I sometimes post at The Philosophers’ Magazine blog. There’s a share button at the top of each page, which people can use to share posts by social media. It’s a live indicator of what interests people at the moment. The website gets gazillions of hits, but a popular post might get several hundred shares, most only get a handful. It would be good if someone could explain why a consideration of the existence of mathematical objects has been shared TWO AND A HALF THOUSAND TIMES.
You’ll see that a recent post by Rupert Read on lesbians and the fantasies of heterosexual men has been shared less than 300 times. Mathematical objects are of greater interest to the readers of tpm. I can’t tell if that’s disturbing or marginally satsifying.
Filed under philosophy, tpm
Here’s a recent paper I don’t think I mentioned here yet. It’s called “Climate Change and Moral Outrage”, and it appears in Human Ecology Review 17.2. You can read it here. It’s a little loud, but it argues for consistency in our thinking about state responses to climate change and our own, individual responses in the course of an ordinary human life. It’s another try at getting around the thought that one’s consequences are tiny, so why try to change one’s carbon footprint. It connects thoughts about large state emissions, which can seem obviously wrong, to individual emissions, which seem to make no difference. Secretly, it’s an attempt to think through the old thought that we should think globally and act locally. In the end, I don’t think it’s entirely persuasive, but it is one more thought to be added to others about action on climate change.