Phi Beta Kappa's press releases.

In a recent paper, Nat Hansen and Zed Adams argue for an aesthetic discourse governing principle they call Hope. Inspired by the work of Stanley Cavell, they argue that when we ...

Discover the greatest rappers of all time, celebrating the iconic voices and lyrical prowess that have shaped hip-hop's rich history.

It took Duncan McCabe 10 months to make a 27-second digital art video.

Introduction A recent trend has teens and twenty somethings wearing band t-shirts of bands they don’t know. You can know that they don’t know the band because you can ask them: Are you a fan of AC/DC,...

It is ironic that the discipline of aesthetics, one of whose topics is beauty, has been treated as an ugly stepchild by analytic philosophy. Pressed to defend this neglect, one might complain that aesthetics in the analytic mode revolves around a limited menu of ideas, recirculating since the 18th century; and that writing about art is best left to critics, who can be no less theoretical than philosophers but are better equipped to interpret actual works of art; they also tend to write more elegant prose.

“There's no arguing about art" is manifestly false. Art is one of the best things to argue about. The question is why. In this public philosophy debate, Nick Riggle (University of San Diego), Nat Hansen (University of Reading), and Zed Adams (The New School) will face off on the question of why arguing about art matters. At stake are two very different conceptions of public life: a Millian liberal vision which encourages the appreciation of difference and an Emersonian perfectionist vision which aims to converge on a shared conception of the good.

Philosophers are noted for their exquisite parties—replete with red wine and raconteuring, Ferrero Rocher pyramids and reminiscences of Frank Ramsey. The tradition of the philosophical party goes back to Plato’s Symposium, with its eloquent speeches about love—an occasion recreated, more or less, at the reception of every philosophy colloquium.