IDEAS
The Conversation
A judge has sided with the three news organizations President Donald Trump barred from the White House – for now.
Read article →
IDEAS
The Conversation
A decades-long insurgency in the Indonesian province ended after 2004’s devastating tsunami. But pro-independence talk is on the rise again.
Read article →
IDEAS
The Conversation
The 2026 guidelines recommend beginning screening as early as age 9, and incorporates more precise diagnostic tests.
Read article →
IDEAS
The Conversation
The US legal system often fails to provide counsel for millions of Americans in civil cases. Generic and law-specific AI models can help address this justice gap of unmet legal needs.
Read article →
IDEAS
The Conversation
A local historian combed through a 1967 collection of police incident reports from Philadelphia’s airport police that included detentions of soldiers and veterans.
Read article →
IDEAS
The Conversation
Students in this course learn about the biology and sociology of friendship, but also put their studies to the test by going to eat a meal with a peer, and tracking their experience.
Read article →
IDEAS
The Conversation
There are many barriers to reunification, but Irish American lobbying may move the needle a little.
Read article →
IDEAS
The Conversation
The forged document was used as leverage to try to expand papal control throughout the Italian peninsula.
Read article →
IDEAS
Aeon
The remarkable engineering and tragic demise of the vessel that would end Britain’s dream to dominate the skies- by Aeon VideoWatch on Aeon
Read article →
IDEAS
Aeon
Caring for this planet entails decisions that are intimate, about our farms, our homes, our human and our wild neighbours- by Craig MaierRead on Aeon
Read article →
About Ideas
What this page is for
Ideas covers philosophy, ethics, political theory and intellectual history: the arguments that sit underneath practical disputes rather than the disputes themselves. Questions about what a just distribution would be, what obligations people owe strangers, what makes an institution legitimate, and how knowledge is justified do not resolve on a news cycle and have been argued for millennia. Reading them is less about reaching a verdict than about seeing the shape of a disagreement clearly, which is frequently the thing missing from the practical argument it underlies.
Traditions, not just opinions
Philosophical positions come in families with internal logic, and knowing the family explains the position. Consequentialist reasoning judges an act by its outcomes. Deontological reasoning judges it against duties and rights that hold regardless of outcome. Virtue reasoning asks what a person of good character would do. Contractual approaches ask what rules people could reasonably agree to. Each produces different answers to the same case, and much apparently stubborn disagreement is two people applying different frameworks while assuming they share one.
Old arguments are not settled arguments
It is tempting to treat the history of ideas as a sequence of superseded errors, but the durable questions recur because they are genuinely hard rather than because earlier thinkers were careless. Arguments about liberty and equality, about the authority of the state, about what obligations the present owes the future, are alive because the considerations on each side are real. Reading an older text on its own terms, rather than as a rough draft of the present, is the whole skill this page is meant to reward.
Thought experiments and what they are for
Philosophy leans heavily on invented cases, and readers new to it often object that the scenarios are unrealistic. That is usually the point. A deliberately artificial case isolates one variable so that intuitions about it can be examined without the noise of a real situation, in the same way a laboratory strips out confounds. The test of such a case is not whether it could happen but whether the intuition it produces survives being applied consistently elsewhere. When a principle delivers an unacceptable answer in a strange case, that is genuine evidence against the principle rather than a trick.