People do not exist as isolated, displaced figures, and we do not think of them as such. When we mentally represent people, we represent them in relation to other people and the world they live in. Therefore, we must take care not only in forming beliefs about particular people, but also in forming beliefs about those they are related to and the world in which they exist.

Dogwhistles are phrases which mean something seemingly unproblematic at face value, but can communicate a second, hidden meaning to certain audiences. Can people use dogwhistles to target those who don’t yet share their views?

If non-overlapping generations can cooperate with each other, can they engage in conflict with each other too?

…insofar as philosophers and theorists seek to claim that cultural diversity is conducive to problem solving and conflict resolution, they must also heed the ways in which securing these epistemic benefits threatens to erode the very fabric of cultural difference.

In the paper “Moral Luck” Bernard Williams makes the striking claim that the justifiability of an act can depend on its outcome […] I’m not so sure that Williams’ is wrong[.]

…shame arises from a sort of internal conflict - a tension between the person we are, and the person we aspire to be, often shaped by our identity and relationships.

Oftentimes, scholars treat interactional disruptions as undesirable and problematic… Nevertheless, just like a coin has two sides, disruptions can be purposeful and meaningful as well.

… narratives of ressentiment reveal something crucial about disinformation: its aim is not only to instill false beliefs, but to fuel a complex affective state that pulls persons away from reality.

Simply because two different disciplines are discussing the same subject does not mean that they will necessarily be able to bear on one another.

How are we supposed to evaluate the rationality of someone who is under deception?