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”
Hey mathematicians or just all-around math-savvy people, I have an offer for you: I pay 50 GBP for the best suggestion that is using a mathematical concept that captures indefinitely long Open Lifespan in a way that gives me an a-ha moment so I can incorporate it into my philosophical treatment of the topic.
You have until 17th of December, 2018 to come up with suggestions that can be rewarded. Continue reading “50 GBP reward for the best mathematical analogy of indefinitely long, open lifespan!”
When I started to study philosophy at the ELTE University in Budapest my first social/intellectual action was to compile a list of classical, modern and contemporary writings about the philosophy of time and then look for other undergrads being interested to seminarise these works. Think about Aristotle’s Physics IV. 10-14, St. Augustine’s Book XI of the Confessions and … the wonderful essay collection on The Philosophy of Time edited by Poidevin/McBeath. Eventually I think it was too nerdy an offering even amongst philosophy students but I stuck with studying these writings a lot. To me studying the philosophy of time was a huge part of my personal motivation as after studying aging in the years before as a biology student I realised I have a problem understanding what is this ‘time thing’ with respect to biological aging is defined, what are we measuring here …
Philosophy of time and analysis of temporality by conceptual means is a great field and Elisabeth F. Cohen, Associate Professor of Political Science at Syracuse University, managed to open a new chapter within this field by writing The Political Value of Time, that was published this very year by Cambridge University Press and I was lucky enough to see it amongst the new offerins at the CUP Bookshop.
I studied this book repeatedly this year, here’s a photo on my annotated copy.
Cohen’s analytical starting point is the tendency to ignore durational time in politics by the social sciences. Hence, most of the study is focusing on the temporal aspects of establishing sovereignty, mostly assumed hidden behind spatial boundaries and then how temporalities like schedules, waiting periods, deadlines are constitutive in the procedures of modern democracies. The main, deliberate subset of examples (‘temporal formulae’) are the age of maturity delimiting children from full citizenship, the probationary period needed for the naturalisation of non-citizens and prison sentences. Continue reading “How Open Lifespan changes the political value of time; reading Elizabeth F. Cohen”
I’m pleased to announce that the first draft of my book in progress, called Open Lifespan, is available under a separate page, Open Lifespan: Book Draft. Let’s say it’s version v0.1, ~24,000 words.
What I’ve done so far here is to compile together the existing posts forming the backbone of the book and figure out a larger structure in terms of bigger domains covered. Right now these domains are the following: Continue reading “Open Lifespan Book Draft: building the Life Star, one argument a time”
Have you ever wondered how many of us, still breathing, are closer to our death than to our birth already based on our chronological age & average life expectancy? How many of us can wake up every day knowing most of the time ‘allocated’ is gone?
I’m running a poll on Twitter to get a very rough estimation to figure out this ratio. My way of approaching this is to ask you to calculate this quantity (being closer to one’s death/birth) for yourself and the answer the binary poll so we can get to a a first rough estimation.
All you need to do to participate (assuming you have a Twitter account) is to go here Continue reading “How many of us are closer to our death than to our birth?”