<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<urlset xmlns="http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9" xmlns:image="http://www.google.com/schemas/sitemap-image/1.1" xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:video="http://www.google.com/schemas/sitemap-video/1.1">
  <url>
    <loc>https://www.philosophicalandfinancialthoughts.uk/articles</loc>
    <changefreq>daily</changefreq>
    <priority>0.75</priority>
    <lastmod>2026-11-10</lastmod>
  </url>
  <url>
    <loc>https://www.philosophicalandfinancialthoughts.uk/articles/blog-post-title-three-y3peb-4lwnz-pd9y5-drh94-dsz7a-dpBV7-kh5ls</loc>
    <changefreq>monthly</changefreq>
    <priority>0.5</priority>
    <lastmod>2026-11-10</lastmod>
    <image:image>
      <image:loc>https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/6a9598979606a34ddb4653d9/1788448468590-432LDHJ370WOEJ638IXB/unsplash-image-VIcTzkzNZR8.jpg</image:loc>
      <image:title>Articles - Can You Have a Language Only You Understand? Wittgenstein on Private Language - Make it stand out</image:title>
      <image:caption>Abstract: In the Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein argues that a language whose words refer to a speaker’s private sensations, and which no one else could learn, is impossible. This article outlines what he means by “private language” and reconstructs his two main arguments: the public check argument, which says a private language has no criterion of correctness, and the training argument, which says rule-following requires public training. I argue that both arguments fail. The sceptical standards they use would, if applied consistently, also undermine public language, and Wittgenstein gives no good reason why only public agreement can ground rule-following. At most he shows that a private language is useless for communication, not that it is impossible.</image:caption>
    </image:image>
  </url>
  <url>
    <loc>https://www.philosophicalandfinancialthoughts.uk/articles/blog-post-title-three-y3peb-4lwnz-pd9y5-drh94-dsz7a-dpBV7-fx4bn</loc>
    <changefreq>monthly</changefreq>
    <priority>0.5</priority>
    <lastmod>2026-11-10</lastmod>
    <image:image>
      <image:loc>https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/6a9598979606a34ddb4653d9/1794315822745-4FIE9ILTY00N2N243J3M/unsplash-image-KkSrB0muVCg.jpg</image:loc>
      <image:title>Articles - Can We Really Know the World? Russell’s Two Kinds of Knowledge - Make it stand out</image:title>
      <image:caption>Abstract: Bertrand Russell divides our knowledge of things into two kinds: knowledge by acquaintance, which is direct, passive awareness of sense-data, and knowledge by description, which lets us think about physical objects we never experience directly. On this basis he builds a foundationalist theory in which all knowledge of the external world ultimately rests on acquaintance. This article outlines the distinction and the theory built on it, then examines Wilfrid Sellars’ “Myth of the Given” objection. Sellars argues that knowledge is propositional and answerable to reasons, while acquaintance is neither, so acquaintance cannot count as knowledge or justify our beliefs about the world. Uriah Kriegel’s reply, that acquaintance can justify as a truth-maker, faces a dilemma: being acquainted with the truth-making relation seems to require conceptualising it, which would turn acquaintance into description. I conclude that Russell’s programme for knowledge is uncompelling.</image:caption>
    </image:image>
  </url>
  <url>
    <loc>https://www.philosophicalandfinancialthoughts.uk/articles/Blog Post Title One-3zaa9-zlxng-xbkmm-naw9y-xg8tg-nz8b3</loc>
    <changefreq>monthly</changefreq>
    <priority>0.5</priority>
    <lastmod>2026-09-03</lastmod>
    <image:image>
      <image:loc>https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/6a9598979606a34ddb4653d9/1788377565016-LPQ79TPAOQA1VYUUB777/unsplash-image-DKix6Un55mw.jpg</image:loc>
      <image:title>Articles - The Magic of Emotions Jean-Paul Sartre’s Sketch - Make it stand out</image:title>
      <image:caption>Abstract: Emotions and magic? Sounds like a strange pairing, right? But there's real method to this madness. For readers of Sartre, ‘magic’ isn't used in the non-literal sense; it's his term for a phenomenon he considered fundamentally irrational: emotion itself. This idea gets its fullest treatment in Being and Nothingness (1949), but its roots lie in an earlier, more compact work– Sketch for a Theory of Emotions (1939) – which is the focus of this piece. I'll start by laying out Sartre's phenomenological account of emotional experience. From there, I turn to a key objection raised by Richmond, who argues that Sartre's analysis is internally inconsistent. I then examine Hatzimoysis's attempt to defend Sartre against this charge and ultimately argue that his response falls short, leaving the inconsistencies unresolved. On this basis, I conclude that Sartre's account doesn't offer a complete picture of what it's like to feel an emotion. Still, as we'll see, there's more than one compelling idea buried in his theory – even if the overall picture doesn't quite hold together.</image:caption>
    </image:image>
  </url>
  <url>
    <loc>https://www.philosophicalandfinancialthoughts.uk/home</loc>
    <changefreq>daily</changefreq>
    <priority>0.75</priority>
    <lastmod>2026-09-02</lastmod>
    <image:image>
      <image:loc>https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/6a9598979606a34ddb4653d9/1787160064.020787-IUFDWMPMPMDSOMNLUZWE/imgg-gg3p-BCFX--A-0aa4a236.png</image:loc>
    </image:image>
    <image:image>
      <image:loc>https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/6a9598979606a34ddb4653d9/1787159946.880727-OWEQQXXEISBRRPVSGQZJ/imgg-gg3p-BCFX-Z-ee909bc8.png</image:loc>
    </image:image>
  </url>
  <url>
    <loc>https://www.philosophicalandfinancialthoughts.uk/about</loc>
    <changefreq>daily</changefreq>
    <priority>0.75</priority>
    <lastmod>2026-09-02</lastmod>
    <image:image>
      <image:loc>https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/6a9598979606a34ddb4653d9/1780932028.768261-WRDZKOZMLPWHNIXNETAJ/imgg-gg3p-BC-DQ-G-388c6114.png</image:loc>
    </image:image>
  </url>
  <url>
    <loc>https://www.philosophicalandfinancialthoughts.uk/contact</loc>
    <changefreq>daily</changefreq>
    <priority>0.75</priority>
    <lastmod>2026-09-02</lastmod>
    <image:image>
      <image:loc>https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/6a9598979606a34ddb4653d9/1780932029.245059-QEGOTTMBDCNDCBJFHMUK/imgg-gg3p-BC-DQ-F-7be99eb1.png</image:loc>
    </image:image>
  </url>
  <url>
    <loc>https://www.philosophicalandfinancialthoughts.uk/scheduling</loc>
    <changefreq>daily</changefreq>
    <priority>0.75</priority>
    <lastmod>2026-09-02</lastmod>
    <image:image>
      <image:loc>https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/6a9598979606a34ddb4653d9/1788199108110-7O3O6KHCEFKJ69NQ11ON/unsplash-image-Ubs4WISHgr4.jpg</image:loc>
    </image:image>
    <image:image>
      <image:loc>https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/6a9598979606a34ddb4653d9/1780932031.11286-ZBCPULHSCKQTWCTIVHHM/imgg-gg3p-BC-DQ-U-4232d553.png</image:loc>
    </image:image>
    <image:image>
      <image:loc>https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/6a9598979606a34ddb4653d9/1780932030.666711-XXLFNVQKEZLHLUCFZDRO/imgg-gg3p-BC-DRJ-7294db71.png</image:loc>
    </image:image>
    <image:image>
      <image:loc>https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/6a9598979606a34ddb4653d9/1780932030.666711-XXLFNVQKEZLHLUCFZDRO/imgg-gg3p-BC-DRJ-7294db71.png</image:loc>
    </image:image>
  </url>
  <url>
    <loc>https://www.philosophicalandfinancialthoughts.uk/group-events-1</loc>
    <changefreq>daily</changefreq>
    <priority>1.0</priority>
    <lastmod>2026-08-31</lastmod>
  </url>
</urlset>

