lifespan I mentioned 5 living philosophers, whose writings I have used so far to develop further the philosophy of Open Lifespan. My selection of the writings I use is sometimes systematic, sometimes accidental but the intention behind evoking contemporary philosophers is to be able to actually engage them to contribute to and provide feedback to this study. Continue reading “Quick, inspiring comment from Jens Bartelson”