Philosophy Talk Starters

More at www.philosophytalk.org/shows/allure-authoritarianism. In George Orwell’s 1984, the party’s “final, most essential command” was “to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.” Authoritarian regimes call on us to accept as fact whatever they tell us; or worse, as Hannah Arendt says, they get us to a point where we no longer know—or care about—the difference between fiction and reality. So why are so many so willing to reject the evidence of their senses and deny basic, confirmable truths? Is there something about human psychology that makes us susceptible to totalitarian propaganda? And as the appeal of authoritarian leaders grows around the world, how do we guard against such radical thought manipulation? Josh and Ken lure Michael Lynch from the University of Connecticut, author of "Know-It-All Society: Truth and Arrogance in Political Culture."

More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/mill-and-good-life. John Stuart Mill was one of the most important British philosophers of the 19th century. As a liberal, he thought that individuals are generally the best judges of their own welfare. But Mill was also a utilitarian who thought that there were objectively lower and higher pleasures and that the good life was one which maximized higher pleasures. So is there a way to reconcile Mill’s liberal project with his utilitarianism? Is the good life for Mill one in which individuals determine their own paths? Or should those who know better still try to nudge others to live better lives? John and Ken fulfill their potential with David Brink from UC San Diego, author of Mill's Progressive Principles.

More at www.philosophytalk.org/shows/sanctuary-cities. 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?”

More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/explanation-its-best. In both everyday life and science, we often feel the pull of simpler, more elegant, or more beautiful explanations. For example, you notice the street is wet and infer the best explanation is that it rained earlier. But are we justified in assuming these tidy explanations are most likely to be true? What makes an explanation “simple” or “elegant” in the first place? And can the “loveliness” of an explanation ever be a good guide to its “likeliness”? Josh and Ken try to explain things with Princeton University psychologist Tania Lombrozo, co-editor of "Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy."

More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/doomsday-doctrine. The doctrine of mutually assured destruction is supposed to deter both sides in a war from launching the first nuclear strike. However, the strategy of the US, NATO, and other super powers has been to plan the destruction of nearly all life on Earth. If near total annihilation would be monstrous, ethically speaking, then what should we say about preparing for and planning it? Can there be any moral justification for plausibly threatening a nuclear holocaust? And now that we’ve gotten ourselves in this situation, is there any realistic and ethical way out? John and Ken avoid going nuclear with writer, activist, former defense analyst and whistleblower, Daniel Ellsberg, author of "The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner."

More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/reading-troubled-past. Nigerian writer Chinua Achebe lambasted Joseph Conrad’s novel Heart of Darkness as a deeply racist work that should be removed from the Western canon. Defenders of Conrad say the novel is simply an expression of its time and not an endorsement of the racist attitudes it represents. So how do we judge the moral legitimacy of older works of literature and philosophy? Should we shun writers for holding racist or sexist views? Or is it important to read—and censure—them? Is it fair to judge authors of the past by today’s politically conscious standards? Josh and Ken have no trouble reading with Julie Napolin from The New School, author of "The Fact of Resonance: Modernist Acoustics and Narrative Form" (forthcoming).

More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/postmodernism-really-blame. Postmodernism is often characterized by its rejection of concepts championed by the Enlightenment, like meaning, truth, reason, and knowledge. Some philosophers blame postmodernism for making cynicism about truth and facts now respectable in political debate. So is postmodernism responsible for “fake news” and “alternative facts”? Or does it simply provide the tools to describe popular distrust of traditional authorities, like science and the media? Must we reject postmodernism in order to rescue truth? Josh and Ken find truth in Thomas de Zengotita, author of "Postmodern Theory and Progressive Politics: Toward a New Humanism."

More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/polyamory. In most if not all modern Western societies, monogamy is the dominant form of romantic relationship. In polyamorous or "open" relationships, however, each person is free to love multiple partners at once. Just as our friendships are non-exclusive, advocates of polyamory believe our romantic relationship should be too. So why do so many people find polyamory distacteful, or even despicable? Is it immoral to love more than one person at a time? Or is our society's commitment to monogamy simply a fossil of tradition that could one day be obsolete? The Philosophers welcome back Carrie Jenkins from the University of British Columbia, author of "What Love Is: And What It Could Be."

More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/hacking-brain. Humans evolved to have a variety of senses—smell, sight, touch, etc.—that provide information about the world around us. Our brains use this sensory information to construct a particular picture of reality. But what if it were technologically possible to hack our brains and create new senses for humans, such as echolocation or magnetoception? How would our brains integrate this new kind of information? What would it be like to perceive the world using these strange new senses? And how would these novel senses change our view of reality? Josh and Ken sense they'll talk to neuroscientist David Eagleman, author of "The Brain: The Story of You."

More at philosophytalk.org/shows/art-non-violence. 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."