Philosophy

The Steel-Man Principle

Let me begin with a claim that will sound counterintuitive to anyone trained in modern debate culture: if you want to win an argument, you should make your opponent’s position as strong as possible before you attempt to refute it.

This is not a rhetorical flourish. This is the foundation of serious intellectual work.

The Straw-Man Epidemic

Contemporary discourse is dominated by what logicians call “straw-manning”: the practice of replacing your opponent’s actual argument with a weaker, more easily defeated version. You see this everywhere. A nuanced position on immigration policy becomes “they want open borders.” A complex critique of capitalism becomes “they want everyone to be equally poor.” A careful argument about free speech becomes “they want to ban all disagreement.”

What Phenomenology Teaches Politics

Phenomenology – the philosophical method I practiced and contributed to – is sometimes described as abstract, technical, and disconnected from practical concerns. I would like to correct this misconception by demonstrating that phenomenology offers something that politics desperately needs and almost entirely lacks: a rigorous method for understanding experience before deciding what to do about it.

The political sphere operates, overwhelmingly, at the level of action. What policy should we implement? What legislation should we pass? What position should we take? These are questions about doing.

What AI Cannot Know

The question of whether artificial intelligence can think is asked frequently and answered badly. It is answered badly because the participants in the debate have not agreed on what they mean by “think,” and in the absence of that agreement, the conversation devolves into competing intuitions rather than competing arguments.

I would like to try something more disciplined. I want to examine what it means to know something – not merely to produce a correct output, but to understand why the output is correct – and then ask whether current AI systems do that, or anything resembling it.

The Phenomenology of Empathy

We speak of “putting ourselves in someone else’s shoes” as if empathy were a simple act of imaginative substitution. As if, by imagining what we would feel in their circumstances, we could access their experience.

This is not empathy. This is projection.

The phenomenological question is more precise: How do we access the lived experience of another consciousness without either collapsing the distance between us or rendering that experience inaccessible?

The False Dilemma Factory

You are presented, in the course of any given week, with dozens of false dilemmas. Security or privacy. Growth or sustainability. Tradition or progress. Open borders or closed borders. Regulation or innovation.

Each of these is constructed to suggest that you must choose one and abandon the other. Each is a lie.

I do not use that word carelessly. A false dilemma is not a simplification. It is a logical error, and when it is deployed deliberately – as it almost always is in political discourse – it is a form of manipulation. The person presenting the dilemma is not trying to help you think. They are trying to prevent you from thinking, by eliminating from your consideration every option except the two they have preselected.

Why Your Hot Take Is Not an Argument

A thing happened in the world yesterday. Within minutes, thousands of people had opinions about it. Within hours, those opinions had hardened into positions. Within a day, the positions had calcified into identities, and anyone who questioned them was treated not as a fellow thinker but as an enemy.

No one, in this entire process, made an argument.

I want to be specific about what I mean by “argument,” because the word has been so thoroughly degraded by popular usage that many people believe they are making one when they are doing nothing of the kind.

The Long Read in an Age of Scrolling

I am going to make an argument for long reading, and I am going to make it at length, because the argument cannot be made otherwise without contradicting itself.

The premise is straightforward: understanding complex ideas requires sustained attention, and sustained attention requires time, and the current information environment is systematically hostile to both. The consequence is not merely a decline in reading habits. It is a decline in the capacity for the kind of thought that reading enables – the slow, cumulative, self-revising engagement with an argument that is too complex to be apprehended in a summary.

The Emperor Sent Fifty Philosophers

The emperor sent fifty philosophers to defeat me in debate. I want to be precise about what this means, because the story has been softened over the centuries into something almost quaint – a legend, a miracle, a set piece in which the plucky underdog triumphs.

It was not quaint. It was a trial. The emperor assembled the most credentialed, most respected intellectual authorities available and deployed them against a young woman whose crime was thinking in public. The purpose was not dialogue. The purpose was humiliation, and through humiliation, silence.

The Steel-Man Obligation

There is a practice in modern public discourse that I find not merely unpersuasive but intellectually dishonest, and it is so widespread that most people no longer recognize it as a failure. It is the habit of engaging with the weakest version of an opposing argument rather than the strongest.

The name for this failure is the straw man. The remedy is what philosophers call the steel man: the deliberate construction of the most powerful, most coherent version of a position you disagree with, so that when you refute it, you have actually refuted something worth refuting.

On the Duty to Think Slowly

I would like to make a case for slowness. Not the slowness of indifference or the slowness of obstruction, but the deliberate, chosen slowness of a mind that refuses to be rushed past the point where understanding becomes possible.

This is, I am aware, an unfashionable position. The dominant culture rewards speed of response, certainty of opinion, and the appearance of having already thought through whatever has just happened. The person who says “I need to think about this” is perceived not as rigorous but as behind.