Philosophy Talk

In troubling, uncertain times, the arts and humanities are more important than ever. Engaging with works of literature can provide both much needed insight into our current struggles and a sense of perspective in a crisis. In what ways do novels or plays help us come to terms with human suffering? Can fictional narratives about past pandemics shed light on our current situation? And how can storytelling or music help bring us together in isolation? Josh and Ray converse with a range of Stanford faculty members about how philosophy, music, drama, and literature can provide comfort, connection, and a sense of community. Lanier Anderson on Albert Camus’ The Plague Michaela Bronstein on narrative and fiction as imaginative tools Ato Quayson on the social value of oral storytelling

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? Josh and Ray run up the bill with Graham Hubbs from the University of Idaho, editor of Pragmatism, Law, and Language.

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. • Most Stimulating and Stressful Vision of today’s America • Most Morally Enthralling and/or Desensitizing Film • Dopest Doctored Documentary

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? Josh and John question theirselves with Alison Gopnik from UC Berkeley, author of The Philosophical Baby and “How David Hume Helped Me Solve My Midlife Crisis.”

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 21st 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? And what effect—good or bad—will new communicative styles have on participation in the democratic polity? The philosophers share complete thoughts with Jan Mieszkowski from Reed College, author of Crises of the Sentence.

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.

The Philosophy Talk team is deeply saddened by Ken Taylor’s untimely passing this month. Ken was the show’s co-founder, longtime co-host, chief cheerleader, and guiding light. In this special episode, co-hosts Josh Landy and Debra Satz, along with host emeritus and co-creator John Perry, remember their colleague and friend. They also hear from past guests, former students, and others touched by Ken’s life and work. If you’re inclined to take a deep dive into Ken’s personal background and life as a philosopher, then we think you’ll thoroughly enjoy this extensive interview and his Stanford obituary. We’re also touched and honored that Ken’s family has requested that donations in his memory be made to Philosophy Talk.

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?”

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? Josh and Ken submit to Stanford political scientist Alison McQueen, author of Political Realism in Apocalyptic Times.