Philo

More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/leibniz.

The intellectual domain of Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz cannot be captured in a single adjective. For most of his life, he was a jurist, a courtier, a diplomat, and a librarian; he also made huge contributions to the study of logic, geometry, physics, botany, physiology, linguistics, and of course, the infinitesimal calculus. And yet, many of his ideas remain obscure to the modern reader. What in the world is a Monad? Why does Leibniz care so much about the so-called Principle of Sufficient Reason? And how could he claim that this is the Best of all Possible Worlds? John and Ken discuss the most important philosopher you know the least about with Daniel Garber from Princeton University, author of "Leibniz: Body, Substance, Monad."

Leibniz

Progress in neuroscience may soon make possible an age of neurocosmetology: the use of drugs to let people affect the way their brains work, so as to make them more effective, more attractive, and more like their "cognitive ideal." A world where all the women are beautiful and all the men handsome might be bearable if boring. But would a society full of type-A's work at all? Can it be rational to choose to change in ways that may change who you are? Should there be moral or legal prohibitions against healthy people messing with their own brain chemistry? John and Ken put on their best face with Sam Barondes from UCSF, author of "Better than Prozac: Creating the Next Generation of Psychiatric Drugs."

http://philosophytalk.org/shows/neurocosmetology

Neurocosmetology

More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/free-will-illusion.

We like to think of ourselves as enjoying unrestricted freedom of the will.  But modern science increasingly teaches us that our choices are causally determined by some combination of our genes, our upbringing, and our present circumstances.  Can the idea of freedom of the will be reconciled with the scientific outlook or is free will an illusion?  If we give up on the idea that we have freedom, what follows for our practice of holding people morally responsible for their actions and choices? John and Ken talk freely with John Fischer from UC Riverside, co-author of "Four Views on Free Will."

Is Free Will an Illusion?

Can committed believers and committed non-believers share a common political life in the context of a secular state?  Committed believers may want the policies of the state to reflect their deeply held religious convictions and values.  Committed non-believers may not want the state imposing religiously inspired values in the absence of any purely secular justification.  Must religion retreat from the public sphere or can religion find a place in the public sphere, even in a purely secular state? John and Ken separate church and state with Robert Audi from the University of Notre Dame, author of "Democratic Authority and the Separation of Church and State."

http://philosophytalk.org/shows/religion-and-secular-state

Religion and the Secular State

Is affirmative action a way of balancing out inequality? Or is it just another form of bias in admissions and hiring practices? And where's the line between fostering diversity and lowering standards? John and Ken affirmatively welcome Elizabeth Anderson from the University of Michigan, author of "The Imperative of Integration."

http://philosophytalk.org/shows/affirmative-action

Affirmative Action

You can own a car or a bicycle. But what about an idea? If you invent a program it seems like you should have some say about its use. But can you really own the idea itself?  Listen in and steal an idea or two from Lawrence Lessig, author of "The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World."

http://philosophytalk.org/shows/who-owns-ideas

Who Owns Ideas?

The philosopher John Locke thought we had no innate ideas; our minds are blank slates, upon which experience writes.  Nurture is everything, nature nothing.  Modern popular genetics gives the impression that we are nothing but the stage on which a play written by our genes is performed; nature is everything, nurture nothing.  What are the facts, and what are the philosophical principles that are used to interpret these facts? John and Ken nurture their conversation with Alison Gopnik from UC Berkeley, author of "The Scientist in the Crib: What Early Learning Tells Us About the Mind."

http://philosophytalk.org/shows/nature-vs-nurture

Nature vs. Nurture

The Americans with Disabilities Act recognizes that people with disabilities are often prevented from leading productive and satisfying lives because social, school and work environments are often thoughtlessly and unnecessarily designed with only people with the standard set of abilities in mind. In many cases  "reasonable accommodation" to the ways people with disabilities need to do things is required. What is reasonable? Elevators in schools? Probably.  How about elevators in the Grand Canyon?  What is a disability? Blindness? Certainly. How about obesity? Where do we draw lines, and on what principles? John and Ken test their abilities with Anita Silvers from San Francisco State University, author of "Disability, Difference, Discrimination: Perspectives on Justice in Bioethics and Public Policy."

http://philosophytalk.org/shows/disability

Disability

More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/love.

Is love just a (second-hand) emotion?  Is it a feeling?  A disparate group of feelings, glandular responses, and ill-considered commitments called by a single word so that poets will have something to write about?  A poor substitute for true friendship imposed upon us by lust?  Or the deepest and most satisfying of human conditions? John and Ken question their love with Noel Merino from Humboldt State University.

Love

Time is the most familiar thing in the world, and yet philosophically one of the most puzzling.  Is the present what's left when you subtract what has already happened, and what is yet to happen?  Then it seems to vanish into a mere instant.  Are future events completely unreal?  Or are they just the things we can't know yet?  Is time unreal, as many philosophers have thought? Columbia's Dave Albert joins John and Ken for a fascinating hour. 

http://philosophytalk.org/shows/time

Time

More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/truth-and-relativism.

Is there such a thing as absolute truth, independent of who is doing the thinking, and where?  Or is truth relative to backgrounds, cultures, creeds, times, and places?  Can it be true that what is right for me isn't right for you? John and Ken search for truth with Helen Longino, Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies at the University of Minnesota.

Truth and Relativism

Ken and John debate (use?) the insanity defense. What difference does it make if the person who commits a crime is, in one way or another, mentally ill? Does this make punishment illegitimate? Why is punishment, rather than therapy, ever legitimate? Which sorts of mental illness should exempt a criminal from punishment? Inability to know right from wrong? Inability to resist compulsion? Irrational depravity? John and Ken defend themselves with Susan Wolf from UNC Chapel Hill.

http://philosophytalk.org/shows/insanity-defense

The Insanity Defense

What is virtue? Is virtue the key human happiness and flourishing, as the ancients held, or a quaint notion of at best secondary interest for ethics, as many modern theorists hold? Does the return of virtue ethics to the philosophical scene mark an advance in our thinking about morality or is it just a nostalgia for morally simpler times? Jon and Ken sing the praises of Julia Driver from Dartmouth College, author of "Uneasy Virtue."

Virtue

When is genetic manipulation morally permissible? For health? Beauty? Wit? What sorts of animals is it acceptable to clone? Should we ban stem cell research? John and Ken discuss cloning and the ethical issues surrounding genetic engineering with Hank Greely from the Stanford Law School.

http://philosophytalk.org/shows/genetic-engineering-and-cloning

Genetic Engineering and Cloning

More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/technology-immortality

Some futurists believe we are not far from a time when technology and medicine will be so advanced that humans need no longer die of old age or other natural causes. Eventually, not only will we be able to replace our natural body parts, but we might even be able to “download” our selves into a new cybernetic body. But is this a realistic possibility or just a confused fantasy? Is the self the kind of thing that can be downloaded and persist through radical changes in its “hardware”? And if it were possible for people to indefinitely extend their biological lives, what would the moral implications be for social inequality and distribution of the planet’s finite resources? John and Ken look beyond the mortal coil with Kevin O'Neill from the University of Redlands, author of "Internet Afterlife: Virtual Salvation in the Twenty-First Century" (forthcoming).

The Technology of Immortality

More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/living-through-others

Imagine that the world will end in thirty days. Would your life have meaning anymore? Would anyone’s? It seems that there would no longer be any point to making technological or medical advances, developing new forms of art, or even taking good care of ourselves. Imagining the doomsday scenario shows that there is something particularly disturbing about the prospect that not only we, but also everyone else, will die. Why is this? Would our lives be nearly as meaningful if others did not live on after our death? Could our “collective afterlife” through the lives of others actually be more important than the “personal afterlife” with which we are so often preoccupied? John and Ken live on through Samuel Scheffler from NYU, author of "Death & the Afterlife."

Living On Through Others

More at philosophytalk.org/shows/ancient-cosmos.

People from all over have been speculating about the origin of the universe for thousands and thousands of years. So we sent our Roving Philosophical Reporter, Shuka Kalantari, to explore creation stories from around the globe -- with the help of some very young philosophers.

The Anicent Cosmos: Roving Philosophical Report

More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/why-something.

The old metaphysical question – why anything exists at all – has perplexed and intrigued humankind for ages. It has long been a question reserved for philosophers, but now some physicists claim to have answered it. Yet these attempts have raised questions of their own: is this even a meaningful question in the first place? Can it be answered by science alone, or is philosophy necessary? And what will answering the question mean for us? John and Ken find something to talk about with Jim Holt, author of "Why Does The World Exist: An Existential Detective Story."

Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?

More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/affirmative-action-too-little-or-too-much.

Addressing our nation’s history of racial injustice can be a truly backbreaking endeavor. Race-based affirmative action is usually thought of as one such effort, and colleges and universities often use it in their admissions process. However, affirmative action does seem to lower standards for certain under-represented minorities like Blacks and Hispanics. Should we think of affirmative action as patronizing those minorities, or rectifying the injustices they face? Is affirmative action enough to redress racial injustice, or is it simply the best we can do for the time being? John and Ken welcome Glenn Loury from Brown University, author of "The Anatomy of Racial Inequality."

Affirmative Action: Too Little or Too Much?

More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/big-bang-before-and-after. 

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing theory about the “birth” of the universe. It posits a singularity, or super high density state from which the entire universe expanded and continues to expand. But what exactly is the Big Bang, and what’s the evidence that it took place? How do we account for the “Big Bang state”? Was there something before the Big Bang? What does the theory posit about the future of the universe? And what role does philosophy play in answering these mysteries? John and Ken have a singular conversation with Katherine Freese from the University of Michigan, author of "The Cosmic Cocktail: Three Parts Dark Matter."

Philo

David LogicFarm