Comedy can often give offense, especially when it concerns such sensitive topics as race, gender, and sexuality. Should comedy like that be shunned, boycotted, even banned? Can it be enjoyed without danger? Or could it even, at its best, be the road to a better society? Could it somehow help us all to live together, and to come to terms with intractable social issues we'll never fully put behind us? The Philosophers have a laugh with Jeff Israel from Williams College, author of Living with Hate in American Politics and Religion: How Popular Culture Can Defuse Intractable Differences.

A child's first sentence is a pivotal moment in her development when she is recognized as now capable of communicating complete thoughts. But in the twenty-first century, thoughts have become increasingly mediated by technology, and language more careless and informal as a result. Are texts, emails, tweets, and emojis responsible for the decline of the formal, grammatical sentence? Are our writing standards getting worse, or are they simply changing with the times?

Most of us think it's obvious that we have a self, but famously, both Buddhism and British philosopher David Hume are skeptical that such a thing exists. What in the world could it mean to deny that the self exists? Could ‘the self' just refer to a series of perceptions and feelings we have over time? If so, then whose perceptions and feelings are they? Is there any way Buddhism could have influenced Hume's thinking on the illusory nature of the self? The philosophers question their selves with Alison Gopnik from UC Berkeley, author of The Philosophical Baby and "How David Hume Helped Me Solve My Midlife Crisis."

Philosophy is replete with thought experiments featuring characters like Descartes' "Evil Genius" and Davidson's "Swampman." Some of the scenarios philosophers conjure up seem like they could've been plucked from a superhero comic. Or is it the other way around? Why do philosophy and superhero comics employ such similar thought experiments? Is there something about the comic book—a medium that is both visual and lexical—that particularly lends itself to philosophical thinking? And what would a philosophy of the superhero look like? The philosophers save the world with Nathaniel Goldberg from Washington and Lee University, co-author of Superhero Thought Experiments: Comic Book Philosophy.

What movies of the past year challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Josh and guest co-host Jeremy Sabol talk to philosophers and listeners as they present their seventh (mostly) annual Dionysus Awards for the most thoughtful films of the past year, including the Most Stimulating and Stressful Vision of Today's America, Most Morally Enthralling and/or Desensitizing Film, and the Dopest Doctored Documentary.

Money, they say, does not buy happiness; but having none can make life extraordinarily hard. Whether we have a little or a lot, we are all familiar with how much money matters in our daily lives. But what exactly is money? Is it a commodity that evolved spontaneously from systems of barter? Or is it purely an invention of government, used as a means to pay off tax liability? What difference would the answer make to things like job creation, inflation, and government spending? And how do modern inventions like cryptocurrency fit into a theory of money? The philosophers go on a spending spree with Graham Hubbs from the University of Idaho, editor of Pragmatism, Law, and Language.

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.