"Ask Me Anything": Why? Radio Episode with co-hosts Jack Russell Weinstein and Ashley Thornberg
8:03PM Apr 10, +0000
Speakers:
Announcer
Jack Russell Weinstein
Ashley Thornberg
Keywords:
question
philosophy
people
philosophical
philosophical question
called
giving
person
guillotine
sense
philosophical discussions
human beings
problem
trolley
negotiations
hard
good
sexual revolution
war
kill
DISCLAIMER: This transcript has been autogenerated and may contain errors, do not cite without verifying accuracy. To do so, click on the first word of the section you wish to cite and listen to the audio while reading the text. If you find errors, please email us at whyradioshow@und.edu. Please include the episode name and time stamp where the error is found. Thank you.
The original episode can be found here: https://wp.me/p8pYQY-jlu
Why philosophical discussions about everyday life is produced by the Institute for philosophy and public life, a division of the University of North Dakota's college of arts and sciences. Visit us online at why radio show.org
Hi, I'm Jack Russell Weinstein host of why philosophical discussions about everyday life. Today's episode we'll be answering listener questions and seeing where it takes us. Also, please visit why radio show.org For our archives show notes and to support the program. Click donate on the upper right hand corner to make your tax deductible donations to the University of North Dakota secure website. We exist solely on listener contributions. Of all the things I have to teach my students, the hardest by far is how to form a philosophical question. I know that sounds odd philosophy after all, is the discipline of questions is how we advertise ourselves. Our patron saint Socrates tells us that the unexamined life is not worth living. 2000 years later, Bertrand Russell wrote that philosophy is not to be studied for definite answers, but quote, for the sake of the questions themselves, because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, and quote, the show you're listening right now my show is called why it's called Why with a question mark. So that's pretty romantic stuff there. The problem is, there's no clear criteria for what makes a question philosophical as opposed to say, sociological or psychological or anthropological. I've tried to articulate the difference. A philosophical question is general in scope. I tell my students it never applies to just one situation. A philosophical question leads to more discussion rather than less if you don't end up with more doubt you're probably not on the right track and philosophical question is often terminological. It asks about the nature of specific concepts like justice, reality and time. But these are not universal rules. There are many exceptions to each one philosophical questioning is an art not a science. The real answer is that a question is philosophical if it leads to or is derived from an already established list of other philosophical questions. In other words, a question is philosophical if it's the kind of question that philosophers have already asked. This is why philosophy students start by reading classic texts instead of just talking about stuff. Over time, these great works indoctrinate the audience they make philosophical questioning habitual by giving folks a subtle script a grab bag of questions to reach into when they feel the need to ask something. But this is not a satisfying explanation. For one thing, it's circular. It tells us that a philosophical question is a philosophical question only if it's a philosophical question, and that really doesn't get us anywhere. It also makes it really hard to be a newcomer to the discipline or to find a new approach philosophy is a super conservative field of study. It's not very diverse by any measure, and it's tremendously difficult to influence or change. Almost every achievement by a woman philosopher or philosopher of color, for example, has been hard won. The number of black philosophers teaching in American universities is humiliatingly minuscule. With all of this in mind, I'd like to suggest that despite what we've been told for two millennia, philosophy is not found in the question, but in the stance of the answer. Philosophy is created by an attitude and an approach not by an inquiry and not by a conclusion. So any question can be philosophical if the interlocutors can just Zig or zag in the right way. A trivial example of this can be found in Bill Clinton's famous defense for lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. He said, It depends on what the meaning of the word is, is. That does indeed imply a philosophical question. It's general in scope, it leads to more doubt and it's terminological, but it's also disingenuous. It's designed to obfuscate to hinder investigation rather to encourage it, its defensive, which good philosophy should never be, which is why when pushed I'd probably call it a legal comment, not a philosophical one. A much more meaningful example, can be found in Ukrainian president Zelensky remark to the Israeli leadership two weeks ago. He asked, Can you explain why we're still waiting for help? This seems pretty specific to the current moment, but it isn't. It was an existential challenge a link to the Delphic Oracle's command to know thyself. Solinsky is famously Jewish and Israel carries the legacy of the Holocaust with it. This is a member of a community calling on his own people to justify their actions. Unlike Clinton's remark, it was authentic and it was meaningful. But even more tellingly, Solinsky doesn't wait for an answer. He ends his short address by saying, quote, a leave you to provide the answers to these questions by what a point out that indifference kills. calculations can be wrong. You can mediate between countries, but not between good and evil. You need to provide answers to these questions and live with them. What is more philosophical than in insisting that people encounter the moral universe they created for themselves.
On today's episode, I'm going to try to model the philosophical stance for fun and for something different. We've decided to devote this episode to what has come to be called in the internet age and ask me anything. We have been soliciting questions from our listeners, my students, even the Prairie Public staff, we've made no rules. And while we have tried to organize the questions to radically to make the discussion easier to follow, my co host for today has final say as to what questions you'll hear, she can challenge me stumped me even embarrassed me all the way up. She doesn't do that. My job. My challenge, my sport, is to prove a point. I've claimed time and time again that I can make philosophy out of anything. Today, I hope to show that this is true, but even more so. My goal will not to be pedantic or as Clinton was disingenuous. Whatever philosophy comes out of my mouth, I want it to be interesting, because if it's not, what's the point? Why, listen, if you're not personally engaged, if philosophy isn't compelling, we're not doing it right. And now I get to introduce my co host, Ashley Thornburg, host of Main Street and my partner for philosophical currents the show during which we take a look at current events through a philosophical lens. Reporter producer, radio engineer and not a super bendy yoga teacher prodigy Is that Is that what it is genius minor deity?
Well, that depends on what your definitions of those
super bendy for me is anyone who could touch their toes, right? So, Ashley, for you, thank you for agreeing to do this. And everyone at home. If you'd like to participate, share your favorite moments from the show and tag us on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. Our handle is always at y radio show, you can always email us at ask why@umd.edu And listen to our previous episodes for free, learn more, and donate at y Radio show.org. So actually, I'm super excited about this. We've got I don't know, probably like 100 questions, and we've got them from all over the place. We have some questions from Iran. And we you know, Maine and New York and Montana, which is super far away. Right. And from students from alumni from listeners from very public staff. Some of the questions are super fun. Some the questions are very serious. Some of the questions actually are really deep and and only mean just philosophically deep. But they're a couple of questions asked by people who are going through some stuff. And they're asking questions that are really important to them and reflect a lot of trust in the show. And I appreciate it. Plus, and I don't quite know how to say this because after 15 years, I still don't know what very public so policy on cursing is. So you might have to bleep it is the FCC. But but as you know, for years I've been saying you and I need to do a regular show called Jack and Ashley talk. And, and I think this is the closest we're ever gonna get. So, so talk bleep Yes. Right. So thank you very much for doing this. And now as you can see, I'm reluctantly giving the microphone over to you and I'll see what happens
all right, well, I in listening to your monologue and in saying that it is a process to think philosophically and you and I have discussed on philosophical currents before the importance of comedy in advancing discussion discussions about the human condition and making people you know, feel more comfortable. So I want to start out with you know, one of the biggest hardest hitting philosophical questions today,
right. Okay.
Yeah. Is a hot dog a sandwich
is a hot dog, you know, I was actually interviewed in the newspaper about this question, which you know, goes to show you how much I earn my my paycheck. You know, is a rapper sandwich is a hamburger a sandwich, it depends if sandwiches a category or a feeling, right? If it's a category, if it's something that's between bread, then it probably is, right the way that a euro is or or again, a rap is. But if it's a feeling if a sandwich is an experience, right, the character Joey on friends, his favorite food was sandwiches, right? And he clearly had this intimate connection and you liked the feel in your hand and you put it in your mouth in a certain way. And, and so in that sense, I don't think hot dogs are a sandwich because they don't feel like a hot dog. In fact, I think hot dogs are their own category. And, you know, maybe with broths and sausages, but you know, a hotdog is a hotdog and it's nothing else whereas a sandwich can be anything you don't know what it is until you bite into it.
What in that process illustrates how to think philosophically.
Oh, okay, I will answer that question, but I'm gonna throw a question back at you first. At our 100th anniversary. At our 100th episode, you gave me one of the best gifts I've ever I've ever gotten, which was a t shirt that had the longest question I've ever asked on the back of it. It's like 120 words or something. And, you know,
to recall, it was three minutes and eight seconds. It was a seven second question jam packed into three minutes and 18 seconds of verbal diarrhea,
right. So, so So and you've given me a lot of grief for that in the past. But I've noticed that as we've done philosophical currents, your questions have gotten longer. And your questions have gotten more complex. So before I answer that question about the process, I'm curious, as a non philosopher, can you describe or articulate the experience that you've had of trying to switch to the mode of asking philosophical questions on the air as opposed to other kinds of questions?
Well, some of that's laziness. That's right there. Yeah. Is it sometimes it's just easier to not have to come up with all of the questions in advance and just like trust, and that's a big part of it. You know, for you and me our conversations on philosophical currents, I was very, very nervous to do that segment right away. Because I have historically been one of those people who's very showy, offI. No at all. Like I always had to prove that I knew something. And and that I would do the research. And I never felt comfortable that a question would come up organically in conversation. But in doing these, I have learned, I think, to trust that there is something there is a little magic that happens in just being in that moment. And in that conversation and getting out of my own way of not needing to prove that I did the research on you know, when was the first philosophical book written? or what have you, and particularly in this conversation, because all those other things are based on, you know, what any other discipline would call a fact. A philosopher seems to call just the starting point of a question. Did that answer your question?
It really did, because you took it in in a different way than I did in the monologue. And the things that you reference are, I think, accurate and fairly moving, which is trust in yourself and others and opening yourself and getting yourself out of the way. Philosophy is a discipline of trust. It's a discipline of trust and a couple of different ways. First of all, it's trust in the interlocutor, it's trust that you get to ask what might be a silly question. And it's taken seriously. But also, it's trust, in your sense of the world. Because once you start pulling threads, you're, you may fall apart, right? You may learn things you don't want to learn, you may doubt things you don't want to doubt. And you have to trust yourself that whatever conclusion you come to, you can live with, or you can adjust to, if you're doing philosophic, philosophical inquiry, you know, authentically, then you are going to ask yourself about some of the most intimate questions and certainly, some of the most important questions and so that trust is really is key, but also getting out of your own way. I think as you know, and as our listeners know, I think everyone is doing philosophy all the time, they just don't know that it's called that I think everyone can do philosophy, and that you just have to find the right vocabulary, the right topic, the right situation. And so you have to have a trust in yourself and your own intellectual abilities that once you start asking the question, that it's going to go somewhere, that it's going to be meaningful, and that you are going to learn something from yourself. I can't tell you how many times I've had this experience in class, where I'm talking about something, and I say something interesting. And I say to myself, Oh, I didn't know that. I mean, it just to teach it. Yeah, that's right, that there's no better way to learn than to teach. So So I think both answers that you gave, were really good and indicative of the hot dog sandwich question, because first of all, it is a silly question. It is a fun question. But it can be a serious question. And so the first thing you do with a philosophical question is just take the topic seriously and find the thing that is ambiguous what's ambiguous in the question. It's the it's not just the bread, it's how you hold it. It's how you experience it. And so the way I made it a philosophical question was to take a position and on one of the details, right, because the question holistically is really hard to manage and one of the details and just see what happens if I change My relationship with the details, what do I learn? And that's how I answered the question I just asked, What am I teaching myself? When I think about that question, and what can I take from that into a different circumstance or a different situation. And for me, food is very much about the taste, the the mouthfeel, the experience, and that's different than cooking, which is about love and sharing and things like that.
Well, and if someone else went through the same sort of steps to this philosophical argument and or discussion, but came down on the other side, because it's really not about a right or a wrong, it's about, you know, the nature of how you interact with something. But they said, Yes, a hotdog is a sandwich, it is a meat or something in between two pieces of bread that you eat exclusively with your hands. And that sounds like a sandwich to a lot of people is then the point to when is it? Is it immoral to try to convince somebody else that they are wrong? Or just to convince yourself that this is how you think about something?
Well, those are a couple different questions, right? Because I don't think it's immoral to convince someone of something in general, although it might be immoral to convince someone to do something immoral. If I'm trying to convince you to be a serial killer, I don't know that I could defend that ethically. But certainly genuine inquiry, genuine discussion, genuine sort of back and forth is never immoral. And this is actually one of the questions that the great religious traditions have have struggled with, because there are religious traditions worked out as a sin. There are religious traditions were questioning as a sin. But there are religious traditions, not surprisingly, the tradition that I feel the most connected to Judaism, where questioning is part of the prayer process. It's part of the introspective process. It's part of the process of justice. And so that question that you're asking about the morality of questioning is one of the deepest and most long standing questions, as opposed to the is it about winning? Well, that's, that's about you, your personality and your circumstance, because of course, if I'm having a conversation with a really good friend, about something that's important to me, maybe I'll want to win. Or if I'm having a conversation in a bar, maybe I'll want to win. But the key to being a teacher, I think, is giving up that part of the ego, right? That thing that you said before, right? about not having to prove that you've done all the research, right? It, my job isn't to persuade my students of anything, my job isn't to convince them of anything, it doesn't matter to me, if my students agree with me or not, to ask it to quote something I said to a student yesterday, they're just not that important. I've got 1000s and 1000s, and 1000s of students and I, you know, I'm not interested in converting them to my position, what I'm interested in is selling my discipline, and creating an environment where they trust enough again, trust, to learn skills to doubt themselves and to interact with each other as much as possible. So yeah, there's some times when I want to win, but the nice thing about being a teacher is that I can bracket that and say, That's not our concern right now.
Well, this leads to the first political question that was submitted by a Chris in Moorhead. Given that people have differing political opinions often cannot dissuade each other from their viewpoints. And that each of those Viewpoints is based on its own set of and there's air quotes here verifiable facts, can it be reasonably argued that certain subsets of humans literally live in different worlds?
Well, it really depends on SOC for this, it really depends on the meaning of the word literally, right? I mean, you know, the word that we're gonna turn
this into a drinking game, every time you say the word depends.
The the meaning of the word literally has changed in the last couple of years. In recent years in internet culture, my daughter's generation literally means really, I feel strongly. And in that sense, yes, people literally live in different worlds, but if literally means what literally means literally, it means without metaphor, without adjustment. Without sort of interpretive, it is what it is playing reading. And then of course, we don't live in separate worlds, because we all walk on the same street. We all you know, have to have calories and oxygens. Now he Here's the deep philosophical question, which is, what is the role of meaning in our reality? All of these different things have meanings to us that, you know, you see a fire hydrant. And you know, it's a fire hydrant, right? It's not just a bunch of colors or shapes. And with fire hydrants, you also have associations right with, with, you know, firefighters and dogs. And growing up in New York City. We used to open the fire hydrants on really hot days, and you know, play in the waterspout. And all those things have meanings to fire hydrants have meaning to me, and if our reality is really shaped by our meaning, and if I see a fire a fire hydrant, fundamentally differently than you do, because you have different meanings, then I guess you can say, literally, we are in different worlds, because the ultimate question is, what would be called what we categorized as materialism versus idealism, which is, is reality fundamentally material matter? Stuff physical? Or is reality fundamentally mental abstract? And if it's the second, then we literally live in different worlds. But if it's the first than we don't,
a question from Kate, is the Republican agenda purely reactionary to the Democrats agenda, and presumably vice versa,
right. And, as you know, I tried very hard not to get partisan on this show, whatever my own personal opinions, we have a two party system. And a two party system is inherently reactionary, right, not in the reactionary conservative sense, but in the reacting to one another sense. And I think we've seen this over the last few decades, because conservatism has moved much more to the right. And so liberalism has to move much more to the right as well. I would not be the first person to say that Ronald Reagan could never be a Republican these days, right? He was in favor of gun control all sorts of other things. He, even though he is still worshipped, in a sense, he wouldn't he wouldn't fit the qualifications. So when the center gets moved in one direction or another, the moderates move along with them and the extremes move along with them. Now there are certain social facts that we are all experiencing, that are more quote, liberal than we've ever been before. identity issues, LGBTQ stuff, access, permissiveness, sexual permissiveness, and the openness of that culture that's much more socially liberal, but in terms of economics, in terms of Outlook, in terms of the strength of government, in terms of all that sort of stuff, in terms of, of the key Republican ideas. I actually think since Ronald Reagan, we've moved much more towards the Republican side. And that's why if you go back to the election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, Hillary, a lot of Hillary Clinton's claims were fundamentally associated with republicanism, right? Free market stuff, individual freedoms stuff that is an old school Republican and Bernie Sanders, pardon me for saying so is not a socialist. He's just a capitalist who believes in a strong social net socialism is so is so much farther to the left than the center, that he looks like a socialist to us. But he isn't. And so all that's to say, yes, they're completely reactive to one another, because it's the dialogue. It's the discourse, it's the it's the back and forth, that defines where the argument takes place.
Another question, this one from Hunter, why hasn't there been a new constitution in the United States, despite it being popular to do so in other countries?
Our Constitution is structured, or rather, the structures that come out of our Constitution is very different than other countries. We have this two party system, many European countries have and world countries have parliamentary systems. We have adversarial system, whereas other systems have coalition systems. And so it's much easier to amend to change to alter a constitution. When there are more people and more parties and more forces engaging then there is in a, in a system like ours, but there's something else and then this is where the philosophy comes in. Our Constitution has taken the form of a religious text, we talk about the Constitution, we talked about the Declaration of Independence, as if they are revelations, rather than political documents. We we talk about are the founders of America. as if they are saints as if they are heroes. They're not real people, even even the show Hamilton, right, which is, you know, tries to depict a lot of the reality and the flaws in the political process. What Hamilton is about is asking us to revere Hamilton the way we revere Jefferson. Once you take a political structure, and you start giving it religious meaning you start giving it that that sense of untouchability, then it's incredibly hard to change. And then you get things like literalist interpretations of the Constitution, plain reading, you have to follow the Constitution exactly as it says exactly what the founders thought when they wrote it, which makes sense, perhaps in a divine document, like the Bible of the Koran, but it doesn't make sense in the Constitution. Because if I were to, you know, if I were to ask George Washington, you know, what do you think about the FCC policy on on cursing on the air? George machine would go, Oh, my God, there's a voice coming out of that box, you're a witch? How would How would he know? Right. So that's the question is a really interesting question. Because what what what it rests on is the fact that we have this religious commitment to our founding texts that I think most other countries don't. And that means change is that much harder?
How far would I make it Jack? If I ran for office? Since I think we can. I don't know if we can say this word. I'll ask my boss. If I ran on the political slogan, moderation, you dumbasses.
Um I actually I have to, I have to, you know, there's this thing in constitutional law called community standards. And what it tells us is that every area has its own boundaries as to what's acceptable and what's not. And I think that dumbasses in New York or California would be much more mild, and much less noticeable than in much more conservative areas. At the same time, and this is really about, again, the reference that I was talking before. Americans don't like moderation. We'd like it when it ends up. You know, we like we like when we end up in some sort of compromise. But Americans believe that the way to be moderate is to be extreme and cancel each other out. And I don't think anyone is going to get extreme political loyalties. By saying being moderate. I think they get loyalties by being extreme, and yet being trusted, that when it all comes together, they will figure out the moderate position that we can live with. And that's part of what makes the you know, the, the interest group Society, the American way of life.
Well, that kind of speaks to the nature of the human condition. Here's a question from Joseph, as a species, how can we fear death and seek adrenaline rushes?
That's a really interesting question, if what we want is adrenaline rushes, and if death is the absence of adrenaline, then then it's the scariest thing there is, right? So presumably, you know, death isn't exciting, in that sense, unless there's an afterlife unless you know, you're you're plummeting down to hell, or rising up to heaven. And then I would imagine the adrenaline rush is pretty high. The question itself seems to me to be really about the distinction between risk and self destructiveness, which is actually something that I've been talking to my students a lot about lately. I think one of the signs of a healthy person is knowing how much risk is acceptable. And when you cross the line and what it means to be self destructive, you shouldn't be self destructive, you shouldn't go in places or do things that you can't recover from. So what happens with adrenaline seekers, what happens with spelunkers, or mountain climbers or roller coaster riders or motorcycle drivers is they go as fast as they can do as high or as deep as they can go? Were they just at the edge of their trust level? What what the the Russian education theorists called zone of proximal development? I'm sorry about that. But it's actually an excellent word. Excellent phrase. And I'll I'll, I'll show you why it's super interesting, and why everyone actually knows it in just a second. The zone of proximal development is the most and the best we can do without failing. So we're at the absolute edge of our capabilities. And if we had to do just a little more, we would fail and what what thrill seekers do is go to that edge of their capabilities, but they're convinced that they won't go over sometimes they missed their mistake and then they die. Why is this super interesting? And why do I say that everyone knows about this? Because everyone plays video games on their phone. And video game designers very specifically used Vygotsky theory in constructing the video games. When I was a kid. Video games came with instructions. You had books, they told you what to do, they told you what the goal is they gave you hints, and then you read it. And then you played the game. But the way that games work now, especially on your phone is there's a super easy screen that you have to figure out, Oh, I'm supposed to jump. And you jump and you go to the next screen. Oh, I'm supposed to jump and then bend. Oh, I go to the next scene. Oh, I'm supposed to jump and and run each scene has you figure out what your abilities are. Because what makes the games addictive, is that they keep you at your zone of proximal development. Right? An alumni, Shelby, I saw this in the email, it was asking about the flow state of skiing. And this is the same sort of thing, the zone of proximal development, you meet that when you are in the state of what Shakespeare high called flow that sense where you know, musicians have it athletes have it, where you're not thinking about your hands, you're not thinking about running, you just you experience it, and you give yourself into it much the way that you ask a philosophical question. And so this concept of zone of proximal development has changed our fundamental sense of entertainment. And it's really important to know that what's happening isn't simply, you know, the need for serotonin. It's the fact that as human beings, we are natural learners, and we're natural skill developers. And as such, what these video games are doing is tempting us to increase our skill at each time.
Is that sort of like a drug dealer giving us a little bit more heroin?
I mean, in the loosest sense yet, yes. I mean, in, you know, in the sense that this this terrible example, but in the sense that kissing someone's hand is kind of like an orgy, right. I mean, it's, you know, there's a spectrum, and there, and they are sharing similar interests and similar comparisons and similar feelings. But there is a moment in everything, where quantity shifts to quality, where something becomes so much that it becomes different and more. And I think, independent of the self destructive and life destroying nature of heroin, just the high of heroin, the the need, that people have the quote, unquote, reward and the punishment of heroin, are so much quantitatively more than the reward and punishment of video game, that I don't know that you could call it the same thing. But we do know people whose relationships were destroyed by quote unquote, video game addiction, right people who wouldn't walk away, and so maybe it's the addictiveness that that has the commonality as much as the pleasure. But still, a video game addiction is a lot different than a heroin addiction.
Here's a technology question that feels like a variation on the old pull the trolley. Question, as we transition to self driving vehicles, cars and trucks will presumably be programmed to do the least damage, or cause the fewest injuries. What if someone hacked their car to save their life above all other considerations?
I have never been a fan of the trolley problem. And I'll tell you why. The trolley problem for those who are listening is and many people are familiar with it, there's a trolley that is about to hit a fork in the tracks. And on one track is a bunch of people tied to the to the tracks, and they'll all die if the trolley runs over them. And on the other side is one person and you have to choose yourself which one is going to kill. Now, even before I get that the nature of the trolley problem has changed. Because it used to not be all these people versus one person. The standard example used to be you you were standing by a really fat person, and you push the fat person on the tracks and that knocked the trolley over but also killed the fat person. But now we don't like that formulation. We don't like the implication that a fat person can be treated differently than someone who isn't fat. We don't like the the sort of the implied humor of making fun of obesity. I tell that because the way you frame the question goes a long way to to the answer. And if the question of trolley. Problem is which track do they go on? My response is, the morality isn't in choosing the two tracks, the morality is in the system that allowed people to be tied to the train tracks in the first place. Something went wrong long before that. Now, how do I answer that question? That my answer applies to that question, because the the person who wrote this question, I am sure is thinking that, well, you're saving your own life. And there's the the utilitarian calculus of more, you know, yourself versus other people and fewer people versus less. But you can't even get to that question until you get to the morality of hacking, right, until you get to the morality of breaking the rules. And so the question, at the heart of it is, are you allowed to break the rules in order to save your own life? Is self defense is self preservation so primary, that you are allowed to do just about anything even be unfair? In order to save your life? And we actually think the answer is no. And how do we know that because we're not allowed to fight back against the police. Right? We're not allowed to, to resist arrest, even if we're innocent, even if the police are shooting at us, we are not allowed to shoot back. So there are certain political, social, communal places, situations in which we have a culture of we as a culture have decided that no, the right to self preservation has been thrown out. And if you were to say that it's okay to hack, then you have to renegotiate all of our agreements about when self preservation is permissible. And if it isn't, if it's always permissible, then sure it's fine. But if there are times and places where you can't do that, it's not it's immoral.
Are there acts which are beyond redemption? From Taylor?
This is also a super interesting question, because it depends what you're talking about with redemption. Everyone take a shot, right? What I think Taylor is getting at is are there are there acts that people engage in, that they as people can't be redeemed afterwards, right? Because an act doesn't have a soul, an act can be redeemed, it may be the case that the consequence of an act leads to some good unforeseen consequences. And after some terrible, terrible things, you know, what if, after the Holocaust, no one was ever murdered in war ever again, for the rest of humanity, because humanity was so horrified by the Holocaust, that no one could bring themselves to kill anyone else in violence again, well, it wouldn't have justified the Holocaust, because nothing can justify that kind of evil. At the same time, we might be on some level, happy that that it turned out well. So this is the problem with consequentialism. This is the problem with judging things by it by their consequences, that by their outcome, how they turn out, because you don't know until it's all done now, then there's this question of redeeming a person. And this goes to, again, the heart of our religious traditions, because some religious traditions, you are interested in redemption, because you want salvation, you want to go to heaven, you want to be rewarded, you don't want to be punished for your sins, some traditions, you want to be redeemed, so that you learn so that you grow as a person. This is actually what Socrates talks about this in the dialogue, where he's in jail, where he's in jail, actually, Plato talks about it all over the place, where he says, you know, the purpose of punishment is to teach someone actually, it's in the apology pod. Were to teach someone and so and so I learned that this is wrong, and I'm not going to do it again. And then there's some traditions in which the purpose of redemption is really healing the world helping other people. And so before we answer, whether or not someone can always be redeemed, we have to ask what the purpose of redemption is. Are there things that someone can do that will curse them for all eternity, like the Mark of Cain? And I don't know, the idea behind born again, Christianity is that No, there isn't such a mark, that you can become a new person. Because, right, going back to the second question, are you literally a different person? If you're a born again, Christian? Well, on the theological level you are, even if on the material level you're not. So this really rests on some of your deepest assumptions about what it means to be a person and what the goal of human life is and what the goal of redemption is.
Well, you mentioned in that helping other people Madison asks about talks on mission trips, the two underdeveloped countries and talking about that they can often cause some harm and some trauma there for the people who are in that area. And then they develop these bonds with people who, you know, come into help, and I'm using air quotes, and then leave. Are these individuals there to do good? Or to make themselves feel good?
I think it was an Onion article with the headline, mission trip really changes girls Instagram feed forever, right? I mean, you know, is the mission trip a photo op? Is the mission trip an excuse to travel? Or is the mission trip an excuse to do good? Is it an opportunity to do good that depends on the trip, it depends on the goals of the leaders, is the mission trip really about converting people proselytizing, that's different too. So I don't think you can paint all mission trips with the same brush, I do know that there is concern that the people who are are interacted with are used as religious tour tourism or objects, and that they're not often treated as whole people or they're used, you come into someone's life and help them for a week, and then you disappear, and they never see you again. And that that that that can be problematic. And I don't know what it's like to be in a, let's say, I'll call it a village, a village that's targeted by by mission trips, and every year you get six different groups of high school, teenage high school, you know, missionaries do, you know, helping you in the way that they think you need help, and then leaving, I don't know, everyone deserves help. Everyone needs help. And it's really wonderful to help people and important to help people in the way that they need help. The question is, who is the mission trip for? Is it for them? Or is it for you? And if it's for you, are you using other people while you do it? Or are other people benefiting as well?
Well, it reminds me of a documentary that I watched on a plane once and it was a woman who I was from, I think South Africa Originally she grew up in a very poor community, and then eventually made her way to Australia, and she is living in an apartment, she has a job, you know, all of those things that make life easier or what have you. But the most striking part of the conversation with her is that she'd never been so materially wealthy and spiritually poor, as when she was living in Australia. And so even as I was asking this question, and calling a country, underdeveloped, it, it felt a little wrong to say that
I am not sure that Americans in particular, are the best people to guide world spirituality. I am not sure that in our materialist, acquisitive culture, especially right now where the fight is over, whether or not being asked to wear a mask to help someone is a fundamental violation of your freedom. I don't know that we as a group of people are in a place to export our spiritual beliefs. And I think Australia in the same in that Australia comment gets to a similar sort of thing. At what point do you acquire so much that you that you don't have a connection with your life that you don't have a connection with, with with experiences right, there's there's a movement now, my wife says that one of my students just talk to me about it. Have experiences not things right and and we lose that. And the thing that the thing that I've always felt was, was the pinnacle of this irony is that I don't know if it's still there. But there's there's a magazine that was was around for years and years and years called Real simple. And the goal of the magazine was to have people simplify their life, but all the magazine was was articles about things to buy, right? Buy this basket to put all your stuff and buy this yoga mat to meditate. But you know, go on this trip so that you can, you know, get away from your stress. If simplifying means more acquisition. And acquisition is the thing that takes us away from our spirituality and I don't necessarily think it is or it doesn't always have to be then the quote the Western developed commercial, high income Some countries may not be the best place to find the guru who's going to tell you where to live your life?
How can a society balance justice and mercy?
If we assume that justice and justice and mercy are different things, then that's a very, very hard thing to do. And you have to have a category of which things are inexcusable, which things need to be punished. And what is the notion of cruel and unusual punishment? Right. I mean, we, we don't think that putting someone on death row for 30 years is cruel and unusual punishment. That seems a little odd to me, that seems both cruel and unusual. I guess it's cruel, unusual these days, right? But um, you and I, at one point in philosophical currents had the conversation about the guillotine and you use the guillotine as a example of, you know, brutality that what if we still had the guillotine, you know, the kitchen was used up, I think, until the 1970s, in France, and one of the things I
play, you just say the 19, seven, yes, yeah, the most
recent gayety meaning key attaining execution by guillotine was in the last 50 years. And for everyone, now who's listening, I can see on the screen, she is now googling this because she does not believe so we'll see if I'm right or not. But um, but but the purpose of the guillotine was to execute without pain, execute quickly, humanely without pain, because it was designed for, among other things, the aristocracy. And so in terms of levels of brutality, if you accept capital punishment is a an acceptable form, then the guillotine may be much more humane, then perhaps, the firing squad, or certainly a hanging. Now, they say, and I don't have the experience to know they say that one, if you're, if your heads chopped off, your brain is still working for a couple of seconds, and you see yourself disconnected from your body. And that seems pretty horrible and pretty cruel. But in that sense, the guillotine is an example of mercy because you're killing someone without pain. And there are certainly prison systems that are rehabilitative, that that treat their inmates with dignity. Norway is a classic example of a kind of prison system, where people are really treated with tremendous respect and grow as human beings. And in that sense, I think that in a just society, just in mercy can be intertwined. So that the punishments are merciful. And the mercy is just,
and I did Google that the last execution was September 10 1977.
Ah, talk about winning. Here. My
parents got married. Wow, this is not that long ago.
No, no, that's the your Star Wars came out?
Well, yes, let's take that. Together. Yeah.
Well, I mean, that is more important than you think. But, but But my point in that was simply that's how recent it was, you know, it is the last the person who What did you said that the date was April that it was 10 or 10? Okay, so the person who was getting could have seen Star Wars because Star Wars up in May. So so. So that's how recent, the most recent guillotine was.
All right. Well, you brought up Star Wars and you have a question here from a listener was the rebels attack on the under construction second, Deathstar a war cry?
Well, first of all, you know, who asked that question? For everyone keeping score at home? That is my best friend Gail 100 100%. So now, this question, actually, it's, it's even more philosophically interesting. So for those of you who don't remember or haven't seen it, in the third Star Wars film, which Return of the Jedi, they destroy the base, the Death Star. While it's still being built, and there was a movie in I can't remember what it cannot buy clerk called clerks, where there's a conversation and the clerk's are claiming that, you know, what was happening in the Deathstar was that there were all of these contract workers that were all these people who weren't part of the military, who were just, you know, people who poured cement and made girders and all of those kinds of things, and that they were massacred during the destruction of the Death Star. And so the destruction of the second Death Star is not just a military victory, but 10,000 civilians were killed in that and as an aside, I was just looking while I was talking. A while ago, I tweeted, there is a there's a thing called the Explain the movie badly. And I tweeted my summary of Star Wars. The first one which is Star Wars, a religious zealot radicalized as a farm boy inspiring him to shoot his way into a government military base, free the leader of a terrorist cell and returned to destroy the same base killing 10s of 1000s. In process, so yeah, I mean, right. Yeah, I want to watch that movie. Right. So So is it a war crime? The question of just war is one of the oldest and one of the most important questions that we face. And of course, right now in Ukraine, this is the question at the table, right? Not only is there is the war, just should it have been fought? Do they have the right to defend themselves? But also who is targeted? Can you target a noncombatant? Can you target hospitals? Is it is it immoral to shoot the Red Cross? Should you give refugees asylum, should you allow food to come through even even during sieges. And if you hold that the destruction of of civilians is a war crime, then the destruction of the Second SR was indeed a war crime. Although it may have been and this is gonna seem weird, a necessary war crime. You know, sometimes we might have to do things that are unjust. Sometimes we are trapped in situations and maybe there was was another alternative, but maybe there wasn't now. What war just war theorists tried to do and what what public policy folks tried to do is recategorize the non combatants as military workers. So if you are putting in tile in the bathroom of the new Deathstar, but you're employed by the military at a military base, an argument can be made that you are part of the military and fair game. So the question here isn't, you know, just a simple Star Wars question. The question is, first, what is a just war? And what is the just response? But second? How hard is it to distinguish between combatants and non combatants, and to the people to the people who assist combatants? To the people who help out people who are fighting? Are they part of the fighting the Roman military, for every single fighter? There were 100 support personnel. There were people who took care of horses, there were people that took who cooked there are people who did the laundry, there are people who built the tents, there people who did all of these things, and the way to defeat the army, if you're defeating the army, you might want to kill the tentmaker to I don't know. But that's the question. The question is, how easy is it? How complicated is it to distinguish between combatants and non combatants? And that's both on the table. And people who are defending themselves will have a different position than people who are attacking because they have different goals and different, you know, they want different rules of engagement.
I can't imagine we would have, you know, nine major feature films and how many spin offs of Star Wars if it was on the role of negotiations and sanctions, but a number of questions coming in, on Ukraine. Jacob asks, How do you think there could be negotiation for peace between Russia and Ukraine? What side do you think will benefit more from these negotiations?
I have to say, because I'm existentially compelled. Just about the last comment about Star Wars. Episode One, The Phantom Menace is all about negotiations. It's about trade negotiations. And people really, really don't like it. And I actually love it. I don't love the movie. But I love that it's about negotiations, because that's how war starts. Right? It is really the
one where there's just this hugely long scene in the Senate. Oh, my God.
Yes. I mean, you know, there's, there's there's one later on too, but yes, yes. That's, um, and I like the realism. I mean, it's odd to say to call out Star Wars for realism. Right. But but but I like that, because that's how wars start. And Ukraine and Russia is about part of it is about what happens when you lie about negotiations. What happens when you refuse to negotiate? President Biden had been saying that, you know, Putin was going to attack Ukraine, Putin was going to attack Ukraine. I saw a press conference where I don't remember if it was Jen Psaki or not, was saying we have intelligence that the Russians are going to create false flag operations to justify the war. And the reporter was saying, you know, how can you say that, how could we believe you and yet, almost everything that the American government thought about what was going to happen with war turned out to happen with the war so now Part of the issue with negotiations is that they have to be good faith negotiations. If you are really going to negotiate, both parties have to be absolutely willing to put stuff on the table to compromise. And it's unclear whether anything Vladimir Putin says is believable. Whether anything he says is reliable. What do I think is going to happen? I have a hard time predicting, I've had a hard time predicting this whole war. It's It's It's horrifying to me and baffling to me. But I do think that we have seen the end of an there'll be a footnote here, the end of fear of Russia, and the end of Putin's reign and the end of Russia as we know it, because they're not going to survive this in the form that they are now, even if Ukraine loses, even if they are occupied by Russia, Russia is just not going to survive this anymore. And the one footnote to that is, the one unknown is we really have no idea how far Putin is willing to go, if he will use nuclear weapons, if he will be profoundly apocalyptic in his attitude, then none of us may survive this. And I understand I don't necessarily agree, but I understand why all of the other countries are reluctant to get immediately indirectly involved. I mean, everyone's involved they're giving weapons they're giving food. They're they're sanctioning. But why they don't want to fight because they want to give Putin the excuse to not escalate the war. But I don't know if his escalating the war is, is is inevitable or not. And so, again, the same sort of thing. When we start talking about philosophy, negotiations mean nothing, if the parties don't negotiate in good faith, if the parties don't negotiate in good faith, it's not a negotiation. It's smoke and mirrors. And it's a it's a war tactic rather than an attempt towards solution.
A question from the Jacob many people disagree on whether the US has too much of a presence in international conflicts or regions. Do you think the US uses its influence to the proper extent?
Well? How? Okay, the greatest human question of all time, the first question that is asked in the Bible in the Abrahamic tradition, Am I my brother's keeper? Almost all other questions reduce at some level, or certainly all ethical and political questions reduced to that question. Am I responsible for other people? Am I my siblings keeper? Do I have to care? Do I have a moral obligation to care for other people? I personally believe that we do. I personally believe that I am my brother's keeper. I personally believe that I have responsibility towards others. And as a strong, wealthy country, I think we have moral responsibilities to help those in need in our borders, and outside our borders. And I think we have the responsibility to help others help themselves and help others help other people. The question is, what kind of form does that help take? And this is another of the great philosophical questions, which is, okay, I'm gonna I'm gonna take a step back for just one second, and I'm gonna say something that which is really going to annoy people. I do not like the golden rule. I think the golden rule is a horrible philosophy, the golden rule is, treat others do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And the problem with that, I think, is that it's narcissistic, it should say, do unto others as they would have you do unto them. I don't like the idea that I treat others the way that I want to be treated. Now, if I'm a little kid, if it's a heuristic, if I'm a little kid, if I'm learning, if I'm growing, if if I need to say, you know, how would you like it if they took your doll and refused to share whatever, you know, that's fine as a teaching tool, that's fine. And it is certainly possible to interpret the Gospels as human beings being in their infant infancy and Jesus being a teacher, right? Jesus was a rabbi, and Rabbi is the Hebrew word for teacher, right? So you can do that. But as a fundamental ethical principle, I don't like it. I think we should treat other people as the way that they want to be treated. So helping other countries having a presence in other countries is wonderful. If we're giving them the help that they want and need. We're giving them the help that is consistent with their ideals and their culture. Footnote into that in just a second. So bombing a country to risk to bring democracy to, to, to a country that doesn't want it. That's a little problematic. Now This leads then to the problem of relativism and morality. Because if we are helping a country that has fundamentally what we think to be immoral principles like say, Don't let women drive or don't let young girls get educated, right? Should we help them in the way that they want to be helped? I think the answer there is no. So I think the dance the ethical dance, is, how far can we go in our help and follow our own morals, while being consistent with the other people's morals? If those things are inconsistent, then you offer a lot less help, and a lot less integration. But you I suspect, are morally obligated to help as much as you can, within your moral point of view, up to the point where your moral point of view doesn't conflict with someone else's. And then it becomes a lot more even more complicated and maybe even a case by case basis.
With that spin on the Golden Rule, do unto others as they would have you do unto them. Britta asks, Is Killing mosquitoes immoral?
If you are a Buddhist, yes, right. Buddhists don't kill insects, they don't kill living things. I actually a student of mine, I was writing an essay about real versus plastic plants. And he starts out by talking about how he killed a plant and how he felt grief in response to killing the plants. All living things have some sort of value. And systems have value the earth, even if it's not a living thing, it's a system and it has value. And so I think you only kill things when there is the need or the necessity and and justification to kill them now are mosquitoes so unimportant. And so let's say not conscious, not I can think of the word sentient thank you not sentient. And so my annoyance, or my itchiness, or my fear of Lyme disease outweighs this life that is in sentient that isn't meaningful, that doesn't have the same value as an ant eater, or a dolphin, or what have you. The religious tradition, or your worldview is going to help you sort of make that distinction. There used to be this thing called the great chain of being in early medieval times. And that was a hierarchy of living creatures, right? And it was it was Greek and Christian. So human beings were at the top. But yeah, it was basically, you know, dogs are better than then frogs and frogs are better than locusts. And this was an attempt to answer this question, which was, you know, at what point do we have to are we so much greater and our needs are so much more that we can swat a mosquito step on an ant. And the men and black films are entirely about saying, all these things seeming insignificant to us, but we see seem insignificant to a whole other universe. And since we are not insignificant to ourselves, we have to rethink what significance and significance means. And that's been a discussion for millennia.
Okay, not killing an animal, but is the domestication of animals ethical asks grace.
Is it wrong to care for your child? Is it wrong to take a kid and protect them now? Dogs and cats, horses, cows, they're not babies, they're not people. It's not the same question. And it's a little bit of an unfair segue. But the reason why I asked I pose it that way is are we immoral for doing things that are good for the creature? Now, there'll be a footnote to that in just a second, but domesticating a dog and a cat is different than domesticating cattle and a chicken and domesticating a dog and a cat for being a pet, or a companion is different than domesticating a cow or a chicken for food? And so already, those are those are different questions. One of the things we know about dogs is that they weren't really domesticated per se. They evolved alongside human beings human beings could not have had agriculture. If they had not had dogs and dogs would not have turned out to be what they are, if they had not, if they had not evolved around human beings, so since dogs and human beings are co evolutionary, I think the benefit for both that of the so called domestication has been really important. Cats, they think that they can reduce all the lines of current living cats. I think house cats, I don't know, probably not tigers and lions, to like, seven or something, a group of cats in a barn in Egypt. And the suggestion is actually the cats that domesticated themselves and anyone who has a cat knows they're not really domesticated anyway, right? There, they're in charge. Um, so domestication in and of itself, I don't think is is is immoral. And I think that the way you treat those animals is the question. But the vegans out there, the Buddhists out there, the people who want to return to sort of different non factory focused, farming, you know, lots of vegetarians out there. They're very uncomfortable with the idea of domestication. And they have a point. And so one of the questions then becomes, can we find an alternative right now, we are in the midst of a really important movement, in which companies are trying to make artificial meat that is indistinguishable from actual meat, the goal of which is to make it cheaper than meat, the goal of which is to help the environment and to help animals. I think that that's, I think that that's a noble goal. And I think that in a perfect ideal world
if we had an armada here,
but if we, you know, the goal is always to do that the goal is always to get better, the goal is always to learn more. And so there's nothing wrong with trying to learn the stuff that will at some day, stop us from using animals in this way. Even if it's going to take 500 1000 years, we keep going just like we keep wanting to cure cancer, or we keep wanting to cure COVID Or we keep wanting to cure anything else, right? The goal is to keep striving. I will say one thing, though, that the animals as we know them are not like the animals as they were 2000. Or I should say, 100,000 years ago, the carrots that we eat now have very little resemblance to the carrots that existed a million years ago, and we couldn't digest those if we ate them. So it's not just that we are domesticating animals, we are domesticating vegetables and fruits as well. And we are domesticating the world and the world is domesticating us at the same time. Because we are an ecosystem, even though we are a destructive part of the ecosystem. We are the ecosystem and we all change in consort. And that is going to help define the relationship, the moral relationship that we have with all of the things in the system with us.
We are a destructive part to the ecosystem are humans the biggest threat to humanity is a question that came in from Samantha. Yes, move
on. We are often we are often our own worst enemies on the personal level
and our own annihilation.
I think that's right and go back to the thing that I said earlier, where I talked about the difference between risk and self destructiveness right? self destructive, being self destructive as being one's own enemy, and human beings are absolutely our own worst enemy. The interesting question I think that comes out of this is, I think that's true of human beings collectively, I don't know if that's true of human beings individually. And what I mean by that is, we act differently in groups as we do as individuals, and we act differently as a world than we do as individual countries. And so if we could all get our act together, stop climate change, stop invading other countries stop sexually assaulting people, if we could do that, as a world, we could stop being our own enemies. But lots and lots and lots of individual human beings don't do those things. And lots and lots and lots of individual human beings work incredibly hard to be as moral as they can as they understand what morality is. And so I am agnostic as to whether any one individual is their worst own worst enemy, but the human race as a whole human beings, we are without question, our worst enemy.
As you look at human interaction as part of this collective, I'm drawn to a question from RJ here that it feels a little bit like a non sequitur here, but as as you address this idea of connection between humans, how can we develop an intimate relationship with a person if we are involved in hookup culture?
One of The things that we have seen. And I know that there have been a bunch of questions that we haven't gotten to about how changing technology affects our lives. One of the things that we have seen, and I really, I'm the only person that I know that's talking about this in these terms, or uses this phrase, I think we have gone through another sexual revolution. The sexual revolution of the 1960s was the sexual revolution of permissiveness and openness, and allowed people to enjoy pleasure with one another, allowed people to enjoy pleasure by choice.
Can we put a finer points on that? Is it fair to say, allowed women to enjoy pleasure?
Certainly, certainly, women had the most change. And certainly it affected women much more. But I think it did affect everybody in that attitudes about what kind of sex was was appropriate, or whether you could have premarital sex and be proud of it, or whether your job was to provide pleasure as well as to receive it. I think that all of those are components. So absolutely, your point is well taken that that had had a bigger effect on women and women's individual freedom. Although it can be argued that I'm trying to decide how far down the rabbit hole to go. It can be argued that what really has happened in the sexual revolution is that in the name of women's pleasure, we've just made women much more accessible to men, and that we aren't really that much that concerned about women's pleasure. And that what we're concerned with is women's pleasure as a tool to get men's pleasure. That's a separate conversation. So but I think the last 10 years has seen a second sexual revolution. And it's a revolution of sexuality, with oneself using technology. And that we can use other people. We can use webcam sites, we can use only fans, we can access porn, and we can have virtual unmediated relationships with other people. And in order to gain or give pleasure. And so the second sexual revolution, which is a technological revolution, is about both self pleasure and mediated pleasure, maybe even artificial pleasure using toys and all that kind of stuff.
In the process of that we have had to re define and rethink dating culture, you know, in the 1970s, after the initial thrust, pardon me, of the sexual revolution that I'm doing, right, you know, the 1970s was a very, very exploratory periods sexually and had a lot of a lot fewer boundaries than the 80s did in the 90s. Did aids had a lot to do with that. But we're now seeing a culture in which there's almost a, I don't know, a contract model of sexuality, a shopping model of sexuality, you look on on Tinder or on Grindr on other things, and you say, Oh, I like that one. I don't like that one. I like that one. I don't like that one, oh, I want that one, I want that one. I don't like that one. And that, and then you have an agreement, and you go along your separate ways. So we objectify people, we commodify people. And the problem with that, as I talked about with the acquisition is that it's very, very hard to have an intimate relationship, real intimacy with an object, it's really hard to show. In fact, the best definition of addiction than I ever heard was addiction is having an intimate relationship with an object. And so because we are really seeing other people and potential dates as objects first and then persons second, I think it is tremendously hard to find that intimacy at the same time, there are risk, the nature of risks are different, right. So people are have always been concerned about sexual assault. And that's a huge problem and is still a huge problem, not saying it's not, but sexual assault has a new analog, which is taking videos and photos of someone without their consent and distributing it to other people. And you see that as a danger. Now, in the long run, would I rather lots of strangers see me naked or be sexually assaulted? I would assume the first not the second. And if it's an either or situation, which it doesn't have to be, we're getting better. But that's because the mediation of the technology set separates us from intimacy. So how do you solve this problem? I think you solve the problem by getting out of the virtual environment as soon as possible as quickly as possible, being as vulnerable as possible because you can't have intimacy without vulnerability, and knowing yourself well enough to pick other people who can be vulnerable and intimate with you. Because intimacy requires reciprocity, you have to give and you have to get, which is why you can't have intimacy with an object, you have to have intimacy with something that gives you as much as you give. And that is as vulnerable as you are vulnerable. And so what we have to do is we have to get out of that mediated technological interface, and have as much human contact as possible, because that's the only way we're going to find real intimacy.
So Katie s is asking, in this age of technology, where we put a lot of stuff out on social media, are we becoming less vulnerable and open in our in person relationships?
That is an interesting question. And of course, this is one of those instances where, depending on on what kind of relationships we're talking about, I don't have a lot of experience, because I've been married a long time and in a monogamous relationship, but I actually think that we are more vulnerable in our actual relationships, because of this model, why a lot of anyone who has a teenager will know that they're perfectly happy texting, but they will go to any length not to make a phone call, right? This generation does not like to talk on the phone. And I have lot, you know, I've known lots of teenagers who are super excited to be on FaceTime or discord and connected, you know, Dina was connected with everybody throughout the whole pandemic lockdown, she was never alone. But lots of them described themselves as having social anxiety. Lots of them don't like the idea of going to a party that can meet a stranger online, but they can't meet a stranger in person. Why? Because they feel much more vulnerable. They feel that mediation of technology, protects them, protects them from harm, protects them from exposure protects them from revealing things that they don't want to reveal. And they don't feel like they have the same kind of control on a face to face basis. And so again, this sort of this group that is the experimental group as the guinea pigs, they're going to have to figure out how to find some sort of equilibrium between the virtual mediated sociality and the in person sociality. I am not one of those people that thinks that virtual interactions aren't real interactions. I'm not one of those people who say, Oh, kids these days, they're not social anymore. They only spend time on their computer. In fact, I think kids are more social than certainly I have experienced in my life. It's a different kind of sociality. It's a different quality, it's a different expression of intimacy and vulnerability. And I think that the project for this generation is to try to figure out an equilibrium to sort of make those two experiences much more fluid and progressive.
Well, and I wonder how much of that is just goes back to this generational thing like kind of like the okay Boomer and they're picking on the millennials, Kate is asking, Why are teens and early 20 year olds villainized in our culture,
they're villainized because the people who villainize them are empowered, and resistant to change and resist. Thomas Jefferson famously said that the fundamental conflict in any society is not between the state and the individual, or states and states and state and federal government. It's between generations, that the older generation thinks they know anything, and the younger generation knows nothing, so they don't listen. And the younger generation thinks that the older generation has no idea what life is really like anymore, and they shouldn't govern. And so there's this conflict. And this, this eye rolling condemnation of the different generations has gone on. We have Sumerian texts, literally Sumerian texts that say, kids these days, they don't know math, the way that we know math, they're not learning the things they're so you know, privileged. And Plato is complaining about, you know, if there's writing the kids these days will have no memory and, and all this stuff, and you just see over and over again, early on, I might have told the story on the air at one point. Early on, you know, when Dina was young, I was having a conversation with my father and he was talking about, you know, you're such a good family, but you're so attentive to ADINA, never has there been a generation that has been so tempted and what's she going to be like when you know when she doesn't have this kind of attention and coddling? And literally the day before, I was reading a passage in Anna Karenina, where or a person was walking by a room with a nanny taking care of his kid and saying Never has a generation bits of Patil never exists almost word for word except not in Russian, almost word for word, what my father was saying, I told him and he laughed, and we laughed together. This is just something that goes on. It's something about the human condition that the generations are alienated from one another. And the older generations blamed the younger generations. And it would be nice if we could stop the cycle. But I don't see any evidence that we can. Yeah, generations
being the cycle breakers, the older generation picking on the newer generation and what have you. I wonder how much of that is just about jealousy? times. But it makes me think about an eye to the future and this idea of progress and who gets to decide what is actual progress? Connor wants to know, what do you think about Elon Musk and some of his future plans and projects?
It's a super interesting question. Not necessarily, I think, in the way that Connor anticipates. Because, you know, I mean, space exploration, science, all that stuff is very cool. And I want technological advancement. But in our culture, we have replaced ideas with people. We don't think about operating systems, we think about Steve Jobs, we think about Bill Gates, we don't think about technological advancement, per se. We don't think about shopping per se, or interfaces, we think about Jeff Bezos right? We don't think and here, Elon Musk is a stand in for a kind of showy, selfish, innovator, entrepreneur who has made himself super, super rich, exploiting new technologies. Now, I myself, don't have a huge problem with people making a lot of money. Right? I don't want to say that it's fair that Jeff Bezos is I don't know the richest person in the world or, or, or what, but I do know that Amazon has completely changed the way we all live, and that I could not have lived the last 20 years in Grand Forks if I didn't have Amazon, because there are lots of things that I need that I can't get locally. And it's easy and cheap, and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And so, if he affects my life in this way, and everyone else, I know, I don't think that there's necessarily a problem, rewarding him for it. Inequality aside injustice aside, those are different questions. So I am a little reluctant to use Elon Musk as a symbol for ideas and technologies. I think he's an entrepreneur, I think he had a good start in life from other people. I think that he is, you know, in Marxist terms, you know, alienating the labor of others for his own gain. But that's our system, and lots and lots of people do it. I think he could be a bit more humble. I think he could probably be a lot more concerned about justice and, and inequality. I think that our billionaires as a whole are not good people. And I think that there is something to be said, for the tradition of noblesse oblige, that you did noblesse oblige French for the obligations of the nobles. And there has been in the history of these sorts of discussions, a thread that has said that, with great power comes great responsibility, right, with great money with great wealth, you have the responsibility to take care of others. There's a moment in the first season of Downton Abbey, where the Lord gets moved into the house, and he has a vallot Who's dressing him and he's like, I don't need to be dressed. I'm, I'm, I'm an adult, right. And so he tells Hugh, whatever his name is, that um, that, you know, he doesn't need this guy. And the head of the household says, Well, okay, but if you fire him, his kids are going to starve. If you fire him, you know, he has lived his whole life working for this family. This is what he has done. This is how he lives. I am responsible on this estate for the lives and the well being of 500 people.
So Downton Abbey is a case for universal basic income is what you're saying.
I think on almost all things in cases, and we have an episode on that, so you should look in the archives but you know, and Adam Smith talks about this and blah blah, right but but whatever's name is the head guy who I can't remember the actor is. He has the sense that he has a responsibility towards his workers. And that part of it The role of his nobility is to make sure that other people have things that they need. And then the upshot of that episode is that this guy finds a way to show that the vallot that he respects him and then keeps him online. I think the fundamental problem, and this really feels kind of old fashioned to say, and maybe even weirdly conservative. I think Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, I think they need a healthy dose of noblesse oblige. I think they need to watch Spider Man over and over and over again. And they need to understand that with their great power comes, they're a great responsibility. And it's not about competing with Leonardo DiCaprio for the attention of his girlfriend or shooting off rockets into space. And, and, you know, having more carbon impact than in the entire state of I don't know, Vermont, right. I mean, in that sense, in that context, noblesse oblige is probably a really good thing.
Well, the the name of this researcher is just, it's not in my mind at all. But I remember hearing a talk once that involves some brain scans and some neuroscience, and he was comparing high functioning CEOs, which he actually calls high functioning sociopaths. And the brain scans of, for example, serial killer. And the brains were lighting up in the same kinds of ways. And he was making the argument that it really comes down to just an astonishing lack of empathy. Is it possible that they literally cannot connect with humans on that level?
I think that that's very possible in in business ethics class, they often cite. And actually, in certain writing classes, they often cite a very, very famous memo that was written by the Germans that was talking about railroad functioning, and that each of the box cars were capable of transporting 500 units, right, I think it was a units of things from one place to another, and can they increase it to 600 units or whatever, and unit was Jew, right unit was Jewish person. And the second you take away the identity, and you just call them a unit, you just call them an object a number than the ability to empathize is completely gone. And the CEOs, they only work in numbers, they only work in abstracts, they aren't interested in anyone's individual salary. Right. I mean, you know, years ago, during one of the ghast crises, Bob Dole was running for president, and they wanted to lower the gas tax. And he said, you know, if we do this, we're gonna save the tax bill, the gas bill of an average family of about $1.27, I can't remember, I don't know why $1.27 Six in my head, but so don't take that number, literally. But, but $1.27. And I remember thinking, no one's going to no individual is going to save any real money, but we're going to not be able to fund our highways, we're not going to have that that tax money, you can call it $2 billion, and not have the empathy and the understanding of that experience. Or you can call it $1.27. And say, Okay, let's find another way to have relief. So the CEO, doesn't see human beings as human beings. They see them as chess pieces, they see them as numbers and spreadsheet columns. And the serial killer sees someone as a project to target an object for their obsession, and you have to be obsessed to be a CEO. You have to, to get to that level of accomplishment. You have to be completely myopic. And I, you know, I'd be perfectly happy if someone wanted to give me a $5 million salary. I would not want to be a CEO.
And I did Google during that answer. I was listening. But the researcher I mentioned Dr. James Fallon, professor emeritus at UC Irvine, in the department of anatomy and neurobiology, and it was called the psychopath inside a neuroscientist journey into the dark side of the brain, where he discovers that he is related to none other than Lizzie Borden. Okay, well, I can't think of a segue off of Lizzie Borden. But you know, I'm trying but it's just not happening. So I will end similar to where this discussion began. The art of philosophy and the role of philosophical discussions, and we've done a through line from is a hot dog a sandwich to the nature of the human condition to war, to the idea of progress. So one last time to plug your profession. Heidi wants to know, why do philosophy grads integrate so well in multiple work fields? And I think maybe you should give her an A.
Thankfully, I don't know her last name. So I'm saying I think I actually only have one Id this semester. There's There's a joke, right? It's not a joke. It's the wrong way. There's, there's, you know, people say, Oh, you're a philosophy major, you better practice saying you want fries with that, right? philosophy majors are actually incredibly marketable. And they have a very, very, very good employment rate. And I actually maintain a website called philosophy is a great major, it's philosophy is a great major.com that has all of these statistics. And the reason why this is the case is that what philosophy teaches you a is to learn, right? That you are, you can go into different environments, and you can teach yourself the things that you need to know. But the way to sell philosophy, is to break it down into its component parts is not to say, Dear Madam employer, I am a philosophy major hire me say, as a philosophy major, I have a lot of experience in critical thinking, in seeing other people's perspectives in articulating abstract ideas clearly, in trying to persuade right I knew this person who had a friend years and years ago who had a sales company who only liked to hire PhDs in philosophy, because convincing people you are right is the same skill set as convincing people to buy your product. My father, when I was younger, my father's position, and I think it actually is still his position is that I would make the best used car salesman on the planet. And I think that he was actually a little disappointed that I that I didn't do that, right. And so all of these skills that philosophers have the ability to write and edit yourself, the ability to be patient and read long texts, the ability to listen to people talk and remember and point out key ideas. These are tremendously valuable and marketable skills. And they allow people to integrate into the workplace, because not only do they provide people the ability to learn the skills that they need on the job, but they also provide the ability to respect other people for their intelligence and respect other people for their innovation, because what philosophy largely is in school, is looking at other people and recognizing that even though they're wrong, they're still brilliant, even though they're mistaken. They're still profound. And I believe we learn a lot more from people who get it wrong than from people who get it right. And that is a nice thing to bring into the workplace.
Well, Jack, always a fascinating discussion, and thanks for letting me be on why it's an honor to be with you. Thanks, stealing from your own wrap up?
No, I appreciate that. You know, it is important that you give me abuse, you gave me a lot less abuse than I thought you would. But I have to tell you and I said this on stage when when you are engineering the the 100th episode, the one I did with my father, which everyone should listen to the logic of jazz. I love working with you, I have nothing but just you know, I think the world of you and this will always be a tremendously important one for me, because you're a part of it. And so thank you for taking the time and thank you for you know, vetting all the questions.
You're welcome. I hope we can do it again.
I hope so too. I'll be back right after this. You're listening to Jack Russell Weinstein on why philosophical discussions about everyday life.
Visit IPP ELLs blog P QED philosophical questions every day. For more philosophical discussions of everyday life. Comment on the entries and share your points of view with an ever growing community of professional and amateur philosophers. You can access the blog and view more information on our schedule our broadcasts and the Y radio store at www dot philosophy and public life.org.
You're back with why philosophical discussions about everyday life. I'm your host Jack Russell Weinstein. Today was a special episode The Ask Me Anything episode where we followed a random series of questions and got to where we are now. It's hard to know how to wrap this up because it did go in a lot of different places and because I have already talked for quite a bit of time But ironically, the hardest question of all the questions I saw in advance, and a lot of them I didn't see in advance, the hardest question that I faced was the quote, least philosophical. And it was a student of mine kale asked, What's my favorite New York movie? And I couldn't figure it out. And I was thinking about it. And I was trying to decide, and this is the philosopher in me. What does that mean? Right? Favorite is not the same thing as good, right? Just because I liked something doesn't mean it's good, high quality. So do I think, you know, what's the movie that I think is the best highest quality New York movie? Or is it a movie that reminds me of, of living in New York of my childhood of all these sorts of things, and that's what I was sort of, I was thinking about, well, New York during different periods. So in the 1970s, sort of the best depictions of New York, unfortunately, our taxi driver and looking for Mr. Goodbar, there's a wonderful small art film, with Basquiat called downtown 81, which is a great depiction of the of the art scene, the first hip hop movie Wyldstyle is a really good depiction of New York. And there's a great anthology called New York stories, and all of these things were in my head. But I was very, very unsatisfied. And I didn't think I answered the question well, so while I'm driving down here, I have Siri text. My best friend Gail, and I literally wrote, do you happen to know if I have a favorite New York movie? Because I know she would know. And her response immediately. Thank you. Siri was off the top of my head When Harry Met Sally, maybe. And I read, okay. And I thought to myself, you know that I love that movie. It's very rare in New York. And then she added less than a minute later, the Hulk, which with a smiley face, because she knows I hate the depiction of New Yorker. But then she kept thinking about it. And four minutes later, she wrote Ghostbusters, which is a really good guess. And then she says, like me, she doesn't know recent. And then after a couple minutes, she just writes, do the right thing. Yes, that's the one she was able to depict, not just the answer that I couldn't find. But the exact thought process that I would have gone through if I hadn't been driving, if I had sort of been able to clear my head. Now, why am I telling you this? Well, first of all, Gal has been my best friend since she was 13. And I was 14. And when Edina became bought Mitzvah at 13, and Adina was up for the Sarah and Gail was up for the ceremony. She came up to me, she said, I just realized that Adina is the same age. I was when we met and it broke my brain, right? But what does it mean, to have this kind of long term intimate relationship for 45 years, 47 years, it's being able to read, not just know facts about someone, but being able to reproduce their way of thinking, and how do you reproduce someone's way of thinking, you have this intimate relationship and this vulnerability with them, that they have for you, coinciding with a mutual respect, not just a mutual love, and we love each other very, very much. She was the best woman at my wedding I was I was, No, I was the best woman at her wedding, she was the best man of my mind. I was calling her to her best thing. But nevertheless, and we have this deep love for each other, but we also just understand each other. And I think the thing that I wanted to communicate by telling the story is, first of all, the hard questions aren't always the ones that you think are hard. But more importantly, philosophy is the process of reproducing the thought patterns of intimate friends. Philosophy is the process of treating ideas, as your playground philosophy is the process of opening yourself and trusting yourself as Ashley started talking about in the beginning of the show.
enough that you can say, I think you would answer this, I think the inevitable conclusion is that I think the mistaken reasoning here is here. I think that you might try something else, or I think I have learned this, that or the other thing from you. And here's the result and recognizing that that interplay, that questioning that doubting, that that that conflict and competition is ultimately a sign of respect, and of love. I'm not a big fan of philosophers who point out that the word philosophy literally means in Greek, the love of wisdom. It does. And it can be very poetic to talk about it, but I don't do it very often. But in this sense at this point, I think it's really useful because the love of wisdom is not alone. have knowledge or love of inquiry. It's a love of relationships with ideas and treating ideas as your peer. Because then it's a companion and a playground. And it makes everyone's life better. And I am incredibly grateful for all the people ask questions and I am incredibly grateful for all the people who have listened to the show and I've stuck with us for almost 15 years. So thank you so much. You were listening to Ashley Thornburg and Jack Russell Weinstein on why philosophical discussion but every life special episode of Ask me anything, please go to our archives please donate at why radio show.org But whether you do or not, as always, it's an honor to be with you.
Why is funded by the Institute for philosophy and public life? Prairie Public Broadcasting in the University of North Dakota is College of Arts and Sciences and Division of Research and Economic Development. Skip wood is our studio engineer. The music is written and performed by Mark Weinstein and can be found on his album Louis sold. For more of his music, visit jazz flute weinstein.com or myspace.com/mark Weinstein. Philosophy is everywhere you make it and we hope we've inspired you with our discussion today. Remember, as we say at the institute, there is no ivory tower.