What This Is About – And More Importantly, What It Is Not
⚠️ DON’T PANIC
This is satire.
That does not mean it is a joke – quite the opposite.
The topics here are far too important to be wrapped in that cotton-wool academic prose which glides through peer-review processes without anyone waking up, reconsidering, or so much as raising an eyebrow. That tone carefully calibrated to ensure no one feels challenged – and therefore no one examines their worldview.
Satire here is a tool of honesty. It says what academic tone is not permitted to say: that some positions are not merely wrong, but absurd. That criticism may sting if it is to land. That politeness which spares nonsense is no virtue.
The claim to truth is serious. The tone sometimes is not. This is not a contradiction. It is the only way to be heard.
This site contains philosophy. Please have your towel ready.
You will not find the Answer 42 here, nor the Question that goes with it – though we suspect it has something to do with epistemology. If you are looking for Schrödinger’s cat: we have decided not to check.
What you will find is philosophy in the tradition of critical rationalism. This is a position which holds that reality exists, that we can find out things about it, and that the best way of doing so is neither revelation, nor intuition, nor academic authority, but criticism. Sharp, honest, relentless criticism. Including of oneself.
Not the sort of philosophy where everyone has their own truth and all perspectives are equally valid and therefore equally irrelevant. Rather, the sort where some claims are wrong, and one is permitted to say so.
The texts take arguments seriously – sometimes rather more seriously than their authors might have wished. They do not take nonsense seriously, even when it appears in peer-reviewed journals. And they are occasionally satirical, because some positions are so absurd that sober analysis alone would fail to do justice to their comedic potential.
It is recommended to keep a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster within reach while reading. The side effects – sudden clarity, loss of cherished illusions, spontaneous demand for evidence – are easier to bear that way.
If you find all this arrogant, you are welcome to disagree. That is, after all, what criticism is for.
Legal Matters (Of a Sort)
At this point, one would normally expect an imprint, perhaps a privacy policy, possibly a disclaimer noting that the views expressed are solely those of the author and not those of his employer, his cat, or the International Society for Critical Rationalism. Instead, what follows is a liability disclaimer. Not because the law requires one – philosophy, as far as anyone knows, remains an unregulated activity – but because experience has shown it to be necessary.
General Disclaimer in Accordance with the Principles of Philosophical Due Diligence
The content presented on this website is predominantly philosophical, occasionally polemical, but primarily satirical in nature. The author advocates a position of critical rationalism in the tradition of Karl Popper—which, despite Popper spending most of his career at the London School of Economics, remains surprisingly unpopular in British philosophy departments. One suspects the weather.
It is expressly noted that the reception of such argumentation has, in the past, occasionally led to undesirable side effects, including: cognitive confusion of moderate to severe degree, migraines, nausea, spontaneous questioning of previously self-evident assumptions, and in at least one documented case, temporary Tourette’s syndrome. A senior lecturer at Oxford reportedly muttered “Bloody hell, he’s got a point” during a faculty meeting, which was considered wholly out of character.
We assume that these symptoms were in each case only temporary in nature. However, to establish this with scientific certainty, a controlled longitudinal study would be required. A corresponding application was first submitted to the relevant ethics committee on March 14, 1953. According to the last communication from the authority (as of 1987), the matter remains “under review”; a decision is “not to be expected in the near future.” The committee has since moved offices twice and lost the paperwork once, but assures us the file is “in the system somewhere.”
No liability whatsoever is accepted for any damages—be they material, immaterial, psychological, metaphysical, or ontological in nature—that may arise or may have arisen from reading, skimming, quoting, or even merely glancing at the texts published here. This expressly includes, but is not limited to: loss of earnings, therapy costs, shattered certainties, the irreversible loss of idealistic, dualistic, or otherwise reality-detached worldviews, the sudden onset of a naturalistic worldview, the inability to ever take substance dualism seriously again, an inexplicable aversion to the phrase “I think, therefore I am,” and the urgent desire to acquire the complete works of Karl Popper, Bertrand Russell, or—in severe cases—Mario Bunge.
Entry to this site is at your own risk and responsibility. Any claims for compensation are to be addressed in writing to the aforementioned ethics committee. We recommend recorded delivery; regular post has proven unreliable.
Recommended Countermeasures in Cases of Acute Philosophical Exposure
Should you, after reading this site, notice one or more of the following symptoms—including: doubts about the existence of immaterial substances, discomfort at the word “qualia,” a spontaneous allergy to the phrase “Well, it’s all relative, isn’t it,” the sudden urge to ask for empirical evidence in discussions, or an uncontrollable eye-twitch whenever someone mentions “ways of knowing”—we recommend the following immediate measures:
Remain calm. The loss of a dualistic worldview is not a medical emergency, even if it may initially feel like one. The NHS does not currently recognise “ontological crisis” as a condition, though a petition is pending.
Fresh air. Leave the screen. Go outside. The physical world does in fact exist and is remarkably independent of whether anyone is observing it. Yes, even in London.
Hydration. A cup of tea. Or, depending on the severity of symptoms, a proper drink. In cases of acute Hegelianism: single malt. In cases of exposure to French postmodernism: the entire bottle.
Distraction through light reading. Reach for a text that makes no truth claims. IKEA assembly instructions work well. Horoscopes too, provided you don’t take them seriously. (If you do take horoscopes seriously, you have bigger problems than this blog can cause, and we recommend starting with a basic logic textbook.)
Conversation with non-philosophers. Talk to someone who has never heard of Popper, Wittgenstein, or the Gettier problem. The normalcy of other people has a stabilising effect. However, avoid steering the conversation toward epistemology. Also avoid pub quiz nights; the temptation to argue about what counts as “knowledge” is too great.
Confrontation therapy (for advanced cases only). Deliberately read a passage from Heidegger’s Being and Time. In the original German if possible. The resulting cognitive resistance may reset the system. Caution: This method is not without risk and should only be undertaken under supervision. Side effects may include the temporary belief that you understand what “Dasein” means.
Acceptance. Should the symptoms persist for longer than 72 hours, there is a possibility that they are not side effects but insights. In that case: Welcome. There is no going back, but the view is better. Also, you’ll never be bored at dinner parties again—though you may stop being invited to them.
For persistent complaints, consult an epistemologist you trust. Visits to transcendental philosophers are not recommended. Under no circumstances contact a “life coach.”
Contact (At Your Own Risk)
Should you wish to complain – about the content of this site, the disappearance of Schrödinger’s cat, the incompleteness of arithmetic, or the general unfairness of a universe that refuses to provide ultimate foundations – you are most welcome to do so. Criticism is not merely tolerated here; it is the point. If you can show me I am wrong, you have done me a favour. I shall correct the error and thank you – probably in that order. However: those who criticise should expect to be criticised in return. This is not a threat; it is the principle. If you are looking for agreement, you have come to the wrong place. I cannot promise to reply to every message. Some responses may take the form of a blog post. If you would prefer this not to happen, please say so explicitly. I cannot guarantee I will comply – but I shall try, provided your message does not strike me as too instructive an example of a common fallacy to pass up. Ways to get in touch:
Email: philosophie-delor [at] proton [dot] me Comment section beneath blog posts (requires a GitHub account – yes, even philosophy now requires version control)
Starting Points: Publications · About · Blog