Philosophy Talk

We all hope for peace. Yet in the face of violence, it often seems the only recourse is more violence. Advocates of non-violence claim it’s not necessary to respond to war in kind, and that responding violently, even in self-defense, just perpetuates the cycle of violence. So how can we practice non-violence under the direct threat of violence? Can non-violent acts be spread to stop aggression and war? And are there times when violence is, in fact, necessary? John and Ken keep the peace with Judith Butler from UC Berkeley, author of The Force of Non-Violence: An Ethico-Political Bind.

Belief in God is thought by many to be the only possible source of morality, such that without a God, “everything is permitted.” Yet godlessness is on the rise in the West, with figures like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Lawrence Krauss leading the “New Atheism” movement. But if atheism is defined by its lack of belief, where do these non-believers find their guiding moral principles? Are there any positive beliefs or values that atheists have in common? If so, are they based on a rational, scientific framework, or must non-believers, like believers, ultimately rely on faith? John and Ken welcome John Figdor, a Humanist chaplain at Stanford University and co-author of Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart: Rewriting the Ten Commandments for the Twenty-First Century, for a program recorded live on campus.

Democratic systems of government are supposed to reflect the interests of ordinary citizens, and not some shadowy political elite. But more and more, we see the influence of big money and special interest groups in so-called democratic politics, while income inequality and voter suppression grow. With millions convinced that politicians don’t speak for them, is there a “crisis of representation” in the US? Are these problems a result of political decay in our institutions, or is democracy in trouble everywhere? How can we achieve an efficient and prosperous democracy in which the average citizen is truly represented? Should we consider a radically different system of government? John and Ken keep calm with renowned political scientist Francis Fukuyama, author of Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. This program was recorded live on the Stanford University campus.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual is the primary reference catalog for mental health illnesses. But whereas a medical textbook will show you the picture of a broken bone or a tumor, leaf through the DSM and you will find just one thing: lists of symptoms. Who creates these lists, and based on what criteria? Do such lists really capture the nature of a mental illness? What does it mean to be a disease of the mind versus a disease of the body? Does our classification system construct mental illness, or does it reveal underlying facts from genetics or neuroscience? John and Ken diagnose the issues with Jerome Wakefield from NYU, co-author of The Loss of Sadness: How Psychiatry Transformed Normal Sorrow Into Depressive Disorder.

Albert Camus is most famous for his existential works of fiction including The Stranger as well as his philosophical essay The Myth of Sisyphus. He led the French resistance press during Nazi Occupation and became one of the youngest Nobel laureates in literature. His contemporary, Hannah Arendt, described him as “head and shoulders above the other intellectuals.” How does Camus’ philosophy of Absurdism compare and contrast with Sartre’s popular existentialism, especially in their conceptions of freedom? What political and philosophical issues of his time were he deeply involved in, and what relevance does his thinking still hold for the problems of contemporary life? John and Ken remain sensible with Robert Zaretsky from the University of Houston, author of A Life Worth Living: Albert Camus and the Quest for Meaning.

Whether it’s making donations and signing petitions online, or using social media to highlight political causes, cyber-activism has never been easier. With a few clicks, we can make our voices heard around the globe. But who’s listening, and is anything actually changing? Does cyber-activism mobilize real-world action on the ground, or does it reduce political engagement to simple mouse-clicking and ultimately threaten the subversive nature of change? John and Ken get active with Lucy Bernolz from the Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society, co-author of Disrupting Philanthropy: Technology and the Future of the Social Sector. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in San Francisco.

The number of chronically hungry people in the world is over 800 million, yet developed countries are facing health challenges from rising rates of obesity. The growing problems of food security and water scarcity seem an issue of distribution rather than availability. But other factors also influence the status of food and water security worldwide. So where does the problem with food and water security lie? Do developed countries – or any other entities or individuals – have any moral obligations to ensure a global network of water and food security? What practical, policy-oriented action can fulfill any moral obligations that might exist? John and Ken grab a bite with Tim Benton, Professor of Population Ecology at the University of Leeds and UK Champion for Global Food Security.

Anarchism says there’s no need for a state, that it would be better to have a society without central government. Anarchists dislike the often heavy-handed authority that government brings. Yet the dream of the stateless society is not a simple one. How can we have law and order without government? What’s involved in a self-governed society, free from authority? And how could we ever peacefully transition from central governance to anarchy? John and Ken question authority with James Martel from San Francisco State University, editor of How Not To Be Governed: Readings and Interpretations from a Critical Anarchist Left. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in San Francisco.

The question of what happens to us after we die remains as mysterious now as it always was. Some think that death amounts to total annihilation of the self; others adhere to certain religious traditions, which teach that the immaterial soul (and, in some traditions, the resurrected body) can ultimately survive death. So how are we to judge between these radically different views of what happens to us in death? What would it mean for the self to persist beyond the destruction of the body? Is there room in a scientific account of the mind for the existence of an immaterial soul? John and Ken see the light with Richard Swinburne from the University of Oxford, author of Mind, Brain, and Free Will. Part of our series Visions of Immortality.

The unexamined year is not worth reviewing. But what ideas and events that took shape over the past year have prompted us to question our assumptions and to think about things in new ways? What significant events – in politics, in science, and in philosophy itself – have called into question our most deeply-held beliefs? John and Ken celebrate the examined year with a philosophical look back at the year that was 2014: • The Year in Academic Freedom with Katherine Franke, Professor of Law at Columbia University and Director of the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law • The Year in Race and Justice with Chris Lebron, Professor of Philosophy and African-American Studies at Yale University and author of The Color Of Our Shame: Race and Justice In Our Time • The Year in Neuroscience and the Brain with Rudolph Tanzi, Professor of Neurology at Harvard University and Director of the Genetics and Aging Research Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital