In today's issue:

Read on!

Slavoj Žižek argues that modern populist movements require an entirely new vocabulary. In his essay collection Liberal Fascisms, the philosopher asserts that standard labels like "fascism" are overused to the point of analytical uselessness. He contends that today's culture-war figures are shaped by digital media ecosystems and algorithmically engineered loops rather than traditional ideologies.

Deirdre McCloskey claims a rhetorical revolution sparked modern industrial prosperity. In an interview on Persuasion, the economic historian argues that ideas and social permission, rather than capital accumulation or sheer science, drove the Industrial Revolution. She challenges materialist histories by showing how loosening social hierarchies allowed ordinary innovators to experiment.

Fiona Sampson's new biography positions George Sand at the center of Western literary history. In Becoming George: The Invention of George Sand, Sampson argues that the novelist's deliberate self-fashioning and prolific output shaped the direction of the 19th-century English novel. Masterpieces like Middlemarch and Wuthering Heights owe a debt to Sand's seventy-plus works.

David Samuels leverages Wittgenstein and Beckett to diagnose our crisis of truth. Writing in Tablet, Samuels uses the famous duck-rabbit optical illusion to explain how cultural institutions construct closed epistemic loops. He argues that the collapse of shared reality is driven by elite interpretive frameworks that insulate themselves from contradictory evidence.

Jack Henneman calls for reforming history education to eliminate presentism. Writing on his Substack, Henneman advocates for a broad overhaul of history curricula. He argues that modern political battles degrade historical study by filtering past actors through contemporary moral frameworks.

The shadow cast by political philosopher Leo Strauss. The piece explores how Strauss's core thesis—that philosophers write esoterically to protect dangerous truths from the public—has captivated modern right-leaning elites. His work Persecution and the Art of Writing remains at the center of ongoing debates over technocracy and institutional mistrust.

Homer's Odyssey was originally designed as a mass-market, ritual performance rather than a static text for silent scholastic dissection. This is the central contention of writer Ted Gioia, who argues that both modern university classrooms and Hollywood film adaptations strip the ancient epic of its physical, rhythmic power. By treating the text as an elite academic artifact, institutional humanities programs flatten a work that was built to exist as a living, communal event. Gioia suggests that fast-paced prose translations, such as the unacademic 1937 version by W.H.D. Rouse, preserve the true popular spirit of the epic better than prestigious poetic translations designed for university curricula.

To support this performance-based reading, Gioia relies on the historic oral poetry findings of Milman Parry and Albert Lord. Their landmark fieldwork, culminating in the study of South Slavic epic singers, demonstrated that ancient oral epics functioned much like improvised musical traditions. These storytellers relied on a complex system of traditional formulaic phrases and metric rhythms, operating more like jazz musicians than writers working with pen and paper. By viewing Homer through the lens of Parry and Lord, Gioia argues that classical scholarship must reclaim the Odyssey as a somatic and musical experience that cannot be fully captured in written form or on screen.

Source: The Honest Broker

Gmail is free, but you pay with your data. Proton Mail is different.

We don’t scan your messages. We don’t sell your behavior. We don’t follow you across the internet.

Proton Mail gives you full-featured, private email without surveillance or creepy profiling. It’s email that respects your time, your attention, and your boundaries.

Email doesn’t have to cost your privacy.

Ditch the Gmail data grab

The timeline for beating societal defaults is rapidly shrinking. Guy argues that choosing an autonomous path has historically required a horizon longer than a human lifetime to outperform established templates. However, as legacy institutions decay and become increasingly predatory, this "time-to-beat-the-default" is collapsing. Operating outside traditional structures is shifting from a high-risk gamble to a rational defense mechanism.

A Marxist-Spinozist framework challenges traditional models of state power. On the independent scholar blog Unemployed Negativity, a review of Katja Diefenbach's Spinoza in Post-Marxist Philosophy explores how Spinoza's philosophy of affects and imagination reorients modern radical political theory. The text highlights a central tension between Spinoza as a philosopher of joyful collective power and as a theorist of ideological capture.

Classicist Mary Beard wants readers to be shocked by antiquity. In her book Talking Classics, Beard argues that we must move away from the blind, passive veneration of Greek and Roman texts.

The structural vulnerabilities of the American Experiment trace back to original Enlightenment errors. In a video essay reviewing Craig Nelson's biography of Thomas Paine, independent history critic BiblioCultist examines the systemic crises of modern Western politics through Paine's foundational philosophy. Paine's radical, populist rationalism carried blind spots that ultimately destabilized the political systems he helped construct.

Madeleine Chalmers uncovers the mystical, Catholic roots of post-1968 French technology theory. Discussing her book French Technological Thought and the Nonhuman Turn, Chalmers refutes the idea that post-humanist philosophies stem solely from material cybernetics. She argues that nineteenth-century theological and avant-garde literatures serve as critical laboratories for understanding modern computer intelligence.

If you found something valuable in today’s issue, please consider taking one of these quick actions:

New to the newsletter? Subscribe at indiescholars.review.

Thank you for spending some of your day with us. We will see you tomorrow.