Philosophy
-
EP21: Is There Space for Revolutionary Thought Online? (Interview with Mike Watson)
Listen nowIn this episode, we welcome Mike Watson, political theorist, artist, and author, to explore the intersections of digital culture, socialism, and existential thought. We read Mike’s new book where he explores how online culture shapes our understanding of community, addiction, and identity in the digital age.
-
EP20: Are Humans Actually Irrational? (On Thaler and Sunstein’s Libertarian Paternalism) Feat. Gordon Katic
Listen nowIn this episode, we ask, how irrational are human beings really? To answer this, we read Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein’s classic essay on “libertarian paternalism” which argues that because human beings are easily manipulated by their surrounding “choice architecture”, governments should use this mechanism to encourage citizens to make better choices.
-
EP19: Is Monogamy Morally Permissible (On Harry Chalmers’ Argument Against Monogamy)
Listen nowIn this episode, we examine Harry Chalmers’ provocative take: monogamy is morally suspect. Why should we treat restricting romantic partners any differently than restricting friendships? Since restricting our partner’s friends would seem pathological, so too, restricting sexual and romantic partners.
-
EP17: Should We Sacrifice the Utilitarians First? (Smilansky’s Designer Ethics) Ft. Ben Burgis
Listen nowIn this episode, we delve into Saul Smilansky’s provocative paper, “Should We Sacrifice the Utilitarians First?” which introduces the concept of “Designer Ethics” (DE). Smilansky argues that individuals’ moral views should influence how they are treated in moral dilemmas
-
EP16: Should Philosophers Stay Out Of Politics? (On van der Vossen’s Defence of The Ivory Tower)
Listen nowOn this episode, we read Bass van der Vossen’s “In defense of the ivory tower”. On this view, philosophers should stay in their lane. That lane being, the pursuit of Truth! Partisanship is opposed to truth and is a danger to academic integrity.
-
EP15: Is Zoophilia Morally Permissible? (On Bensto’s Defence of Zoophilia)
Listen nowHide your cats, hide your dogs, we’re talking about Zoophilia. In a 2023 article, Bensto (pseudonym) attacks one of our most deeply entrenched social taboos: animal-human sex.
-
EP 14: What if Moral Philosophy is Immoral? (On Brennan and Freiman’s Moral Philosophy’s Moral Risk)
Listen nowIn this episode, we debate a dilemma at the root of moral philosophical inquiry: either philosophers should avoid risky topics that could violate moral norms (such as expressive duties not to offend), or they must be granted some level of exemption from these duties in their professional work.
-
EP13: What if There’s No Meaning to Life? (On Benatar’s The Human Predicament)
Listen nowThis 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.
-
EP11: Is Post-Truth Actually Good? (On Fuller’s Post-Truth as Power Game)
Listen nowWe 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.
-
EP8: Should the Knowledgable Rule? (On Jason Brennan’s “Against Democracy”)
Listen nowOn this week’s episode, we read Jason Brennan’s 2016 book, “Against Democracy”. In it, Brennan offers a controversial argument for replacing democracy with an “epistocracy” – rule by the knowledgeable.
-
EP7: Should We Support Affirmative Action? (On Pojman’s Case Against Affirmative Action)
Listen nowOn this episode, we read Louis Pojman’s 1998 article, “The Case Against Affirmative Action”. We debate whether any of his arguments against the practice of affirmative action have any merit from the perspective of left politics. We also consider whether class-based affirmative action is preferable.
-
EP4: Is it Morally Wrong to Prefer Attractive Partners? (On ‘Lookism’ and William D’Alessandro)
Listen nowIf 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). 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?