Category: English

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Alexander T. Englert, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, University of Richmond

What makes a life virtuous? The answer might seem simple: virtuous actions – actions that align with morality.

But life is more than doing. Frequently, we just think. We observe and spectate; meditate and contemplate. Life often unfolds in our heads.

As a philosopher, I specialize in the Enlightenment thinker Immanuel Kant, who had volumes – literally – to say about virtuous actions. What I find fascinating, however, is that Kant also believed people can think virtuously, and should.

To do so, he identified three simple rules, listed and explained in his 1790 book, “Critique of the Power of Judgment,” namely: Think for yourself. Think in the position of everyone else. And, finally, think in harmony with yourself.

If followed, he thought a “sensus communis,” or “communal sense,” could result, improving mutual understanding by helping people appreciate how their ideas relate to others’ ideas.

Given our current world, with its “post-truth” culture and isolated echo chambers, I believe Kant’s lessons in virtuous thinking offer important tools today.

Rule 1: Think for yourself

Thinking can be both active and passive. We can choose where to direct our attention and use reason to solve problems or consider why things happen. Still, we cannot completely control our stream of thought; feelings and ideas bubble up from influences outside our control.

One kind of passive thinking is letting others think for us. Such passive thinking, Kant thought, was not good for anybody. When we accept someone else’s argument without a second thought, it is like handing them the wheel to think for us. But thoughts lie at the foundation of who we are and what we do, thus we should beware of abdicating control.

Kant had a word for handing over the wheel: “heteronomy,” or surrendering freedom to another authority.

For him, virtue depended on the opposite: “autonomy,” or the ability to determine our own principles of action.

The same principle holds true for thinking, Kant wrote. We have an obligation to take responsibility for our own thinking and to check its overarching validity and soundness.

In Kant’s day, he was especially concerned about superstition, since it provides consoling, oversimplified answers to life’s problems.

Today, superstition is still widespread. But many new, pernicious forms of trying to control thought now proliferate, thanks to generative artificial intelligence and the amount of time we spend online. The rise of deepfakes, the use of ChatGPT for creative tasks, and information ecosystems that block out opposing views are but a few examples.

Kant’s Rule 1 tells us to approach content and opinions cautiously. Healthy skepticism provides a buffer and leaves room for reflection. In short, active or autonomous thinking protects people from those who seek to think for them.

Rule 2: Think in the position of everyone else

Pride often tempts us to believe that we have everything figured out.

Rule 2 checks this pride. Kant recommends what philosophers call “epistemic humility,” or humility about our own knowledge.

Stepping outside our own beliefs isn’t just about opening up new perspectives. It’s also the bedrock of science, which seeks shared agreement about what is and is not true.

Suppose you’re in a meeting and a consensus is taking shape. Strong personalities and a quorum support it, but you remain unsure.

At this point, Rule 2 does not recommend that you adopt the view of the others. Quite the opposite, in fact. If you simply accept the group’s conclusion without further thought, you’d be breaking Rule 1: Think for yourself.

Instead, Rule 2 prescribes temporarily detaching yourself from even your own way of thinking, especially your own biases. It’s an opportunity to “think in the position of everyone else.” What would a fair and discerning thinker make of this situation?

Kant believed that, while difficult, a standpoint can be achieved in which biases all but vanish. We might notice things that we missed before. But this requires appreciating our own limitations and seeking a wider, more universal view.

Again, Kant’s idea of virtue depends on autonomy, so Rule 2 isn’t about letting others think for us. To be responsible for how we shape the world, we must take responsibility for our own thinking, since everything flows from that point outward.

But it emphasizes the “communal” part of the “sensus communis,” reminding us that it must be possible to share what is true.

Rule 3: Think in harmony with yourself

The final rule, Kant maintained, is both the most difficult and profound. He said that it was the task of becoming “einstimmig,” literally “of one voice” with ourselves. He also uses a related term, “konsequent” – coherent – to express the same idea.

To clarify, a metaphor that Kant employed can help – namely, carpentry.

Constructing a building is complex. The blueprint must be sound, the building materials must be high quality, and craftsmanship matters. If the nails are hammered sloppily or steps performed out of order, then the edifice might collapse.

Rule 3 tells us to construct our abode of thought with the same care as when constructing a house, such that stability between the parts results. Each thought, belief and intention is a building block. To be “einstimmig” or “bündig” – to be in “harmony” – these building blocks should fit well together and support each other.

Imagine a colleague who you believe has impeccable taste. You trust his opinions. But one day, he shares his secret obsession with death metal music – a genre you dislike.

A disharmony in thought might result. Your reaction to his love of death metal reveals a further belief: Your belief that only people with disturbed taste could love something you perceive to be so grating to the spirit. But he seems, otherwise, like such a thoughtful and pleasant person!

Rather than immediately change your belief about him, Kant’s third rule commands you to investigate the world and your own thoughts further. Perhaps you have never listened to death metal with a discerning spirit. Maybe your original beliefs about your colleague were inaccurate. Or could it be that having good taste is more complex than you originally thought?

Rule 3 leads us to do a system check of our mental architecture, whether we’re considering music, politics, morality or religion. And if that architecture is stable, Kant thinks that rewards will follow.

Sure, harmony is satisfying; but that’s not all. A sturdy system of thought might equip us better for integrated, creative thinking. When I understand how things connect, my own control over them can improve. For example, insight about human psychology will open up new ways to think about morality, and vice versa.

But ultimately, Kant found harmony important because it supports the construction of a coherent “worldview.” The English language gained that term through the translation of a German word, “Weltanschauung,” which Kant coined and which has been a focus of my own work. At its most basic, a harmonious worldview allows us to feel more at home in the world: We gain a sense of how it hangs together, and see it as imbued with meaning.

How we think ultimately determines how we live. If we have a stable abode of thought, we take that stability into everything we do and have some shelter from life’s storms.

Alexander T. Englert does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Building a stable ‘abode of thought’: Kant’s rules for virtuous thinking – https://theconversation.com/building-a-stable-abode-of-thought-kants-rules-for-virtuous-thinking-263597

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Peter A. Joy, Professor of law, Washington University in St. Louis

Soon after President Donald Trump demanded in a social media post that the Department of Justice prosecute his perceived enemy, former FBI director James Comey, Comey was indicted on Sept. 25, 2025, for lying to a Congressional committee in 2020.

Comey’s lawyers have responded, filing a motion on Oct. 20, 2025, to dismiss the charges against him with prejudice – the “prejudice” being legal jargon for barring a refiling of the charges. Comey’s lawyers allege that the Justice Department’s prosecution is both selective and vindictive.

Despite the existence of a long string of Trump attacks specifically urging that Comey be prosecuted, getting the case dismissed as a prosecution that is selective, vindictive or both will require Comey to overcome a very strong presumption that the charging decision was lawful.

Selective prosecution

For a court to find that there is a selective prosecution, Comey has two hurdles.

First, he has to demonstrate that he was singled out for prosecution for something others have done without being prosecuted.

Second, Comey will have to prove that the government discriminated against him for his constitutionally protected speech of criticizing Trump.

Clearing both of these hurdles seems unlikely. Others, including former Trump fixer Michael Cohen and former Reagan administration Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, have been prosecuted for the same type of crimes – allegedly making false statements to Congress or unlawfully seeking to influence or obstruct a Senate investigation.

Vindictive prosecution

Due to Trump’s repeated statements and social media posts that Comey should be charged, proving a vindictive prosecution may be easier.

Indeed, the motion to dismiss starts by laying out the argument for a vindictive prosecution, signaling that Comey’s lawyers think this is the stronger argument by leading with it.

Still, if Comey’s lawyers are to convince the judge, they will have to overcome a heavy burden that the prosecution has exceeded the broad discretion of the prosecutor.

The legal standard requires a court to first find that the prosecutor had animus, hostility, toward Comey, and second, that the charges would not have been brought if there was no animus.

The motion to dismiss based on vindictive prosecution makes a very strong showing of animus, relying on Trump’s several statements and social media posts that Comey should be prosecuted and that Comey was a “Dirty Cop” and “a total SLIMEBALL!”

Further evidence involves the fact that no other prosecutor other than Trump’s former personal lawyer, Lindsey Halligan, would seek charges against Comey.

Still, the grand jury found probable cause for the two charges against Comey and issued the indictment. The government will likely argue that demonstrates that the charges could have been brought even if there was animus.

Fallback position

Comey’s lawyers are leaning heavily on arguments for a dismissal of the charges with prejudice, but they also have a fallback position.

If the judge determines that they have not proved a selective or vindictive prosecution, they are asking for the opportunity to obtain discovery – the record – of the government’s decision to seek charges from the grand jury, and a hearing on their motion to dismiss the indictment.

Given Trump’s public statements and social media posts, and the legal authority on this issue, as a longtime practitioner and teacher of criminal law, I believe the judge is very likely to choose this course of action.

No matter how the trial judge rules on the motion to dismiss, the losing side is certain to appeal. No matter how the federal appeals court rules, the losing side is likely to seek Supreme Court review. Whether the court would take such a case is impossible to predict with any certainty.

Peter A. Joy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. James Comey’s lawyers face an uphill battle to prove selective or vindictive prosecution in his high-profile case – https://theconversation.com/james-comeys-lawyers-face-an-uphill-battle-to-prove-selective-or-vindictive-prosecution-in-his-high-profile-case-267956

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Ruohao Zhang, Assistant Professor of Agricultural Economics, Penn State

When the U.S. government shut down in late 2018, it furloughed nearly 600 Environmental Protection Agency pollution inspectors for more than a month. Those workers had to stop their work of monitoring and inspecting industrial sites for pollution, and stopped enforcing environmental-protection laws, including the Clean Air Act.

My colleagues and I analyzed six years’ worth of air quality levels, emissions measurements, power production data and weather reports for more than 200 coal-fired power plants around the country. We found that the coal plants’ operators appeared to take advantage of the lapse in enforcement of environmental regulations.

As soon as the shutdown began, coal-fired power plants started producing about 15% to 20% more particle pollution. And as soon as the government reopened and inspections resumed, pollution levels dropped.

Particulate matter is dangerous

The longest federal government shutdown in U.S. history up until that time began on Dec. 22, 2018, and lasted until Jan. 25, 2019. During that period, about 95% of EPA employees were furloughed, including nearly all the agency’s pollution inspectors, who keep track of whether industrial sites like coal-fired power plants follow rules meant to limit air pollution.

Among those rules are strict limits on a type of pollution called particulate matter, which is sometimes called PM2.5 and PM10. These microscopic particles are smaller than the width of a human hair. When inhaled, they can travel deep into the lungs and even get into the bloodstream. Even short-term exposure to particulates increases the risk of asthma, heart disease and premature death.

To determine whether coal-fired power plants continued to obey the rules even when environmental inspectors were furloughed and not watching, we examined data on emissions of more than 200 coal-fired power plants across the country. We looked at satellite data from NASA that provides a reliable indicator of particulate pollution in the atmosphere. We also looked at the amounts of several types of chemicals recorded directly from smokestacks and sent to the EPA.

We looked at each plant’s daily emissions before, during and after the 2018-2019 shutdown, and compared them with the plants’ emissions on the same calendar days in the five previous years, when EPA inspectors were not furloughed.

Pollution rose and fell with the shutdown

We found that as soon as the EPA furlough began in 2018, particulate emissions within 1.8 miles (3 kilometers) around the coal-fired power plants rose, according to the NASA data.

The data indicated that, on average, particulate matter during the 2018 and 2019 shutdown was 15% to 20% higher than it had been during the same period in the preceding five years.

And once the EPA inspectors returned to work, the plants’ average particulate pollution dropped back to its pre-shutdown level.

We also found that two other common air pollutants from coal-fired power plants, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, did not increase during the furlough period. Those gases, unlike particulate matter, are continuously monitored by sensors inside coal plants’ smokestacks, even when the federal government is not operating. Particulate emissions, however, are not continuously monitored: Enforcement of those emissions standards relies on the manual collection of samples from monitors and on-site inspections, both of which halted during the shutdown.

The pattern was clear: When the EPA stopped watching, coal plants increased pollution. And once inspections resumed, emissions dropped back to normal.

Considering various explanations

To confirm that the increase in particulate pollution during the shutdown was due to the lack of inspections and not because of some other factors such as weather fluctuations, we tested a range of alternative explanations and found that they did not fit the data we had collected.

For example, weather records showed that wind, humidity and temperature at and around the coal plants during the shutdown were all within the same ranges as they had been over the previous five years. So the increased particulate pollution during the shutdown was not due to different weather conditions.

Electricity demand – how much power the plants were generating – was also typical, and did not increase significantly during the shutdown. That means the coal plants weren’t polluting more just because they were being asked to produce more electricity.

Our analysis also revealed that the coal plants didn’t shift which particular boilers were operating to less efficient ones that would have produced more particulates. So the increase in pollution during the shutdown wasn’t due to just using different equipment to generate electricity.

The emissions data we collected also included carbon dioxide emissions, which gave us insight into what the coal plants were burning. With similar weather conditions and amounts of electricity generated, different types of coal emit different amounts of carbon dioxide. So if we had found carbon dioxide emissions changed, it could have signaled that the plants had changed to burning another type of coal, which could emit more particulate matter – but we did not. This showed us that the increase in particulate emissions was not from changing the specific types of coal being burned to generate electricity.

All of these tests helped us determine that the spike in particulate matter pollution was unique to the 2018–2019 EPA furlough.

Spewing particulate matter

All of this analysis led us to one final question: Was it, in fact, possible for coal-fired power plants to quickly increase – and then decrease – the amount of particulate matter they emit? The answer is yes. Emissions-control technology does indeed allow that to happen.

Power plants control their particulate emissions with a device called an electrostatic precipitator, which uses static electricity to collect particles from smoke and exhaust before it exits the smokestack. Those devices use electricity to run, which costs money, even for a power plant. Turning them off when the plants are being monitored risks incurring heavy fines. But when oversight disappeared, the power plants could save money by turning those devices off or reducing their operation, with less risk of being caught and fined.

Our findings indicate that air pollution regulations are only as effective as their enforcement, which had already been decreasing before the 2018 shutdown. Between 2007 and 2018, EPA’s enforcement staff declined by more than 20%, and the number of inspections dropped by one-third.

Since the new administration took office in January 2025, EPA staffing has been reduced significantly. We found that without strong and continuous monitoring and enforcement, environmental laws risk becoming hollow promises.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Coal plants emitted more pollution during the last government shutdown, while regulators were furloughed – https://theconversation.com/coal-plants-emitted-more-pollution-during-the-last-government-shutdown-while-regulators-were-furloughed-267696

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Lewis Faulk, Associate Professor of Public Administration and Policy, American University

About one-third of U.S. nonprofit service providers experienced a disruption in their government funding in the first half of 2025.

That’s what we found when we teamed up with Urban Institute researchers to collect nationally representative survey data from 2,737 nonprofits across the country.

These organizations run food pantries, deliver job training and offer mental health services. They provide independent living assistance, disaster relief and emergency shelter, among other services.

Our team found that 21% lost a grant or contract, 27% faced delays or funding freezes and 6% were hit with stop-work orders. Some of the nonprofits had experienced more than one of these funding problems, which affected nonprofits of all kinds. But they were especially disruptive to larger ones that employ more people and provide key services, such as large social service agencies, food banks and organizations serving people enrolled in Medicaid.

These findings came from the most recent Nonprofit Trends and Impacts survey, which we conducted from April to June 2025 with colleagues at the Urban Institute, including Laura Tomasko, Hannah Martin, Katie Fallon and Elizabeth T. Boris. They follow findings from a prior survey that the project fielded between October 2024 and January 2025.

When funding dries up, nonprofits tend to shrink and scale back their services. About 21% of those hit by funding cuts in the first half of 2025 were already serving fewer people by the time they completed the survey in April, May and June 2025, and 29% had reduced their staff. Many of these nonprofit leaders also told us they expect to have to lay off more of their employees by the end of 2025.

Nonprofits had already been facing financial pressure.

In the prior round of the survey that our team conducted in the fall of 2024, more than half of nonprofit leaders said they were worried about their organization’s finances. Many of them said they had received less money through donations and were facing tougher competition when they applied for grants, largely due to a tougher economic climate and the end of federal funding that had been disbursed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Why it matters

Nonprofits often partner with the government to deliver essential services. This government support is vital – it makes up about 20% of the revenue that most nonprofits rely on. What’s more, government funding provided more than half of total revenue for about 1 in 5 service-oriented nonprofits in 2023, which is the most recent data available.

That same year, about 2 in 3 nonprofits received at least one federal, state or local government grant or contract.

Government funding made up 42% of total revenue for service-providing nonprofits that experienced government funding disruptions in our 2025 survey. The rest of their funding came from donations, foundation grants and service fees.

Nonprofits get less than half of their total revenue from foundations and individual donations, and total government funding for nonprofits amounts to around three times total foundation funding. That makes it unlikely that philanthropy will replace the government funding that’s being lost.

What still isn’t known

Nonprofits from California to Florida are seeing their funding withheld, and the government shutdown that began Oct. 1, 2025, is compounding the effects of the Trump administration’s longer-term spending cuts. The full extent of the impacts of these federal disruptions on nonprofits’ budgets won’t be known until 2026 or later.

In addition, our survey doesn’t include the leaders of very small nonprofits, or several kinds of nonprofits – including hospitals, colleges, universities, churches and foundations.

What’s next

Our upcoming Nonprofit Trends and Impacts surveys in early 2026 will convey more of the effects of government funding cuts on nonprofits’ budgets and programs.

A more complete picture will not be possible until the Internal Revenue Service publishes data that it collects from the 990 form that most charitable nonprofits must file on an annual basis. Historically, The IRS has taken years to release comprehensive nonprofit financial data, requiring additional research beyond the 990 form.

Lewis Faulk is a Non-Resident Fellow of the Urban Institute. He received funding from the Fidelity Charitable Catalyst Fund and the Barr Foundation to support the research discussed in this article.

Mirae Kim is a Non-Resident Fellow of the Urban Institute. She received funding from the Fidelity Charitable Catalyst Fund and the Barr Foundation to support the research discussed in this article. She is affiliated with the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA) as a non-paid, at-large board member.

– ref. 1 in 3 US nonprofits that serve communities lost government funding in early 2025 – https://theconversation.com/1-in-3-us-nonprofits-that-serve-communities-lost-government-funding-in-early-2025-267795

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Tom McDonough, Professor of Art History, Binghamton University, State University of New York

A large-scale exhibition of surrealism that first opened in Paris in 2024 will have its sole American iteration, “Dreamworld: Surrealism at 100,” at the Philadelphia Art Museum from Nov. 8, 2025, through Feb. 16, 2026.

In everyday speech, people use “surreal” to refer to anything unbelievable, fantastic, bizarre.

“I found myself in the surreal position of explaining who I am …”

“In the middle of the story, things turned surreal.”

“It was a completely surreal situation!”

As an art historian and critic who has closely studied 20th-century avant-garde movements, I find it remarkable that a word that originated in the arcane jargon of Paris’ modern art circles a century ago has become so familiar. From the cafes and studios of the 1920s, the term has traveled into common parlance – touching a shared nerve for the strangeness and absurdity of modern life.

But surrealism, the movement that coined the term and took it up as its moniker, was about more than ostentatious strangeness. If you think only of Salvador Dalí’s limp watches swarming with ants, or his extravagant moustaches and even more extravagant (mis)behavior, you are missing the better part of what continues to make surrealism one of the most compelling art movements of the 20th century – and the lessons it still holds today.

Melding dream and reality

Surrealism was founded by a group of young Parisian artists, mostly writers, who gathered around the charismatic figure of poet André Breton.

During World War I, Breton had treated front-line soldiers suffering from what was then termed “shell shock” and today we understand as PTSD. This experience opened him to altered mental states and introduced him to new ideas from the Viennese psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud about the structure of the human mind.

In states of psychosis, but also in daily occurrences such as dreams and slips of the tongue, Freud saw glimpses of an uncharted region of the psyche, the unconscious. Why, Breton asked, shouldn’t life, and art, take these aspects of human experience into account? Shouldn’t the portion of existence spent dreaming also be recognized as having value?

In a manifesto published in 1924, Breton called for “the future resolution of these two states, dream and reality, which are seemingly so contradictory, into a kind of absolute reality, a surreality, if one may so speak.”

Politics of revolution

Freud had coined the term “dreamwork” to describe the activity that transformed residues of the day’s memories into vehicles for the expression of our unconscious desires.

For the surrealists, too, dreaming was no simple realm of idle fantasy. They understood the synthesis of sleeping and waking life as promising a liberation no less sweeping than that of the revolutionary workers’ movement of their time.

Overcoming the contradiction between dream and reality, they believed, would complement the class struggle between the global proletariat and its bourgeois oppressors. Surrealism was much more than a merely artistic project – it was also a means toward a larger political end.

From a century’s distance, these may appear grandiose, even delusional claims. But 1924, the year of surrealism’s founding, was only seven years after the Russian Revolution. The surrealists wagered on the power of both the revolution of modern art and poetry and the political transformation of society.

“‘Transform the world,’ Marx said; ‘change life,’ [French poet Arthur] Rimbaud said. These two watchwords are one for us,” Breton said, speaking to a group of writers in Paris. In other words, the uncompromising project of remaking social existence would not be complete without the artistic reimagining of the human psyche, and vice versa.

But by 1935, when Breton pronounced this succinct formulation, the surrealists’ gamble on revolution had already effectively been lost. With Joseph Stalin’s purges underway in Moscow and Adolf Hitler consolidating power in Germany, the window for radical change that had seemed to open in the years after World War I was definitively closing.

Soon, the surrealists would find themselves dispersed into exile by a new global conflict. All that remained was for the museums and libraries to collect the relics of that heady ideal and to preserve the artworks and ephemera that registered surrealism’s brief quest to unleash the forces of the unconscious in the name of a new, freer world.

Surrealism’s unfinished business

The surrealists aimed to seduce their audiences. That seduction was not undertaken to sell their paintings, or even to provide their audiences a moment’s respite from harried lives. It was done in the name of subversion. They wished – through artworks, films and books – to shatter people’s complacency and move them to change their lives, and the world.

The artwork wasn’t a mere window through which to look onto a distant “dreamworld.” It was more like a revolving door one was invited to walk through. Breton and his colleagues desired a world in which individuals could live poetry, not just read it.

Surrealist works of art, even as they hang peaceably on the museum’s walls or sit quietly on library shelves, retain at least residues of that power.

In my view, the best recent writing on the movement manages to recapture that urgency, that allure, for our own time. These include translator and author Mark Polizzotti’s 2024 book “Why Surrealism Matters” and art historian Abigail Susik’s 2021 volume “Surrealist Sabotage.”

The centenary of surrealism is a reminder of the movement’s unfinished business of revolutionary seduction. After all, as Breton reminded his readers at the close of his 1924 manifesto, life is not bound to the realities of the world as currently given.

“Existence,” he insisted, “is elsewhere.”

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, or sign up for our Philadelphia newsletter on Substack.

Tom McDonough does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Surrealism is better known for its strangeness than the radical politics and revolutionary ambitions of its creators – https://theconversation.com/surrealism-is-better-known-for-its-strangeness-than-the-radical-politics-and-revolutionary-ambitions-of-its-creators-264961