“Philosophy and Beyond” First Philosophical Essay Contest
Two Prizes, Two Opportunities to Shine
To celebrate the New Year and the beginning of the second year of Philosophy and Beyond, I am organizing a philosophical essay contest.
Two winners will have their essays published in Philosophy and Beyond, my Substack newsletter, and will receive cash prizes: $200 for the Free Subscribers Contest and $300 for the Annual Paid Subscribers Contest.
Participants must subscribe to Philosophy and Beyond. Annual paid subscribers can enter both contests with one text and double their chances of winning. However, no participant can win both contests.
Cash Prizes:
Free Subscribers Contest: Cash Prize $200.
Annual Paid Subscribers Contest: Cash Prize $300.
Cash prizes will increase in case of sponsorship (see below).
Participants Should Consider One of the Following Questions:
Are democracy and truth compatible?
Does responding to environmental crises require the end of capitalism?
Should we consider “non-Greek” influenced traditions of thought philosophy?
The judges will be philosophers and will be announced in May. Jury members cannot participate in the contest. Winners will be announced in June and will receive their prizes shortly after. The best essays will be published on Philosophy and Beyond in the following weeks. Depending on the jury’s decision and the contest’s success, additional essays may also be published.
Submission Guidelines
Essays should be previously unpublished and original.
Essays must be written in English.
Essays should be no longer than 5,000 words and include an abstract.
Please submit your work as a Word file to philosophyandbeyondsubstack@gmail.com by the end of June.
Essays should include a title and subtitle that reflects the content of the essay.
Please explicitly state the chosen topic you are addressing at the start of the essay.
Please include the author’s full name, email address (preferably the one used on Substack), and a link to your Substack account.
You may cite any relevant published authors, philosophers or otherwise, and may include concrete examples to support arguments.
Essays will be judged on their quality regardless of the views expressed in them or those of judges.
Whether you are an emerging voice or an established scholar, this contest is your platform to share your insights, engage in intellectual dialogue, and gain recognition for your ideas. Join us in shaping tomorrow’s philosophical conversation!
Sponsorship
The contest is open to sponsorship and prizes will be increased accordingly. The cash prizes will be updated regularly.
The list of sponsors will be published in June.
For inquiries, please contact me via Substack or philosophyandbeyondsubstack@gmail.com.
Support This Event
If you would like to support the event in a more discreet way, consider subscribing to Philosophy and Beyond.
Sorry I can’t afford the entry fee as I retired from South Africa. But here it goes !
The Age of Distraction: Surviving Political Chaos in a Digital Circus
How Social Media Warps Politics and Our Brains
Abstract:
In a world ruled by tweets, memes, and viral outrage, political discourse has become a chaotic spectacle where nuance goes to die. This essay dives into how social media has reshaped politics, turning complex debates into bite-sized, emotionally charged soundbites. Drawing on insights from thinkers like Marshall McLuhan, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Yuval Noah Harari, we explore the consequences for democracy, civic engagement, and the search for truth. Can we salvage meaningful dialogue in an era where attention spans are shorter than a 280-character post ?
Introduction:
The topic at hand is the seismic shift in political discourse brought on by social media. In a world where news cycles move faster than a trending hashtag, we’re drowning in a sea of memes, hot takes, and fleeting outrage. The question is simple yet urgent: have we sacrificed thoughtful debate for the dopamine hit of a viral post ? And if so, what does that mean for democracy’s survival ?
The Digital Stage:
Marshall McLuhan’s famous line, “The medium is the message,” has never been more relevant. Social media isn’t just a platform for political discourse, it’s the stage, the script, and the audience all rolled into one. Gone are the days when a well-reasoned argument could sway public opinion. Today, a single tweet can spark a revolution or a riot.
Consider “cancel culture,” a term that’s become a lightning rod for both praise and condemnation. In this digital age, a hashtag can mobilize thousands, toppling careers and reputations in a matter of hours. But is this justice or just mob rule ? The nuance of complex issues is often lost in the frenzy, leaving us to wonder: are we fighting for truth or just chasing the next viral moment ?
The Simplification of Everything:
Take climate change, for example. A topic that demands scientific rigor and global cooperation has been reduced to a binary shouting match: “believers” vs. “deniers.” Instagram influencers can rack up millions of views with a 60-second explainer, but the depth needed to tackle climate policy is sacrificed for the sake of likes and shares. The result ? A public that’s more invested in hashtags than in actual solutions.
Christopher Hitchens, with his trademark eloquence, often emphasized the importance of rigorous debate and the necessity of challenging ideas rather than individuals. He would argue that such intellectual honesty has been compromised in the age of social media, where discourse is often reduced to personal attacks and emotional reactions. As Yuval Noah Harari warns in 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, “In a world flooded with irrelevant information, clarity is power.” But our pursuit of clarity often comes at the cost of depth. The challenge is to create a space where discourse can thrive—a space where we can disagree without devolving into a digital shouting match.
Sam Harris also reminds us of the importance of rational discourse. In his exploration of morality and the human condition, he argues that our collective future depends on our ability to engage in constructive dialogue about difficult topics. Are we willing to step outside our comfort zones and engage with ideas that challenge our belief systems? In an age where algorithms feed us what we want to hear, it’s up to us to seek out diverse perspectives and engage with ideas that make us uncomfortable.
The Role of the Individual:
It’s tempting to blame social media platforms for the mess we’re in, but we’re not innocent bystanders. Every retweet, like, and share fuels the chaos. Are we curating our feeds to challenge our thinking, or are we just reinforcing our biases? In an age where algorithms feed us what we want to hear, it’s up to us to seek out diverse perspectives and engage with ideas that make us uncomfortable.
Philosopher Alain de Botton argues that “We need to learn how to think properly.” Maybe that starts with stepping outside our echo chambers and embracing the discomfort of disagreement. If we want to reclaim meaningful political discourse, we’ll need to resist the allure of the soundbite and commit to the hard work of thoughtful engagement.
Conclusion:
So, can we navigate this digital circus and emerge with our political sanity intact? It won’t be easy. It’ll take effort from individuals, educators, and platforms alike to create spaces where real dialogue can flourish. But if we can resist the temptation to reduce everything to a meme or a hashtag, there’s hope. As we stand at the crossroads of this digital dystopia, let’s strive for a political discourse that reflects the complexity of our world and the humanity we share.
Thomaso
Hey, is there a minimum word count limit to it too?