Ben Gross
@bengrossbg.bsky.social
no way out but through
graphemes.substack.com
graphemes.substack.com
Started this “hidden gem” last night, pretty good!
October 24, 2025 at 3:06 PM
Started this “hidden gem” last night, pretty good!
Most mornings I have an apple juice with creatine and in my head I'm like "wow this is so healthy"
October 24, 2025 at 3:00 PM
Most mornings I have an apple juice with creatine and in my head I'm like "wow this is so healthy"
Rawls pile getting thick af
October 22, 2025 at 6:41 PM
Rawls pile getting thick af
Wow Donald Davidson rocks
October 21, 2025 at 7:42 PM
Wow Donald Davidson rocks
Richard Rorty was a 21st century philosopher stuck in the 20th century responding to the philosophy of the 19th century.
August 21, 2025 at 9:36 PM
Richard Rorty was a 21st century philosopher stuck in the 20th century responding to the philosophy of the 19th century.
Spending the past month or so in Southern California has helped me realize that Stephen Miller must truly be a psychopath (he grew up here) because the best thing about this place BY FAR is the Mexican food.
July 19, 2025 at 7:50 PM
Spending the past month or so in Southern California has helped me realize that Stephen Miller must truly be a psychopath (he grew up here) because the best thing about this place BY FAR is the Mexican food.
Rorty has to be the funniest American philosopher of all time, right?
July 19, 2025 at 7:37 PM
Rorty has to be the funniest American philosopher of all time, right?
Reposted by Ben Gross
‘Your priors too Bayesian’ has the juice
Will Stancil you have to stop. Your charts too tough. Your jean jacket too different. Your priors are too Bayesian. They’ll kill you
July 19, 2025 at 4:30 PM
‘Your priors too Bayesian’ has the juice
I am a proud owner of the issue of Philosophy and Public Affairs with Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” paper in it.
July 19, 2025 at 7:32 PM
I am a proud owner of the issue of Philosophy and Public Affairs with Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” paper in it.
Two awesome used bookstore finds:
July 19, 2025 at 7:27 PM
Two awesome used bookstore finds:
Wondering why conservatives keep blaming John Rawls for not understanding how birth works?
Looking for an intuitive explanation of the original position?
Check out my most recent substack post!
open.substack.com/pub/grapheme...
Looking for an intuitive explanation of the original position?
Check out my most recent substack post!
open.substack.com/pub/grapheme...
Erasing A Blank Slate
There's no liberal mass delusion, only a conservative lack of imagination.
open.substack.com
July 16, 2025 at 5:43 PM
Wondering why conservatives keep blaming John Rawls for not understanding how birth works?
Looking for an intuitive explanation of the original position?
Check out my most recent substack post!
open.substack.com/pub/grapheme...
Looking for an intuitive explanation of the original position?
Check out my most recent substack post!
open.substack.com/pub/grapheme...
Guess we’ve learned the answer!
July 15, 2025 at 7:49 PM
Guess we’ve learned the answer!
The thing about taxes is that they need to be way higher
July 15, 2025 at 7:30 PM
The thing about taxes is that they need to be way higher
They have a versions of Reese’s peanut butter cups which is a chocolate bar and good golly miss molly it is good
July 15, 2025 at 7:30 PM
They have a versions of Reese’s peanut butter cups which is a chocolate bar and good golly miss molly it is good
Reposted by Ben Gross
I’m finally reading a theory of justice, and frankly I don’t understand at this point why we’re not all rawlsian. Seems he cracked the nut no
July 8, 2025 at 1:50 AM
I’m finally reading a theory of justice, and frankly I don’t understand at this point why we’re not all rawlsian. Seems he cracked the nut no
Kant argues that if we’re not to loathe the human race, we must believe it’s our natural end to morally progress; and further, that like progress towards “aerostatic balloons,” repeated failure to reach our end doesn’t justify abandoning hope—only demonstrated impossibility does.
July 9, 2025 at 9:34 AM
Kant argues that if we’re not to loathe the human race, we must believe it’s our natural end to morally progress; and further, that like progress towards “aerostatic balloons,” repeated failure to reach our end doesn’t justify abandoning hope—only demonstrated impossibility does.
Rawls argues that your place in the natural distribution of talents is *morally arbitrary,* so justice should be assessed from the *point of view* of the original position, where you imagine not to know who you’ll be.
It’s not about the literal possibility of being someone else!
It’s not about the literal possibility of being someone else!
July 8, 2025 at 4:41 PM
Rawls argues that your place in the natural distribution of talents is *morally arbitrary,* so justice should be assessed from the *point of view* of the original position, where you imagine not to know who you’ll be.
It’s not about the literal possibility of being someone else!
It’s not about the literal possibility of being someone else!
I’ve been reading Kant…
July 7, 2025 at 1:08 AM
I’ve been reading Kant…
Kant asks: “What is enlightenment?” But he never asks, “how is enlightenment?”
:(
:(
July 6, 2025 at 10:06 PM
Kant asks: “What is enlightenment?” But he never asks, “how is enlightenment?”
:(
:(
Alexander Hamilton was the first “read theory” bro
July 6, 2025 at 1:41 AM
Alexander Hamilton was the first “read theory” bro
From feminist economist Nancy Folbre:
“Individuals who devote relatively little time, energy, or labor to child rearing are essentially free riding on parental labor. In the fiscal sense, at least, children are public goods.”
“Individuals who devote relatively little time, energy, or labor to child rearing are essentially free riding on parental labor. In the fiscal sense, at least, children are public goods.”
July 6, 2025 at 1:41 AM
From feminist economist Nancy Folbre:
“Individuals who devote relatively little time, energy, or labor to child rearing are essentially free riding on parental labor. In the fiscal sense, at least, children are public goods.”
“Individuals who devote relatively little time, energy, or labor to child rearing are essentially free riding on parental labor. In the fiscal sense, at least, children are public goods.”
Whenever I read Kant I find myself muttering “hm!” and “hm?” and occasionally “hrrrm…” a lot. Much more than any other philosopher. What accounts for that?
July 6, 2025 at 1:41 AM
Whenever I read Kant I find myself muttering “hm!” and “hm?” and occasionally “hrrrm…” a lot. Much more than any other philosopher. What accounts for that?
There is nothing more satisfying to a fascist than to use the mechanisms of efficient, impersonal bureaucratic state machinery (which they, of course, will claim to loathe—until the rule over it) inward on society, to enact swift, efficient, impersonal violence on their targets.
July 1, 2025 at 10:10 PM
There is nothing more satisfying to a fascist than to use the mechanisms of efficient, impersonal bureaucratic state machinery (which they, of course, will claim to loathe—until the rule over it) inward on society, to enact swift, efficient, impersonal violence on their targets.