Authority can refer to people or institutions that have the political power to make decisions, give orders, and enforce rules. It can also refer to a certain kind of expertise or knowledge that we might defer to. Sometimes we respect authority, and sometimes we resist it or even revolt against it. But where exactly does authority come from, and when, if ever, ought we defer to it? How do we challenge authority? What makes an authority figure authoritarian? And can there be anarchist forms of authority? Josh and Ken authorize a conversation with James Martel from San Francisco State University, author of Subverting the Leviathan: Reading Thomas Hobbes as a Radical Democrat.

There is consensus among scientists that global warming is real and that it's caused by human activity. Despite the overwhelming evidence and the urgency to act, there are still many who are skeptical of or flat-out deny climate change. Are these climate deniers simply impervious to scientific evidence? Or have they just not been exposed to the right kind of information? When it comes to ideologically driven views, is it possible to change people's minds by appeal to facts? Or are humans hopelessly and incorrigibly irrational? The Philosophers don't deny talking to cognitive scientist Michael Ranney, head of the Reasoning Research Group at UC Berkeley.

Computers have already surpassed us in their ability to perform certain cognitive tasks. Perhaps it won't be long till every household has a super intelligent robot who can outperform us in almost every domain. While future AI might be excellent at appearing conscious, could AI ever actually become conscious? Would forcing conscious robots to work for us be akin to slavery? And could we design AI that specifically lacks consciousness, or is consciousness an emergent property of intelligence? Josh and Ken welcome Susan Schneider, Director of the AI, Mind and Society Group at the University of Connecticut and author of Artificial You: A.I. and the Future of Your Mind.

Bertrand Russell said that envy was one of the most potent causes of unhappiness, and it's well known as one of the seven deadly sins. But is envy always a bad thing? Is it simply a petty emotion we should try to avoid, or could envy help us understand ourselves more? Is envy rooted in unhealthy comparison with others, or does it come from our own vision of excellence? Could envy even be used to improve ourselves? Josh and Ken consider whether to envy their guest, Sara Protasi from the University of Puget Sound.

In both everyday life and science, we often feel the pull of simpler, more elegant, or more beautiful explanations. For example, you notice the street is wet and infer the best explanation is that it rained earlier. But are we justified in assuming these tidy explanations are most likely to be true? What makes an explanation "simple" or "elegant" in the first place? And can the "loveliness" of an explanation ever be a good guide to its "likeliness"? Josh and Ken try to explain things with Princeton University psychologist Tania Lombrozo, co-editor of Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy.

Humans evolved to have a variety of senses—smell, sight, touch, etc.—that provide information about the world around us. Our brains use this sensory information to construct a particular picture of reality. But what if it were technologically possible to hack our brains and create new senses for humans, such as echolocation or magnetoception? How would our brains integrate this new kind of information? What would it be like to perceive the world using these strange new senses? And how would these novel senses change our view of reality? Josh and Ken sense they'll talk to neuroscientist David Eagleman, author of The Brain: The Story of You.

Seventeenth century philosopher Thomas Hobbes believed that without government to control our worst impulses, life would be 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.' Consequently, he thought that absolute monarchy is the best form of government. So is Hobbes' ideal citizen simply someone who is willing to submit to absolute authority, or are there other features the ideal citizen must have? What flaws would make a subject bad, or worse, a threat to peace in the realm? And are there any lessons modern democracies can learn from Hobbes' political philosophy? The Philosophers submit to Stanford political scientist Alison McQueen, author of Political Realism in Apocalyptic Times.

Whether for economic reasons or to flee violence and persecution, immigration rates continue to climb globally. At the same time, opposition to immigration and intolerance of multiculturalism is also growing. Should cultural or ethnic identity ever be a factor in immigration policy? Do immigrants have an obligation to assimilate to the dominant culture? Or should we make cultural accommodations for immigrants who don't share our values and traditions? Do the answers vary depending on how culturally diverse or homogenous the host country already is? The Philosophers lift the gate for Sarah Song from the UC Berkeley School of Law, author of Immigration and Democracy.

In a liberal democracy, individuals should have the freedom to give money to charities of their choice. But there's a difference between charitable giving from ordinary individuals and philanthropic giving from extremely wealthy individuals. Whose interests are served when the wealthy give? Should the state continue to encourage big philanthropy with massive tax breaks for the rich? Or should it focus more on taxing extreme wealth? Is big philanthropy destroying democracy? Josh and Ken take alms from Stanford political scientist Rob Reich, author of Just Giving: Why Philanthropy Is Failing Democracy and How It Can Do Better.

Postmodernism is often characterized by its rejection of concepts championed by the Enlightenment, like meaning, truth, reason, and knowledge. Some philosophers blame postmodernism for making cynicism about truth and facts now respectable in political debate. So is postmodernism responsible for "fake news" and "alternative facts"? Or does it simply provide the tools to describe popular distrust of traditional authorities, like science and the media? Must we reject postmodernism in order to rescue truth? Josh and Ken find trust in Thomas de Zengotita, author of Postmodern Theory and Progressive Politics: Toward a New Humanism.

John Stuart Mill was one of the most important British philosophers of the 19th century. As a liberal, he thought that individuals are generally the best judges of their own welfare. But Mill was also a utilitarian who thought that there were objectively lower and higher pleasures and that the good life was one which maximized higher pleasures. So is there a way to reconcile Mill's liberal project with his utilitarianism? Is the good life for Mill one in which individuals determine their own paths? Or should those who know better still try to nudge others to live better lives? John and Ken fulfill their potential with David Brink from UC San Diego, author of Mill's Progressive Principles.

Nigerian writer Chinua Achebe lambasted Joseph Conrad's novel Heart of Darkness as a deeply racist work that should be removed from the Western canon. Defenders of Conrad say the novel is simply an expression of its time and not an endorsement of the racist attitudes it represents. So how do we judge the moral legitimacy of older works of literature and philosophy? Should we shun writers for holding racist or sexist views? Or is it important to read—and censure—them? Is it fair to judge authors of the past by today's politically conscious standards? Josh and Ken have no trouble reading with Julie Napolin from The New School, author of The Fact of Resonance: Modernist Acoustics and Narrative Form (forthcoming).

In the U.S. there are over 500 sanctuary cities—municipalities that limit their cooperation with the federal government's immigration law enforcement. Although opponents portray sanctuary cities as besieged by crime, empirical data does not bear out such claims. But what actually justifies sanctuary policies in the first place? Do appeals to public health or safety warrant these measures? Or should lack of cooperation be seen as an act of resistance against unjust federal policies? And how should local municipalities respond to claims that they lack the authority to impede federal immigration enforcement? Josh and Ken find sanctuary with Shelley Wilcox from SF State University, author of "How Can Sanctuary Policies be Justified?"

What should you be reading this summer—and how should you be reading it? We're often told that fiction offers us entertainment, moral examples, and lessons about life. But are we getting too quick to dismiss complicated fiction—the kind that doesn't have straightforward heroes and happy endings? Josh and Ken talk to writers and philosophers about reading and misreading for your summer pleasure. Maryanne Wolf from UCLA on the neuroscience of (mis)reading; Thomas Pavel from the University of Chicago on the role of genre in (mis)reading; Antonia Peacocke from Stanford University on "reader's block" and other reading mishaps.

In George Orwell's 1984, the party's "final, most essential command" was "to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears." Authoritarian regimes call on us to accept as fact whatever they tell us; or worse, as Hannah Arendt says, they get us to a point where we no longer know—or care about—the difference between fiction and reality. So why are so many so willing to reject the evidence of their senses and deny basic, confirmable truths? Is there something about human psychology that makes us susceptible to totalitarian propaganda? And as the appeal of authoritarian leaders grows around the world, how do we guard against such radical thought manipulation? Josh and Ken lure Michael Lynch from the University of Connecticut, author of Know-It-All Society: Truth and Arrogance in Political Culture.

The doctrine of mutually assured destruction is supposed to deter both sides in a war from launching the first nuclear strike. However, the strategy of the US, NATO, and other super powers has been to plan the destruction of nearly all life on Earth. If near total annihilation would be monstrous, ethically speaking, then what should we say about preparing for and planning it? Can there be any moral justification for plausibly threatening a nuclear holocaust? And now that we've gotten ourselves in this situation, is there any realistic and ethical way out? John and Ken avoid going nuclear with writer, activist, former defense analyst and whistleblower, Daniel Ellsberg, author of The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner.

In order to reach compromise, people try to be tolerant of others with different beliefs. Despite its value, there are numerous factors that may hinder our exercise of tolerance. As the schisms between our beliefs grow larger, what happens when our moral and political ideals put us deeply at odds with your fellow citizens? Do we begrudgingly tolerate them by agree to live and let live? Do we shun them and their benighted views as beyond the pale? Or do we attempt to persuade them? Do we owe it to those we disagree with to be open to persuasion? The Philosophers are more than tolerant of their guest Reigina Rini from York University, author of "Abortion, Ultrasound, and Moral Persuasion."

We talk about owing future generations a better world. We might also think that we should do things for future generations even if our actions might not benefit present-day people. But is it possible to have obligations to people who are not yet born? Can people who do not exist be said to have rights that we should respect? And if they do, what do we do if our rights and theirs conflict? Josh and Ken are obliged to welcome Rahul Kumar from Queen's University, editor of Ethics and Future Generations.

Many people profess to believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent God. Yet psychological data shows that people often think and reason about God in ways contrary to their professed religious beliefs. So, are these so-called religious beliefs genuinely held? Or are "believers" just playing an elaborate game of pretense? Is there a difference between ordinary factual belief and religious belief? And what role do people's religious creedences play in shaping their social identities? Josh and Ken get real with Neil van Leeuwen from Georgia State University, author of Religion as Make-Believe (forthcoming).