Tag Archives: The Philosopher Magazine

THE PHILOSOPHER MAGAZINE AUTUMN 2026 PREVIEW

​THE PHILOSOPHER MAGAZINE: This collection of essays explores diverse philosophical inquiries into culture, ethics, and human experience. Chloe Romanis uses ectogestation to evaluate the inherent value of pregnancy, while Jorge Sanchez-Perez addresses the methodological challenges of diversifying the philosophical canon through pre-colonial Andean philosophy. Laura Cecile Moore clarifies the boundaries between art and craft. Meena Dhanda advocates using Wittgensteinian reminders against injustice, and Grace Theodoly explores how psychological ideas challenge cognitive neutrality. Finally, Aanuoluwapo F. Sunday applies Yoruba environmental ethics, Tanya de Villiers-Botha maps artificial intelligence ethics, and Helga Varden navigates the complexities of transforming the Kantian tradition from within.

“Thinkers Into Hinkers? Do AI Companies Want Philosophy, or Just Its Compliance?”

An essay by H. Mustafa Akyol

The recent trend of AI companies hiring philosophers has largely been celebrated as a vindication for the discipline. The Economist recently reported that American philosophy graduates now find work at higher rates than their computer science peers, and that leading AI laboratories are recruiting philosophers into senior roles -– not merely to sharpen a model’s chains of reasoning, but to draft the documents, such as Google’s published ‘AI Principles’, that are meant to govern how a system behaves. Where criticism of this trend exists, it has tended to focus on familiar concerns: ethics washing, the risk of philosophy becoming a public-relations exercise, and the migration of talent away from universities that Luciano Floridi has called a ‘haemorrhaging’. These concerns are real. But they may be missing a further, less visible risk, one that has nothing to do with where a philosopher’s paycheck comes from.

“Money”

An Essay by Stefan Eich

There is an old paradox at the heart of money: it seems to work best when left unexamined. When monetary trust holds, we barely notice it and rarely pause to ask what money is or what stands behind it. The moment we do – in monetary crises and periods of inflation – the very act of questioning can accelerate the unraveling. Money has a peculiarly oblique self-referential structure. Monetary systems depend on routine acceptance, on habits of trust that operate beneath conscious reflection. But as we shall see, this does not mean the right response is naïve ignorance or unreflective depoliticisation. Quite the contrary: for money to work reliably as institutionalised collective faith, it must remain anchored in shared social values and that requires the capacity for reflective, democratic engagement with questions of monetary power, who controls credit and, therefore, which futures are allowed to become possible.

“Towards a Critical Theory of Finance”

An Essay by Paul North

I want to propose four ways to think about ‘finance,’ for those who want to critique it. Critics can think of finance as a parasite, as an organ, as an ongoing struggle, or as a decision. In what follows, I will explore these four different ways to think of finance, these different meanings, and the different possibilities they offer for mounting resistance to it.

Let’s divide talk about finance into two sides. Finance has meanings, but it also has a referent. Its referent is pretty evident to anyone who looks into it. Finance refers to economic functions that have to do with credit. The definition of credit is also pretty straightforward. Credit is value advanced on the promise of future increase. This makes it similar in structure to industrial capital, which is also value advanced on the promise of a future increase. The difference between capital and finance is production. Industrial capital receives its increase when value is invested in production. Say I am a capitalist. With my capital, however I obtained it, I found a company that produces microchips. As microchips roll off the line and are sold, the original value I advanced grows because workers work more than they are paid for and in the extra hours they make more microchips than I need in order to pay the costs.

THE PHILOSOPHER JOURNAL – SPRING 2026 PREVIEW

THE PHILOSOPHER JOURNAL: The latest issue features “Towards a Critical Theory of Finance

Hegel turned the world onto its head and Marx turned it back on its feet, and now finance is turning the world on its head again. In the early 19th century, Hegel proposed that human history was shaped by consciousness, by human spirit, by the head. Marx argued, in turn, that history was actually determined by practical social conditions, by the way people make their means of living, standing on their feet. It was capitalism that made it seem like heads, owners of industry and leaders of states and their apologists, intellectuals, made history happen, and not workers. The feet were the source of power while the heads claimed all the power for themselves. It is harder to believe this is true now. Industry does not matter much to finance, and labor even less. Finance packages up the productive economy to resell it according to its own rules. A few prescient people have been studying the way the new rules ruin living conditions, pervert political possibilities, and increasingly dominate the global order. Yet, there is still no field dedicated to theorising the ill effects of the newly upside-down world. We need, in short, a critical theory of finance.

​

In ‘Money,’ Stefan Eich exposes a paradox. Money needs everyone’s trust to operate, and yet economists and politicians claim that only they can decide on its uses. In ‘What is Monetary Policy,’ Leah Downey explains how the technocratic apparatus of policy prevents democratic decision-making. Melinda Cooper considers the challenge supposedly presented by Schumpeter’s view of the relation between family, capitalism, and democracy. Radhika Desai demonstrates a tradition in Marxist thought that already predicts financialisation and has a strong theory of it. Finally, Paul North briefly evaluates four very general positions from which to critique finance, as a preparation for a critical theory of finance.

​

Also in this issue, Peter West explores how Plato continues to speak to our present moment, with Angie Hobbs’ recent book offering a timely defence of dialogue against the rise of censorship, polarisation, and performative debate. Meanwhile, Marie Snyder reflects on The End Doesn’t Happen All at Once, a pandemic memoir in letters that traces how friendship, literature, and mutual care sustained lives through the disorientation and inequalities of Covid.

Kristie Miller puzzles over our preference for how our well-being is distributed over time; Alison Stone delves into Victorian philosophy as a distinct tradition in which women philosophers played a significant role; Matthew Sharpe makes the case for reclaiming Stoicism from the manosphere and the far right; Mary Peterson continues a conversation started in her 2024 article in The Philosopher, on restorative justice and sexual misconduct; and Adrian K. Yee asks what ethical issues are raised by the use of machine learning in counterterrorism.