Institute of Philosophy and Technology

Institute of Philosophy and Technology Exploring the intersections of Philosophy and Technology through dialogue, research, and reflection

The institute is an independent, non-profit and non-governmental organisation

Of all the groups we blame, the corporation is the one built on purpose: charts, roles, written procedures. If anything ...
16/07/2026

Of all the groups we blame, the corporation is the one built on purpose: charts, roles, written procedures. If anything is going to count as a group that acts on its own, this is where to look.
And the same structure reads two ways. One side sees it producing decisions that belong to the corporation itself. The other sees an arrangement of people that you could, given time, list out completely. The case does not settle which.

We say the company did it, the government did it, and nobody asks what we mean until someone does. Then the blame comes ...
14/07/2026

We say the company did it, the government did it, and nobody asks what we mean until someone does. Then the blame comes apart in our hands. No single person did the whole thing, and some of the people we are blaming did nothing at all.
So either the group is shorthand for the individuals inside it, or it is something that shorthand cannot reach. The question is whether "they" ever names a real doer.

There is a clean account of what makes a choice your own: you endorse the want that moves you, and that endorsement make...
09/07/2026

There is a clean account of what makes a choice your own: you endorse the want that moves you, and that endorsement makes it self-rule. It works until you ask where the endorsement came from. If someone installed it in you, you can stand behind your desires, find no objection, and still be governed by them rather than by yourself. Philosophers have tried to repair this by looking at how a choice formed over time. The fix raises its own questions. Does the history of a desire make it yours?

We treat an uncoerced choice as settled. You weighed it, no one pushed you, so it stands. But the absence of someone els...
07/07/2026

We treat an uncoerced choice as settled. You weighed it, no one pushed you, so it stands. But the absence of someone else pulling the strings is not the same as governing yourself, and the difference is hard to see from the outside. A decision can be yours in the sense that nobody else made it, and still not be self-rule. What would a choice have to be for it to count as fully your own?

Imagine a pill that removes resentment. You take it, the anger toward the person who wronged you is gone, and you still ...
02/07/2026

Imagine a pill that removes resentment. You take it, the anger toward the person who wronged you is gone, and you still believe the act was wrong. From the outside it looks like forgiveness.
Whether it is forgiveness splits the philosophers. One side says forgiving has to be done for a reason, so the pill is a fake. The other says forgiving is just resentment easing off, by any route at all, so the pill is as good as time. Would you call the pill forgiveness?

We treat forgiving as a decision: you let go, and the rest follows. But resentment does not switch off on command. You c...
30/06/2026

We treat forgiving as a decision: you let go, and the rest follows. But resentment does not switch off on command. You can decide to forgive, mean it, and find the anger still there the next morning.
So either forgiveness is something other than a decision, or it is not fully ours to give on demand. If you cannot simply will it, what is actually happening when you forgive?

When a public moraliser is caught doing the thing he condemned, the judgment is quick: he has no standing to blame anyon...
25/06/2026

When a public moraliser is caught doing the thing he condemned, the judgment is quick: he has no standing to blame anyone for it. We rarely ask what that judgment rests on.
There are two answers, and they don't coincide. Maybe he exempted himself from a rule he held others to, and so denied that everyone is equally bound. Maybe he simply never took the norm seriously to begin with. Both explain this case. They part ways on what standing actually is. So which is it?

The hypocrite criticises you for a fault he shares, and the reply writes itself: who are you to talk. It feels like a co...
23/06/2026

The hypocrite criticises you for a fault he shares, and the reply writes itself: who are you to talk. It feels like a complete answer. But it leaves the criticism itself standing. He may be entirely right about what you did.
So the dismissal is doing something stranger than denial. It sets aside a true accusation because of who is making it. When you tell a hypocrite he has no right to blame you, what exactly are you refusing, and could anyone ever have the standing you are demanding?

A surgeon could save five dying patients by taking the organs of one healthy person who happens to be a match. Count the...
11/06/2026

A surgeon could save five dying patients by taking the organs of one healthy person who happens to be a match. Count the lives and the answer is clean. Five outweigh one, and it is not close. Almost no one accepts it.
The interesting part is what the refusal does. The intuition does not yield to the calculation, and it does not dissolve when you restate the arithmetic more slowly. It rejects the whole framework that produced the verdict, and the theory is what ends up being treated as refuted.
What it cannot do is explain itself. We are certain the surgeon must not proceed and cannot name the principle the trade breaks. What grounds a refusal that beats every argument but gives no account of its own?

A moral judgment usually arrives before the reasoning does. You know something is wrong first, and the reasons come afte...
09/06/2026

A moral judgment usually arrives before the reasoning does. You know something is wrong first, and the reasons come afterward, more like things you reach for than the actual ground of the verdict.
Philosophy takes these judgments seriously enough to let them overrule whole theories. A felt verdict with nothing visibly behind it is treated as a fixed point that an argument has to answer to. But an intuition cannot be checked against any independent source the way ordinary evidence can, and two careful people can simply disagree with no way to settle it.
What entitles a conviction that cannot justify itself to override an argument that can?

Address

Καραΐσκου 123
Piraeus
18535

Telephone

+302109816297

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Institute of Philosophy and Technology posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category