The #MeToo movement exposed how pervasive sexual harassment and abuse are, and how rare it is for perpetrators to be held accountable. Although some recent high profile cases have resulted in convictions, more often punishment is meted out by public shaming. So why is it so difficult to hold sexual abusers legally responsible for their actions? Is social retribution a way to achieve some form of justice in lieu of criminal proceedings? And how do we move forward to find love and acceptance when there are still such great asymmetries of power? Josh and Ray tackle the issues with Janine Benedet from the UBC School of Law.

Should we get angry at injustice? Or does rage just beget more rage? Josh believes that righteousness should be about love and kindness, and he worries that anger is unproductive and damaging to a cause. Ray, however, points out that we should get angry at social injustices. Not only are anger and love compatible with each other, but anger also has many benefits, such as signaling self-respect.
The philosophers are joined by Myisha Cherry, Professor of Philosophy at University of California Riverside. Myisha defines a good type of anger as one that is inclusive, rational, and aims at transformation. Ray asks how we can tell when we are experiencing the good type of anger, and Myisha explains that we must examine who or what our anger is directed at. If our anger is exclusive, as in the case of white suffragists, it becomes narcissistic anger. In response to Josh’s question about how anger can provide a sense of dignity to an individual, Myisha describes the connection between anger and self-respect, which shows that it is unnecessary to have an audience for our anger.
In the last segment of the show, Josh, Ray, and Myisha discuss the moral relevance of emotions and burnout. According to Myisha, all emotions (e.g. anger, compassion, love) have a role to play in exercising true justice in the world. Josh worries that his anger isn’t always constructive or productive, but Myisha reassures him that simply channeling and expressing his anger is productive enough. Ray questions what’s problematic about anger on the behalf of others, prompting Myisha to emphasize the importance of understanding what it means to be in community with other people, as injustice affects everyone living in that society.

In this episode, Josh and Jeremy present the ninth annual Dionysus Awards for their favorite, most philosophically thought-provoking movies of the year. They begin by comparing “The Lost Daughter” and “Parallel Mothers” for the category of Best Film About Complicated Mothers Telling Uncomfortable Truths. Josh and Jeremy agree that the award should go to “Parallel Mothers” for its ability to combine the story of two mothers with a larger national story of civilian killings in Spain, which are tied together through the theme of truth-telling.
Next, the philosophers welcome Alex King, Professor of Philosophy at Simon Fraser University, to the show to discuss the nominees for Best Adapted Novel About Trauma, Marginalization, Self-Deception, and the Gap Between Appearance and Reality. She compares the similarities between “The Power of the Dog” and “Passing” — the time period and having two main characters as foils to one another. In the end, Alex gives the award to “Passing” for its well-crafted use of intentional ambiguity.
In the last segment of the show, Josh and Jeremy hear nominations from the audience as well as from Ray Briggs, a regular co-host of Philosophy Talk. Listeners award “The Last Duel” with Best Rashomon-Style Film About Patriarchal Domination with an Existentialist Hero and “Cuties” with Film that Uses Looking to Get Beyond Looking. Ray highlights the recent motif of strong female leads and global characters in Disney movies “Encanto” and “Cruella,” and the latter receives the Dionysus Award for Best Effort to Redeem 80 Years of Questionable Movie History for its intentional complexity.

Political polarization seems to be deepening, both in the U.S. and around the globe. Some believe that the rise of ideology is to blame for growing polarization. But can increased polarization really be attributed to ideology? What is exactly is ideology, and how is it different from dogma? Is ideology a kind of political or philosophical thinking? And how might our understanding of ideology affect how we practice politics? Josh and Ray ideate with Marius Ostrowski from the European University Institute, author of Ideology (Key Concepts).

Can you reason your way into being a good person? Should morality be the same for everybody? Josh begins by wondering about the place of empathy in Kant's emphasis on reason, and Ray explains that emotions can often lead us astray. Josh pushes back by questioning the accuracy of reason, as well as Kant's categorical imperative of never using people as a means to an end. Ray considers individual versus universal ethical values, and they propose that freedom can come from moral rules.
The philosophers are joined by Karen Stohr, Professor of Philosophy at Georgetown University, who appreciates Kant because of his commitment to believing that humans have the potential to improve despite being ethical messes. Ray asks why Kant is so intent on the power of reason, prompting Karen to explain how it was characteristic of Enlightenment scholars to place a tremendous amount of faith in reason. Josh considers specific formulations of the Categorical Imperative, like what Kant means when he says that we should act as if we live in a kingdom of ends. Ray is skeptical about Kant’s ability to accommodate the non-ideal reality of human beings, but Karen is optimistic that his theories have room for imperfection.
In the last segment of the show, Josh, Ray, and Karen discuss the place of compassion in Kant’s ethics, the moral importance of dinner parties, and the application of Kant to today’s society. Karen thinks that Kant would be troubled by social media and the contempt that people have for one another. Ray raises the question of how to treat someone who has just done a bad thing, and Karen suggests that it is compatible to hold people accountable for their actions while treating them respectfully. Josh wonders about the importance of community in becoming a better person, and Karen advises listeners to find and join the helpers of the world.

Some people say they find poetry impenetrable. Yet readership is increasing: in a 2017 survey, the National Endowment for the Arts found that nearly 12% of adults in the US had read poetry in the last year. So what explains the enduring appeal of poetry as an art form? Are there any limits to who counts as a poet, or what counts as poetry? And what makes a poem good anyway? Josh and Ray wax lyrical with Nobel Prize-winning poet Louise Glück, author of American Originality: Essays on Poetry.

The Akan people of West Africa have developed a system of metaphysics, epistemology, and moral philosophy with a special focus on personhood. For the Akan, their conception of a person is not just a matter of theoretical interest—it has far reaching practical implications for their social institutions and communal practices. So what exactly is the Akan notion of personhood, and how is it rooted in Akan traditional culture? How does the Akan emphasis on the social nature of personhood promote trust, cooperation, and a sense of responsibility to the community? And can this communal perspective help restore cultural identity in a postcolonial Africa? Josh and Ray welcome Ajume Wingo from the University of Colorado Boulder, author of Veil Politics in Liberal Democratic States.

The United States prides itself on being “the world’s greatest democracy,” which adheres to the principle, “one person, one vote.” Despite this, its elections are often highly contentious—presidents can be elected after losing the popular vote, there is widespread gerrymandering and voter purging, and not everyone has equal representation in the Senate. So what can we do to make elections in the US more fair? And how do we decide what counts as fair in the first place? Is there some test or algorithm we can use to determine equal representation? Josh and Ray watch the polls with Moon Duchin from Tufts University, Director of the Metric Geometry and Gerrymandering Research Group.

The 2020 election and startling events that followed show that the US is as polarized as ever. Not only is there fundamental disagreement over values and goals, but people can’t seem to agree on the most basic, easily verifiable facts, like who actually won. With so many seemingly living in an alternative reality, how do we continue the business of democracy together? Should we adopt paternalistic policies towards fellow citizens who are so profoundly divorced from truth? And does our current plight suggest that the project of liberal democracy is failing? Ray and guest co-host (emeritus) John Perry stay informed about their guest, attorney and political analyst Dean Johnson, co-host of KALW's Your Legal Rights.

At the end of the 19th Century, the German philosopher Gottlob Frege invented a new language, based on mathematics, designed to help people reason more logically. His ideas have had a lasting impact on philosophy, math, computer science, and the study of artificial intelligence. And many of the questions that influenced his thinking are still hotly debated today: How much does language influence the thoughts you can think? Could there be a way of speaking that taps into deep philosophical insights about the nature of reality? What's the relationship between math and logic? Josh and Ray try to make sense of Frege with host emeritus John Perry, author of Frege's Detour: An Essay on Meaning, Reference, and Truth.

Microaggressions are small comments or questions that may be insulting or hurtful to another person because of their race, gender, sexuality, and so on. Some people consider microaggressions to be a phantom symptom of political correctness and a further sign that society has become “soft,” while others see them as a problematic way of normalizing bigotry. So how do microagressions compare to other types of moral harms? Do they add up to structural oppression, and if so, how are we to assign individual culpability? Josh and Ray engage calmly with Lauren Freeman from the University of Louisville, co-editor of Microaggressions and Philosophy.

French thinker Michel de Montaigne invented a whole new genre in which to do philosophy: the essay. But in his use of that form, Montaigne repeatedly digresses and contradicts himself. So why did he think the essay was a good medium for philosophy? What impact did Montaigne’s invention have on his own philosophical work, and on the centuries of thought that followed? Are there particular forms of writing that help us live a more philosophical life? The philosophers live their best life with Cécile Alduy from Stanford University, author of The Politics of Love: Poetics and Genesis of the "Amours" in Renaissance France (1549-1560).

Some branches of Hindu philosophy propose that reality is nondual in nature. Such schools of thought—called advaita schools, from a Sanskrit word meaning “not two”—see the material world either as an aspect of ultimate reality (“Brahman”) or as a mere illusion. So how do we make sense of the appearance of variety in a metaphysics of oneness? Is there room for individual selves within advaita philosophy? What can be known? And what possible sources of knowledge are there in a nondual epistemology? Josh and Ray become one with Elisa Freschi from the University of Toronto, author of Duty, Language, and Exegesis in Prābhākara Mīmāṃsā.

On December 2, 2019, Ken Taylor announced that he finally had “an almost complete draft” of a book he had been writing for years. “I think I'll pour a glass of wine to mark the occasion, before plunging back into the work that is still to be done,” he wrote. Tragically and unexpectedly, he died later that same day. Thanks to the hard work and dedication of some colleagues, his book, Referring to the World: An Opinionated Introduction to the Theory of Reference, has just been published. In this special episode, Josh and Ray discuss Ken’s ideas about reference with USC philosopher Robin Jeshion, who helped bring the book to fruition.

Age determines a lot about your position in society—what activities you can do, what benefits you can access, and what rights and responsibilities you have. While it seems appropriate to treat people at different stages of life differently, we also consider certain kinds of unequal treatment unjust. So when should we treat people of different ages differently? And when does it become ageism or age discrimination? When does a disadvantage for an age group turn into injustice against a generation? Josh and Ray act their age with Juliana Bidadanure from Stanford University, author of Justice Across Ages: Treating Young and Old as Equals.

The word “awesome” once meant inspiring extreme fear or dread. Nowadays it’s mostly used as a general purpose exclamation of approval. So when we describe a person as awesome, are we saying that they exemplify some general form of excellence? Or are awesome people those who break specific social norms to generate moments of creative expression and social connection? Would the world be a better place if we all aimed to be more awesome and less sucky? Josh and Ray stand in awe of Nick Riggle from the University of San Diego, author of On Being Awesome: A Unified Theory of How Not to Suck.