Philosophy Talk

Being funny isn’t easy. Figuring out what makes things funny is even harder. Still, a number of psychologists (e.g., Freud) and philosophers (e.g., Bergson) have tried. Now computer scientists are trying to learn enough about humor to construct programs that can write good jokes; maybe an artificial stand-up comedian is on the way. Ken and John discuss the art, philosophy and science of humor with Tony Veale, an Irish computer scientist who knows a good joke when his program produces one.

Monogamy is traditional in most cultures, and it is the law throughout America since Utah gave up polygamy to acquire statehood. Is there any philosophical basis for favoring monogamy over polygamy? Or any reasons grounded in clear empirical facts or social needs? With a looming shortage of females relative to males in large parts of Asia, is it time to question this traditional assumption about marriage? John and Ken remain faithful to their guest, renowned anthropologist Helen Fisher, author of Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love.

Sociologist, historian, philosopher, editor, writer, and activist, W.E.B. Du Bois was one of the most influential intellectuals of the twentieth century. The first African-American Ph.D. from Harvard University, Du Bois died in Ghana after having renounced his American citizenship. In between he co-founded the NAACP and wrote The Souls of Black Folk (1903) as well as a number of other influential books that had a decisive impact on the development of African-American culture in the twentieth century. John and Ken discuss Du Bois’ life and thought with Lucius Outlaw from Vanderbilt University, author of On Race and Philosophy.

How should we decide what laws to pass? Should majority rule, even when they are legislating values? Ken thinks this results in tyranny. What kinds of values are there? There are values that are essential to democracy, e.g. education. Ken introduces the guest, Anna Eshoo, congresswoman of the 14th district of California. Are we in a culture war? What are the casualties like in a culture war? Is the current political climate different than it historically has been? John points out that certain issues have always been contested, such as abortion. What happens when the legislature does not act to support values it should? The Warren court ordering desegregation of the schools was not legislated but it was certainly a social good. Should we follows Rawls’s principle that only reasons acceptable to any reasonable person should be admitted when the government is involved? Eshoo thinks that Rawls’s principle is divorced from the way democracy actually works and so is not applicable. Do we need to distinguish between public and private spheres of values to allow the maximum number of citizens to be engaged politically? Is liberty or democracy a more fundamental American value? Eshoo thinks you can’t let one take precedence over the other. Both minority and majority desires are important. Rawls thought that there was an overlapping consensus of opinion, a set of things that everyone could agree on. Legislation could proceed from that. Ken thinks that this is a problematic idea. Why should people agree to set aside fundamental beliefs in order to engage each other? Who is responsible for the divisions in society? Ken thinks the political class exploits these differences to destructive ends. Should people vote their values to the detriment of their economic status? How can we not vote our values? Sixty-Second Philosopher (Seek to 05:20): Ian Shoales summarizes the history of Anthony Comstock’s anti-obescenity activities.

Is philosophy the queen of the sciences, with the job of synthesizing, interpreting and evaluating the results of the particular sciences? Or should we adopt John Locke’s conception of philosophy as a handmaiden to science: clarifying concepts, definitions and assumptions? During the twentieth century the discipline of the philosophy of science emerged as a central part of philosophy. Ken and John discuss some of the leading ideas and projects involved in this branch of philosophy.

Is there any reason to think the cause or causes of order in the universe bear an even remote analogy to human intelligence? Even if they did, would that mean these intelligent causes had the benevolence and sense of justice required of a Christian God? Is this whole issue one of science, religion, or philosophy? These questions, considered by Hume, have now become the focus of a national debate. The philosophers discuss intelligent design with Daniel Dennett, Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University, author of books on consciousness, evolution, and freedom.

Does the value of preserving our environment conflict with the development of a world community in which all enjoy the fruits of human progress? Is the environment important intrinsically, or only as a source of pleasure and other goods for human beings? Ken and John discuss these and other issues with Terry Tamminen, Cabinet Secretary to California Governor Schwarzenegger, and an environmental activist.

The question of whether or not God exists is profoundly fascinating and important. What are the proofs of the existence of God? How can one prove that God does not exist? Join us as John and Ken explore issues such as religious experience, the Bible, evil, eternity, the origin of the universe, design, and the supposed connection between morality and the existence of God with Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Professor of Philosophy, and Hardy Professor of Legal Studies, Dartmouth College.

Immanuel Kant introduced the human mind as an active originator of experience rather than just a passive recipient of perception.  How has his philosophy influenced the world after him?  John and Ken dig into the brilliantly active mind of Kant with Peter Gilgen from Cornell University, editor of Back to Kant II: The Fate of Kant in a Time of Crisis.

The Constitution grants the freedom of speech to every citizen.  Journalists value it more than anything else.  Should the freedom of speech be unlimited?  Would unlimited freedom of speech do more good or bad to our society?  Would limited freedom of speech impact the monitoring power of news media and therefore threaten our society?  John and Ken discuss the philosophy behind the freedom of speech with Geoff Stone from the University of Chicago Law School.