This week we ask probably the most commonly uttered philosophical question: is there a meaning to life? To help us approach an answer, we read the first few chapters of philosopher David Benatar’s The Human Predicament. Benatar’s answer is as edgy as it gets. No, there’s no meaning to life, and no matter how much we try to soothe ourselves, this is a terrible state of affairs. Though Benatar is a pessimist, he admits that human lives can have social or personal meaning, but on a cosmic scale we are totally insignificant. On this episode, we debate whether Benatar’s idea of “cosmic meaning” even makes sense. We also consider the way our own personal upbringings might influence the way we take up this question. The post EP13: What if There’s No Meaning to Life? (On Benatar’s The Human Predicament) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

In ethnography there has been a long-standing tradition to prioritize the interests of research participants through a scholar-informant solidarity. This week we ask, how far should this scholar-informant solidarity go in cases where the research participants are dangerous or otherwise unsavoury? In this episode, we interview Benjamin Teitelbaum about this question and his own work that entails a “deep hanging out” with his research subjects. As Teitelbaum describes them, “They go by many names: outsiders describe them as right-wing extremists, organized racists, or neofascists, and they tend to call themselves nationalists. I call them friends”. This week we read “Collaborating with the Radical Right: Scholar-Informant Solidarity and the Case for an Immoral Anthropology“. In it, Teitelbaum defends his use of scholar-informant solidarity with the far right. Additionally, the article includes a series of responses to Teitelbaum’s argument from a collection of leading scholars in the field. Matt and Victor also interviewed Teitelbaum on PlasticPills about his book on Steve Bannon and Traditionalism called War for Eternity. You can find that interview here. The post EP12: Is Making Friends with the Far-Right a Good Way to Research Them? (ft. Benjamin Teitelbaum) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

We revisit a curious academic debate in science and technology studies, or STS. After 2016, some claimed that leftist humanities scholars played a role in creating the post-truth moment. And Steve Fuller argued that there’s nothing wrong with that. He likens post-truth to a kind of epistemic democratization that we should embrace. We read the third chapter from Steve Fuller’s book, Post Truth: Knowledge as Power Game. We also read three short essays that build on this debate. You can find those here, here, and here. In the episode, we ask: In what way is the reactionary right similar and different to the science studies left? What would epistemic democratization really mean, and is that a good thing? How far are we willing to go with ideas that stress the social construction of scientific knowledge? Do we counter the anti-science right by defending scientists, or by offering a broader political vision? And more generally, what should the left do when the right takes leftish ideas? The post EP11: Is Post-Truth Actually Good? (On Fuller’s Post-Truth as Power Game) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

Exploring the provocative views of a libertarian edgelord on contentious topics like adult-child sex and slavery. Analyzing the distinctions between formal and fair equality of opportunity. Discussing the complexities of creating inequality while optimizing the distribution of benefits. Delving into the concept of equality of opportunity and its connection to human well-being. Reflecting on the noble lie concept and its relevance to equality in society.

Academia is often stereotyped as a radical left-wing institution. This is especially true among conservatives who even see universities as “Marxist indoctrination camps.” So much so, that many conservatives are turning their backs on the academy completely. On this episode, we debate whether ideological diversity on campus matters. We consider the extent to which it is even true that ideological diversity is a problem on university campuses, and if it is, what the best ways to solve it might be. For this episode, we read The Value of Ideological Diversity Among University Faculty by Keith E. Whittington. Matt also read Ideological Diversity by Neil Gross and Christopher Robertson. The post EP9: Are There Enough Conservatives in Academia? (On Whittington’s Case for Ideological Diversity) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

This podcast explores Jason Brennan's controversial argument for replacing democracy with rule by the knowledgeable. They discuss the flaws of democracy, the typology of the electorate, and the potential benefits of Brennan's system. The concept of epistocracy and its critiques are explored, as well as the argumentative moves regarding authority and anti-authority. They also discuss safeguards in democratic structures, individual rights, moral equality, and offer divergent views on democracy's potential for improvement.

Exploring the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision on affirmative action in higher education, debating Pojman's arguments against it. Discussing the preference for class-based affirmative action over race-based approaches. Delving into the need for broader societal reform and the impact of role models on personal development.

Many agree there is plenty of reason to worry about existing A.I., including how it perpetuates structural racism, invades privacy, erodes workers’ rights, and entrenches monopolistic firms. But might a future A.I. also take over and dominate, or potentially even destroy humanity, like some Skynet-like scenario? Some technologists worry it might, and so does Ethan. In fact, Ethan thinks that A.I. is one of the biggest threats known to humanity. The rest of us aren’t as convinced. We spend the episode debating the issue, in a mostly 1v3 dynamic of Ethan attempting to convince the rest of us. On this episode, we once again break our ‘rule’ and engage with an argument that technically isn’t peer-reviewed. We read Richard Ngo, an AI governance researcher at Open AI. He has white paper on A.I. safety first principles, which you can find here. The post EP6: Is A.I. Going To Kill Us All? (On Richard Ngo’s A.I. Safety First Principles) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

Delving into Donald Moss' controversial essay on Whiteness as a parasitic condition, the hosts question the outrage it sparked and explore the distinction between 'Whiteness' and 'whiteness'. They discuss the societal implications, self-reflection, and radical solutions to combat racism and redefine whiteness.

If your partner is attractive, then you might be part of the problem. At least, that’s what one edgelord philosopher is suggesting. We discuss William D’Alessandro’s forthcoming paper, “Is It Bad to Prefer Attractive Partners?” (in the Journal of the American Philosophical Association here). Is this “lookism” a kind of unjustified and harmful discrimination? If it is, is it realistic to expect us to modify our personal preferences for justice-oriented reasons? For philosopher William D’Alessandro, the answer to both questions is yes. On this episode, we debate these and many more questions, including: whether or not “attractiveness” can even be measured, and made sense of in this way; whether the argument leads us towards absurd conclusions about other personal characteristics (should we not date intelligent people?); and whether this argument, even if well-meaning, has potentially reactionary consequences. We also mentioned the work of Amia Srinivasan. You can find a short article about her related ideas on “the right to sex” here. The post EP4: Is it Morally Wrong to Prefer Attractive Partners? (On ‘Lookism’ and William D’Alessandro) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.