Had another experience with those folks who say, “Oh, you train in martial arts? You must be a beast in bar fights!”

I take these chances to drop some knowledge on all present. So this time it was my coworkers at the water cooler. I explained the uses of Ki Aikido outside of aggressive night clubs, and when I brought up Kiatsu (a form of pressure point massage) it peaked the interest of a burly fellow who had back pain. The conversation became rather benign from there.

you have a justified true belief that this boogie is for real (and there may be an additional factor pertaining to this propositional attitude of yours).

View full call or article at Google Alert – Call for abstracts

I just realized we haven’t been properly introduced. Or rather, I realized in August that I hadn’t properly introduced myself to you, but then the semester started up again and I’ve been terribly busy. So, let me introduce myself: I am Bad Philosophy.

My name is a misnomer; hopefully, the philosophy that happens here isn’t bad. To the contrary, I hope it’s very good philosophy. Truth be told, I honestly couldn’t think of anything better to go by, so I decided to play on the idea of what’s traditionally considered “good” philosophy - that is, professional philosophy done by PhDs - being done on college campuses by tenured professors, versus what we’re doing here, which is basically just a blog by some rando.

Which brings up another point: I’m Jake, said rando, and I’m a graduate student in the philosophy department at West Chester University. This is my personal blog and it is in no way affiliated with or acting on behalf of West Chester University or the Department of Philosophy at West Chester University. The opinions contained herein are entirely my own.

The original idea was simply to do some philosophy online because I happen to like philosophy and because I can’t teach classes yet so why the hell not engage people some other way. I’ve put off divulging the original idea because it seems to be amorphous - sometimes I’m like, “Yeah, we’ll just do a bunch of philosophy and who cares if it’s good or bad” and sometimes I’m like, “No, absolutely not, I must be professional and engaging and super smart.” For the moment, I’m going with the original idea, though I reserve the right to change my mind.

I can, though, offer you some guiding principles I have when it comes to how I do philosophy.

We’re explorers, not adversaries. I do not necessarily care for the ascendancy of the adversarial method. I’d sooner say we’re adventurers of the human mind, exploring philosophical issues and “big questions” together. Doing so, we should remember, doesn’t mean we’re confined only to what is traditionally called “philosophy.” It’s my experience that we can find philosophical truths anywhere and everywhere, if we only take the time to look. This is why we should...

Read slowly. Anyone who has taken Philosophy 101 has probably been advised to read slowly. My last philosophy professor in undergrad once said to the class that it could take him up to 30 minutes just to construct one sentence. If philosophers are willing to put that much care and energy into what they’re writing then we ought to be careful when we read what they’ve written. And part of being careful means we need to...

Abandon all presuppositions. In order to objectively - insofar as objectivity is possibly - fully explore the questions we ask in philosophy, it is paramount that we make as few presuppositions as possible. In fact, it’s prudent not to presuppose that anything I say from here on out is even my personal belief or opinion. It may very well simply be an exploration of the issue precipitated, mitigated, or guided, by me and/or the train of thought...

...but that doesn’t mean that I or you or anyone else has to believe it, like it, care for it, or engage it. Unless it’s true - then you absolutely have a moral obligation to believe it.