This paper argues that mansplaining is not just a conversational quirk but a mechanism of gender construction that reinforces systemic oppression. Drawing on the frameworks of silencing, epistemic injustice, and gender metaphysics, I come to the main thesis that mansplaining is one way gender is constructed, reinforcing hierarchical power structures and perpetuating societal inequality. As I further demonstrate, mansplaining functions as a form of epistemic violence that silences women and subordinates them within testimonial exchanges.
Many claim the philosophy of Stoicism is useful for goal achievement, suggesting it is conducive to productivity and success. However, classical Stoicism is directly opposed to goal-achievement mentalities. While Stoicism focuses primarily on developing a certain standard of moral character regardless of external circumstances, this modern goal-orientation focuses exclusively on external achievements, most often toward financial ends. Thus, I distinguish the two as Stoicism in the former and $toicism in the latter. I discuss key differences in how the two views approach goal achievement, revealing that modern $toicism is not a revival but a misrepresentation of classical Stoicism.
The potentially philosophically problematic aspects of modern technology have been the subject of much discourse in recent times. The new kinds of incorporeal online spaces that are available to engage with have untold consequences on the formation of subjectivity. When phenomenological arguments about the nature of being are considered, the way that we display ourselves online becomes in need of exploration. This paper hypothesizes an exploration of what new relations toward the world have arisen through our relation to the sublime in technology. To this end, we must examine how deeply the feeling of the sublime in technology has affected subjectivity and intelligence.
Hegemony, as popularized by Antonio Gramsci, has earned great importance in Marxist debates over the conquest of power. Unsurprisingly, this has also led to a renewed exploration of its origins in the writings of Vladimir Lenin, Georgi Plekhanov, and even Karl Kautsky as argued by the historian Lars Lih. This paper examines that history by returning to their original writings and contemporary analysis by Grigory Zinoviev. In doing so, I demonstrate a fundamental break between the original "strategy" of hegemony found in earlier theorists and Lenin’s "theory" of hegemony as elaborated upon by Gramsci.
When examining Aristotle’s works, it is difficult to properly explain his account of substance, and even more so to understand what things can be considered as natural substances. Typically, artifacts have been believed not to be natural substances, since they lack a certain autonomy living organisms have. However, this argument may not be fully adequate depending on how “artifact” and “organism” are understood. I argue that due to advances in the autonomy of Artificial Intelligence, a reinterpretation of the distinction between artifacts and natural substances could be warranted.
