Philosophers On Brexit - Daily Nous: Last week, a majority of voters in the United Kingdom supported Brexit, the proposal for Britain to leave the European Union. The referendum’s outcome was a surprise to many elites, journalists, and academics, and even some pro-Brexit voters are experiencing “bregret” (aka “regrexit”). A petition has been circulating to run a second referendum, but exercising that option has apparently been ruled out. The victory of the “Leave” campaign has been attributed to various factors, including xenophobia, lies by its proponents, voter ignorance (though see this), fear of a loss of “Britishness,” and economic resentment. It has already been blamed for eliminating $2 trillion dollars worth of value in global markets, and costing the UK $350 billion, which “transformed the country overnight from the fifth largest economy in the world to the sixth.” What should we make of this result, and of the processes and conditions that led to it? To help think about and discuss these matters we have invited a number of philosophers and political theorists to share some brief remarks. As with previous installments in the “Philosophers On” series, these contributions are not comprehensive statements, but rather focused thoughts on specific issues, meant to prompt further discussion, here and elsewhere. Contributing are: Rebecca Bamford (Quinnipiac University) — Pursuing the European Experiment while Addressing Disenfranchisement and Discrimination Jason Brennan (Georgetown University) — Brexit: A Bad Choice for a Referendum Sophie Grace Chappell (The Open University) —- Political Deliberation under Conditions of Deception: the Case of Brexit Helen De Cruz (Oxford Brookes University) — Being Friends with a Brexiter? Lisa Maria Herzog (Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main) — Saving an EU Worth Saving? Kristina Meshelski (California State Universty, Northridge) — No Way Out Martin O’Neill (University of York) — Brexit and Intergenerational Justice Regina Rini (New York University) — The Tragedy of Political Identity Eric Schliesser (University of Amsterdam) — Brexit: A Political Transformative Experience This particular edition of Philosophers On was suggested and put together by Helen De Cruz. My thanks to her, and to all of the other contributors, for participating in this discussion. The idea of the “Philosophers On” series is to explore the ways in which philosophers can add, with their characteristically insightful and careful modes of thinking, to public conversations about current events, as well..
Jerry Seinfeld: It's amazing that the amount of news that happens in the world every day always just exactly fits the newspaper.
Awareness is and should be an important part of life, but in the modern era, finding reliable and pertinent news information quickly, despite the myriad of sources, can be very difficult. In the 21st century , we now know there is no such thing as objective news, so the best one can do is seek for a kind of intersubjectivity that allows one to develop one's own subjectivity in the hope of fostering a kind of refined or cultivated objective perspective that appreciates from whence differing opinions came from. Marcus Aurelius said, "Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." This intersubjectivity can only be achieved via a plethora of news sources from a diversity of backgrounds and cultures. Unfortunately, that is very time consuming. I tend to check these services as I can: CNN International BBC World Service The Week The Economist NYTimes WSJ euronews Bloomberg FT The Guardian NPR Le Monde ...
Comments
Post a Comment