* Nicolas Zaks, Plato's Classification of Change (PDF)
* Raphael, The Metaphysics of Plato's Political and Moral Philosophy, at "A Just Logos"
* James Read, Why philosophy of physics?, at "Aeon"
* Brian Niemeier, The Ring Is Not What You Think, at "Kairos Publications"
* Richard Yetter Chappell, Preference and Prevention: A New Paradox of Deontology (PDF). Having read this a few times, I'm inclined to think that most deontologists do not face this particular paradox; it seems to arise only if you assume a deontological theory of moral obligation with a consequentialist approach to preferential value. But most deontologists assume that we are obligated to re-align our preferences in such a way as to give priority to deontic principles ('respect for moral law' and the like); and I don't see that the paradox would arise on assumptions of preferences re-aligned in such a way. That is, the paradox is really due to the fact that if you are going to be deontological, you have to be consistently so. Nonetheless, this is an interesting argument even so, and perhaps there are subtler features to the argument that I'm not seeing.
* Patrick Flynn and Mike Schramm, I am, whether I think or not, at "The Journal of Absolute Truth"
* Mark A. Brewer, Regulatory Kinds: A Metaphysical Framework for Epistemically Stabilized Social Classification (PDF)
* Vanessa A. Seifert, Chemical causal relations across different levels of description (PDF)
* Robert Koons, Warranted Group Belief (PDF)
* Woarna, S4 is Inadequate as a Logic of Formal Provability, at "Lambda Continuum"
* Cameron Harwick, The University in the AI Era
* Fr. Cajetan Cuddy, OP, The Continuity Between the Prima pars and the Secunda pars of the Summa Theologiae, at "A Thomist"
* Conor Feehly, How Much Energy Does It Take to Think?, at "Quanta". As I've noted before, all the evidence is that, while our brains are energy hogs, almost all the energy goes to keeping the brain up and running, and the amount of energy it takes beyond that for the brain to do anything is so miniscule it is difficult to measure. It takes huge amounts of energy to have a brain, very little to use it. The 5%-beyond-resting-energy that they suggest here is very much on the higher side of what I've seen, and I would guess that this is really just the upper limit of what is consistent with well-established evidence. But even if we take the 5% value straight, it's something that only adds up over an extended period of time.
*Jennifer Egan, How Jane Austen Pulled It Off: On Emma, at "The Paris Review"
