David Klier

Is respect something granted or something earned? What about self-respect, is that something granted or earned? Herein, I address the question of what respect is, what kind of respect is the most valuable, and how to gain it. I come to argue that the problem of respect is the distinction between what I call empathetic respect, and reverent respect. Empathetic respect is respect out of having a shared experience, and reverent respect is respect out of reverence for some accomplishment. The problem resides in confusing empathetic and reverent respect as the same. I also eventually come to argue that empathetic respect is granted for most things, but reverent respect is earned. Lastly, I argue that in terms of reverent respect, self-respect (also described as ‘reverent self-respect’) is the most valuable.

I am a multifaceted person, as I am sure you are as well. I love philosophy, obviously, but also computer science, programming and video games. I care about robotics, nature, my family and more. However, why is it that I particularly care about writing philosophy when it will most likely not convince anyone? Why care when my writing will most likely fall into obscurity, only to be forgotten in a deluge of other papers, essays, and works that will themselves fall into obscurity, only to also be forgotten? I propose that philosophy is intrinsically important because they are artistic expressions, and artistic expressions are intrinsically valuable explorations into the self. Therefore, philosophy is an intrinsically valuable exploration into the self.

(2023) Employees are commodities to the employer. The employer purchases commodities to maximize profitability. This brief reflection essay looks at a single passage from the “Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts” by Marx, Engels and Werke in discussion of what labor is and what it produces. This paper will interpret the passage and defend that interpretation as the case. Then it will look at a possible implication and suggest that it too is the case. This paper will come to argue that employees can never be happy with their work for an employer because commodities are not purchased with happiness of the commodity in mind or as a primary mission for the employer.

Skepticism has had a problem for a long time: it seems self-defeating. If I can’t trust something, can I trust that I can’t trust it? Pyrrho thought that “No one knows anything - and even that’s not certain.” [1] Or at least, that was Pyrrho’s answer to the “self-defeat objection.” Whether this is convincing or not, it has been known that throughout philosophical history, having a skeptical bone in your body is a good thing. From Socrates saying “the only thing I know is that I know nothing,” [3] to Voltaire saying “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” [4] While skepticism has been through the wringer, a new challenger emerges, Conciliationism. Conciliationism accepts that skeptical bone and suggests that maybe instead of throwing away any possible certainty, we should accept everything from good sources. This still faces a “self-defeat objection.” If someone of sufficient worth philosophically disagrees with conciliationism itself, would you not need to incorporate that into your beliefs? If you do, then wouldn’t your conciliatory views be eaten away by those who disagree with it? Proponents of the “self-defeat objection” certainly think so. Christensen, however, doesn’t [2]. In this brief essay, I will discuss Christensen’s view on the “self-defeat objection” to conciliationism. I will then discuss how this view is flawed and can be rectified with consideratism, a modification to conciliationsim, suggesting an “Occam's Razor” type answer to the “self-defeat objection” of conciliationism.

There are two major conflicting views that surround the debate of the reasons for love. The first being the quality view, where we love for one’s qualities, qualities that are specific to the beloved, or possibly generally likable traits. The other is the relationship view, whereby love is the result of sharing a loving relationship. In this essay, I will be looking at two modern amendments to these views, Yongming Han’s (2021) ‘Humean conception’ of love, and Sara Protasi’s (2016) ‘Experiential view.’ First I will introduce some fundamental concepts around the relationship and quality views. Next I will present Han’s and Protasi’s views charitably. Then, I will be analyzing and critiquing their views. Lastly I will present a synthesis of their work as an originally contributing argument to the discussion along with addressing some possible rebuttals.

Expert consensus is crucial for those who are not relevant experts in the field in which they are studying. However, for those who are a relevant expert in the field of a philosophic subject, there is a debate that asks if a minority view can ever be considered rational. Bryan Frances argues that if one is a relevant expert in a field, and is in the minority, their views must be irrational. In this essay I will be arguing that Frances' argument fails in terms of the 'explanation' way, leading to leery acceptance of the 'no-process' way. I argue that relevant expert consensus does not matter; it is evaluating the argument that one makes. First, I discuss the debate on whether a relevant expert can disregard consensus and what a relevant expert is. Secondly, I deconstruct Frances' view charitably. Third, I analyze the issues with Frances' argument. Lastly, I offer an alternative to evaluating a minority view amongst relevant experts.