Mini Philosophy (Extra): When red flags aren't red flags

Featuring exclusive audio on the philosophy of love

Hello everybody,

Most of you won’t finish this email. That’s statistical and psychological. But when you stop reading, it will come down to your schema. How much “Ergh, this is rubbish” do you slog through, or how much “Oh, a distraction!” can you bat away? This week, we’re diving into the biases, prejudices, and methods of interaction you have with the world.

In our exclusive audio this week, I provide you with thirteen minutes or so of my introduction to the Philosophy of Love seminar. It’s on de Beauvoir, Diotima, and Murdoch, and I ramble my way through all of them.

Thanks for subscribing; it lets me carry on.

All best,

Jonny

---

---

Irene is at a party, and she’s talking to a stranger. The pair spend three to four minutes in opening salvos — the vital statistics of names, jobs, home town, “How do you know Henry?” and so on. Then the conversation moves onto the meaty stuff. Now they’re going to have to actually talk about something. This is the make-or-break moment. Irene has, knowingly or not, been induced into a way of talking. She’s learned to ask questions about certain topics and to ignore others. She’s developed the skill of nodding at key moments and frowning at others. Irene has developed a schema for talking.

Now, imagine Freya in a new relationship. She’s been on a few dates; it’s going well, and she’s thinking of making it exclusive. But then she starts seeing red flags. He doesn’t reply to messages quickly enough; he’s got a lot of girl friends; and he uses his phone on the toilet. Of course, these aren’t red flags; they’re Freya’s red flags. And they’re down to