Philosophy vs. Improv

Prof in the house! Babette teaches at Fordham and recently edited the collection “Reading David Hume’s ‘On The Standard of Taste,’” which Mark made use of for The Partially Examined Life’s treatment of that essay in #289. So this can serve either as a follow-up to that discussion or as a fresh cogitation on the idea of an art critic. Can such people’s superior tastes be defined objectively according to their sensory, discriminatory capabilities? Like, we should listen to them when it comes to judgments about art because they can detect things about artworks that most of us can’t, whether due to their extensive experience studying such works or their particularly acute senses? This is more philosophically beefy than our typical PvI ep, so let me spell out some of the points made: Are there objective, detectable features of things in the world that make them beautiful? Not exactly, because of the logical is-ought distinction, which goes for ethics just as for art. We could all agree that something occurrence will hurt a lot of people, or that some object is perfectly symmetrical. Various philosophers have argued that hurting = bad by definition, or that symmetrical = beautiful by definition, but Hume (and subsequently Kant) disagree. For Hume, in both cases these are matters of human feelings. It’s sufficient that correctly functioning people will feel that hurting is (normally) bad and that symmetrical things are (generally, in the absence of other blemishes) prettier than lopsided ones. So a good art critic can’t just be someone who is a great detector of fine details, but has to actually feel pleasure at the right things, and defining which are the “right” things is difficult when the whole point of designating some people as good critics is that they’re the ones who know better than the rest of us which ones are right! Plus, as Babette points out, for art, while there might be some eternal principles like symmetry that always please people throughout the ages, our artistic sensibilities change with the age, so that particularly when it comes to humor, what smart people found funny 100 years ago is not going to be identical to what humor connoisseurs find funny now. Clearly, though, not finding this podcast to be a hoot indicates some sort of cognitive and/or affective disorder. Relating this more directly to improv: As a beginning improviser, you might want to look for particular rules to follow that will guarantee humor, but of course there are no such things.  Babette was then game to participate in some scenes involving incorporating pop culture topics into university curricula and a post-mortem (fictional) musical about David Hume by Meat Loaf scribe Jim Steinman; for my inspiration on the latter, I will refer folks to my three-time guest Tim Quirk’s essay about Bat out of Hell. (Prediction: among my musician acquaintances, Tim may be the first to appear on PvI if and when I start dipping in that well, and if he’s amenable, of course.) One of the passing references that Babette dropped that I was not familiar with is the “Hottentot Venus” as a potential model of beauty. As Bill points out, one of the elements of changing tastes is dialectical, meaning that the next fashion is seen as an answer or antidote to the previous one, as tastes swing back and forth. Babette also refers to Nigel Warburton as being the direct descendent of the man who censored Hume and thus unintentionally commissioned this essay (i.e. it was created to replace something that was suppressed). My Internet searching is not able to confirm the historical accuracy of Babette’s claim about putting baby chicks in a mattress and then erotically crushing them. But it’s fucking wild that she threw that in, so don’t give up on this before our second improv scene is complete! The image for this episode was swiped from this article, and I hope that painting is actually by a child. Now, since the fingers are not drawn, you can’t actually see that the figure in the picture is giving the finger to the critical spectator, but as perspicacious critic I can see and enjoy that this is clearly the case. What, are you blind or something? Get more PvI at philosophyimprov.com. This is a pledge drive of sorts to support season two! Join patreon.com/philosophyimprov, or there’s no guarantee that PvI will exist after this summer! Here are some benefits/points about this: Patreon charges by episode, so if we don’t put out any, you’re not paying a monthly charge. However, you can also maximize your pledge per month, in case we go back to posting more often. All content is (for now) available for pledges at any level. Showing your support is more important than the sheer income we receive (though that of course does matter to how much we can afford to produce). This means you get the post-game chatting for all our our past episodes plus a few bonus recordings for free just by signing up. I’ll be posting at least two audio readings from my new book Philosophy for Teens over the next two weeks just for supporters. As with all bonus footage, we won’t charge supporters anything (beyond your per-episode pledge) for them (i.e. they don’t count as episodes). The more people that sign up, the more bonus stuff we’ll post, and the more episodes of the show we can afford to produce.

Contemplate the difference between signs, symbols, and symptoms. Did our improv scene get Zoom-bombed, or is that just real life intruding? THINK OF THE CHILDREN (eating Doritos)! What flavor of chip is Bill trying to teach today? Why is Brooke sad? Brooke is of course an improviser and has also been on TV and works for Jackbox Games. Follow her @brookebreit, For more information about this whole signs vs. symbols thing, listen to The Partially Examined Life #290. Image by Ryan, age 4, from this page. Audio editing by Tyler Hislop. Hear more PvI. Support the podcast to get bonus stuff and good karma! In this week’s post-game available only to supporters, we we hear more about Brooke’s acting and video game work and talk more chips n’ childrearing.

…which, as I was saying, is right in the middle of a sentence or scene! Sheesh! How should our personal and family histories shape our behavior, both in real life and in improv scenes? Do these histories, these stories we tell ourselves, nail us down as people? Are we all old before our time? Are those your real parents? Hang on to your poser wallet! Image by Julia as found here. Audio editing by Tyler Hislop. Hear more PvI. Support the podcast to get bonus stuff and good karma!

Panpsycast host Jack, the Liverpudliest Liverpudlian of all, brings his promiscuous philosophy of mind to the show, wherein mind is here, there, and everywhere. But what does that mean? Skits about renting a flat for nefarious purposes and designing software for Nozick’s experience machine reveal all! But the question remains… So what? You have to care! Hear Jack on his own podcast talking about various philosophies of mind including panpsychism. Hear PEL cover the “hard problem of consciousness” with one of Jack’s co-hosts. Listen to the Pretty Much Pop on The Matrix. Watch the Deep Thoughts that Bill refers to.  Get Jack’s book Talking About the Mind. Hear more PvI. Support the podcast to get bonus stuff and good karma! Sponsor: Get 15% off premium earbuds at BuyRaycon.com/pvi.

Today’s episode is about questioning: how one might question, what sets the parameters for a proper answer, and how to give those answers in an informative and/or dramatically effective way. Watch out for dream pigs! Also, how to get into the VIP room at Stuckey’s. Perhaps a pair of paralegals can help. In the post-game, included JUST THIS ONCE for public enjoyment, we reflect on improv in the real world and some potential spin-off improv podcasts from our episode. The image is from the Children’s Drawing Archive. Audio editing by Tyler Hislop. Hear more PvI. Support the podcast to get bonus stuff and good karma! Sponsor: Get 15% off premium earbuds at BuyRaycon.com/pvi.

We are joined by the young purveyor of the Reductio podcast, who wrote his dissertation on normality, which was such a normie thing to do. Can “abnormality” be morally neutral, or is that term cursed? We talk disability studies. You down with OTPs? Repeat after mes! How many towels do you need? Listen to Andrew explain his dissertation uninterrupted. Here’s that offensive theme from Tropic Thunder. Image by Emily, cribbed from this article. Audio editing by Tyler Hislop. Hear more PvI. Support the podcast to get bonus stuff and good karma!

Is money the root of all evil, or does it save us from needless cabaret bartering? What is money qua social construction? Should we retain the chocolate fountain? Are you ready to run? Did you bring your NFTs to trade for blue powder? Bill is master of the frustration scene. Here’s the Stanford article about money and finance. Listen to Linda and her husband Noah (who was also just our guest) on this other podcast, and also this one. Follow Linda @IrisCutter. The image by one Miss Thompson was submitted to a Daily Mail article. Audio editing by Tyler Hislop of Pixel Box Media. Hear more PvI. Support the podcast to get bonus stuff and good karma!

We are guest free! We are unrestrained in exploring various conversational topics in a facetious manner, from hairballs to boogers to color vision among inanimate objects and rules for unicorn play. When the bad-ass, smelly, screaming white ball hits the 5 ball, how does the causality work? Is skepticism about physical forces just conspiracy theory? Image from this NY Times article, perhaps about COVID? But I’m imagining that those two upper left circle figures are differentially colored billiard balls. Audio editing by Tyler Hislop of Pixel Box Media. Hear more about Malebranche on causality in the latest PEL episode. Hear more PvI. Support the podcast to get bonus stuff and good karma!

Thi is a philosopher of games, making him a perfect match for this podcast. Why are games worthy of philosophical study? What counts as a game, anyway? We play a frustration game, finish each others’ sentences, and ask dumb questions on a museum tour. It’s an unusually discussion-focused episode! Picture is by Zahra, grabbed from this article. Audio editing by Tyler Hislop of Pixel Box Media. Thi sticks around for the post-game, and we talk about gaming rules, algorithms, quantification, RPGs (he recommends Apocalypse World and Microscope RPG). Bill recommends Painting with John. Get all of our post-game discussions by signing up to support us at philosophyimprov.com/support. Hear Thi on Mark’s Pretty Much Pop podcast talking about food culture.

Can we have an entertaining discussion inspired by Aristotle’s most boring book? Bill leads Mark and our guest Tommy through some let’s-describe-what’s-in-an-imaginary-room exercises.  Dark Tourist, I’m Sorry, the bookCan we have an entertaining discussion inspired by Aristotle’s most boring book, The  Categories? Bill leads Mark and our guest Tommy through some let’s-describe-what’s-in-an-imaginary-room exercises. Then Tommy is supposed to give a comedy TED Talk, and chooses Mediterranean food. But what about his estranged father and all those corpses? For the real skinny on Categories, listen to Partially Examined Life #279. Hear Tommy as Philosophy Bro monologue about Plato then join the PEL fellows on the Symposium on PEL #100. Hear Tommy and Mark talk board games on Pretty Much Pop #108. The art for this episode is by Martin via this Angie’s List article. Audio editing by Tyler Hislop of Pixel Box Media. Hear more PvI. Support the podcast to get bonus stuff and good karma! Sponsor: Learn about St. John’s College at sjc.edu/improv.