%{search_type} search results

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.

Strong, in control, and stoic—these are traits of the ideal masculine man. Men who fail to conform to this ideal are often penalized, particularly if they are men of color, queer men, working-class men, or men with disabilities. So how do we create different visions of masculinity that make room for all kinds of men? Should we abandon the idea of masculinity altogether, or would that be throwing out the baby with the bathwater? Which models of masculinity will bring us closer to gender justice in the 21st century? The philosophers man their mics with Robin Dembroff from Yale University, author of Real Men on Top: The Metaphysics of Patriarchy.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Math is a really useful subject—at least, that's what your parents and teachers told you. But math also leads to scenarios, like Zeno's paradoxes, that seem to inspire skepticism. So why do we believe in math and rely on it to build bridges and spaceships? How can anyone discover the secrets of the universe by simply scribbling numbers on a piece of paper? Is math some kind of magic, or does it have a more ordinary explanation? And could math be culturally relative, or are its concepts timeless and universal? Josh and Ray add things up with Arezoo Islami from SF State University.

Big tech is known for its "disruption" of established industries and changing fundamental aspects of our lives from shopping and delivery to communication and transit. While many welcome these changes, there are also worries about privacy, fairness, and deregulation. So how do tech companies think about what it is they are doing and what justifies it? Who are their philosophical sources, and do they use them responsibly? What role does New Age thinking, Ayn Rand, Martin Heidegger, and even Samuel Beckett play in shaping the rhetoric of big tech? Josh and Ray debug the code with Adrian Daub from Stanford University, author of What Tech Calls Thinking: An Inquiry into the Intellectual Bedrock of Silicon Valley.

Machines might surpass humans in terms of computational intelligence, but when it comes to social intelligence, they’re not very sophisticated. They have difficulty reading subtle cues—like body language, eye gaze, or facial expression—that we pick up on automatically. As robots integrate more and more into human life, how will they figure out the codes for appropriate behavior in different contexts? Can social intelligence be learned via an algorithm? And how do we design socially smart robots to be of special assistance to children, older adults, and people with disabilities? Josh and Ray read the room with Elaine Short from Tufts University, co-author of more than 20 papers on human-robot interaction, including "No fair!! An interaction with a cheating robot."

VR transports users into all kinds of different realities, some modeled on the real world, others completely invented. Though still in its infancy, the technology has become so sophisticated, it can trick the brain into treating the virtual experience as real and unmediated. So what is the most prudent way to employ this cutting edge technology going forward? Could VR help solve real world problems, like implicit bias or the climate crisis? And as the technology becomes more widely available, are there potential dangers we ought to be seriously thinking about? Josh and Ray strap on their goggles with Jeremy Bailenson, Director of the Virtual Human Interaction Lab at Stanford, and author of Experience on Demand: What Virtual Reality Is, How It Works, and What It Can Do.

Although the concept that we can have thoughts and desires hidden from consciousness can be traced back to antiquity, it was Freud who truly popularized it in the twentieth century. Now Freud’s theory of the unconscious mind has mostly been abandoned for being unscientific and lacking in empirical evidence. So what has replaced it? Are newer theories that reference “automatic systems” or “implicit attitudes” any more scientific than Freud’s? And why is so much research about the unconscious mind being conducted in business schools? Josh and Ray are quite conscious of their guest, Blakey Vermeule from Stanford University, author of "The New Unconscious: A Literary Guided Tour."

Cognitive science has revolutionized our understanding of the brain and how it functions. Researchers have even used fMRI to detect differences in the way people engage with literature. But can contemporary science really teach us anything about how novels, poems, and movies work? Do new understandings of the unconscious help us appreciate the brilliant magic tricks that writers pull off? And could a better picture of mental imagery inspire novelists to write differently? Josh and Ray pick the brain of Stanford neuroscientist David Eagleman, author of Livewired: The Inside Story of the Ever-Changing Brain.

It’s easy to identify the pressing issues facing our world today, but it’s much more difficult to assign responsibility for them. Often the blame is placed on collectives — on entire governments, nations, and societies. But does the responsibility truly all fall to them? How can we identify precisely whose fault it is, for example, that we are experiencing climate change, or that hate crimes occur, or that there is a gender wage gap? Or do we as individuals hold a certain amount of responsibility for such pervasive, systemic issues? Josh and Ray avoiding pointing fingers with Maron Smiley from Brandeis University, author of Moral Responsibility and the Boundaries of Community.

Securing citizenship to a developed country could guarantee people enormous privileges and opportunities. Some condemn those who try illegally to reap the benefits that come with such citizenship. But are our ways of determining who gets to enter borders arbitrary and unfair? Should we grant border access to people born in a nation’s territories, or also on people whose parents were citizens? Or should we favor the highly skilled who can contribute the most to the nation? What is the most just way to determine citizenship? Josh and Ray cross the border with Arash Abizadeh from McGill University, author of Hobbes and the Two Faces of Ethics.

In just months the world changed radically, and we have all had to adjust our lifestyles to stop the spread of Covid-19. Those working on the frontlines are taking on great personal risk while the rest of us are required to socially distance. But even if you follow all the guidelines, you may still face moral dilemmas. Is it ethical to order non-essential goods online, putting low wage workers at risk for your own comfort? What should you do if your roommates refuse to follow the rules, putting your health in danger? And if social distancing means thousands will die alone of non-Covid related diseases, has it gone too far? Jon and Ray put your Covid-related conundrums to Karen Stohr from the Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown University, author of Minding the Gap: Moral Ideals and Moral Improvement.

In recent decades, we’ve witnessed intense cultural wars waged on scientifically established phenomena, such as climate change and the benefit of vaccines. Of course, we might agree that some degree of skepticism about the world around us is good—it would be impractical and even dangerous for us to blindly accept everything we are told as fact. But is skepticism always healthy? Or is there a point at which one’s skepticism regarding a given phenomenon becomes unwarranted or even detrimental form of denialism? And if there does exist such a point, how do we know when we’ve crossed it? Josh and Ray won't deny their discussion with Michael Shermer, author of Giving the Devil his Due: Reflections of a Scientific Humanist.