Philosophy Club!

After a six-month hiatus, Logan and Ben come back to dismiss "Consent of the Governed" and move on to what happens next. If consent of the governed does not dictate good governance, what does? We rollick through ideas from John Rawls, Jean-Jacque Rousseau, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Socrates (by the way, it was the Dialogue of Crito, in case you were wondering) and Charles Tilly before comparing our results with James Madison. Philosophy Club! is back and this is just the beginning!

Is Justice getting what you deserve? Is it perhaps the balance of wisdom moderation and courage? Or is Justice a chimerical idea we are fed to go along with authority? Beau, Ben and Logan begin to tackle this timeless question. We explicitly reference Plato's Republic, Batman and John Austin's Command Theory of Law to make sense of this question. Beau will allude to H.L.A. Hart's Core and Penumbra understanding of legal terms, as well as evoke Hart's Rule of Recognition to deal with the problem of authority. In the end, we temporarily settle on a version of justice--"the obligatory exercise of authority" (we realized afterwards this definition seems to owe a great deal to Hans Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law, which we don't address at all), and our philosophers agree to re-attack this problem another time.

No question so concerns our collective humanity as that of freedom. Unsatisfied with our first conclusions on the subject, Ben and I reframe the question of Liberty. Perhaps it is not choice maximizes freedom (to the credit of Kitty as well from the last episode, no quantity of colorful consumer choices which line the shelves of our stores and line our streets with briefly used garbage add even an ounce of real freedom to our lives) but there are certain higher order freedoms that outline what it is to lead a free life. If we but look to the Federalist Papers or the Preamble to our United States Constitution, we find a treasured attempt to outline freedoms by demarcating the limits of government power. It is from this angle, we re-attempt to discover what it is that makes us free.

Logan asks Kitty, Mike and Ben "what is Liberty? Is it the most choice? Is it the least obligation? Is it the least arbitrary system?" There is perhaps no concept so central to humanity as freedom. Every choice is an inherently human exercise of the will. The four Philosophers' discussion of what Liberty means ranges from Cherry Blossoms and John Denver to slavery and John Rawls' veil of ignorance. They decide that obligation and choice are interrelated, that the cost of a given action is a part of freedom, and that society today is generally far more free than society of yesteryear because of how much more choice the average American enjoys. Additionally, Mike discovers that expectations of others are often obligations.

Can you take an oath that changes your moral obligations? Can you make a personal decision to follow a specific set of moral guidelines? Why do Veterinarians and soldiers take an oath but not (typically) data analysts? Should Philosophy Club members take an oath and what would it sound like? Sara, Ben and Logan discuss all these and more!

Would Casablanca have been as good if it started in Paris? Ben, Logan and Sara ask why you should tell a story out of order, using flashbacks, flash-forwards and a handful of stranger options. Naturally, Christopher Nolan Films feature prominently, but so too do classics from the Godfather Part II to Mozart's Don Giovanni. We consider the pitfalls that make a brilliant use of time in one film an unnecessarily confusing gimmick in another. We explore the difference between obscurity in one sense, and mystery in another. Finally, we consider the usefulness of telling a story out of order in TV shows, Books, Plays, and even Music and Painting! We hope you discover something about storytelling across media.

Sara, Ben, Mike and Logan embark on a broad discussion that goes to the heart of public policy making and comes back again. We begin by taking a situational test designed to assess the social skills of prospective Veterinarians. And we continue by asking the hard questions that get to the marrow of the issue. Should a veterinarian treat a patient with sub-standard care if their client (the owner) cannot afford better? Should you help someone even if may cost you your job? Should People have the right to own a pet? What would it cost to help pet owners with necessary care? Should people have a right to childcare? Under what conditions can a society give a right? Are externalities a good way to assess public policy?

In this first of its kind episode, Kyra and Mackenzie revisit the "Mansplaining" episode of Philosophy club. Mackenzie initially argues against the usefulness of the term and bemoans that the label Mansplaining tends to end conversations and close minds. Kyra counters that the label Mansplaining contributes to an ongoing journey of cultural self-discovery. Kyra refers to Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s idea: "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

Sara, Logan and Ben ask "What is mansplaining?" "Why is it so aggravating?" and "How do you avoid mansplaining?" Along the way we discuss Essentialism and Bell Hooks, relevant knowledge, and we discover what a male Gynecologist and a Veterinarian have in common!

In this special episode of Philosophy Club, Evan, a practicing Therapist (and roommate of Kitty), helps Aaqib, Ben, Kitty, Logan, Mackenzie and Mike to answer what makes a good therapist? As it turns out, there may not be a single good answer to the question. But that doesn't discourage them! The group also discusses: why do people come to therapy? Should everyone go to therapy? What makes a therapist better suited to a given client? Do a therapist and client need to share values? What should Tony Soprano's therapist do? Is therapy performative? Can you substitute friends for a therapist? And how many therapists form relationships with clients? Notes-- Evan's Book recommendations: On Becoming a Person by Carl Rogers The Gift of Therapy by Irvin Yalom

Ben, Katie, Logan and Mike discuss why we call one way of speaking proper and another colloquial. Along the way, we learn about Ben's hardships at an Orioles' game, David Foster Wallace and Descriptive vs. Prescriptive dictionaries, what Wittgenstein imagines construction workers are like, John McWhorter's Theory of Creole. We also ask about the benefits and tradeoffs of having many different ways of speaking.

Beau, Ben and Logan first discuss how to find a what to read, and Ben introduces the question: What makes a classic? It seems endurance, quality and popularity have something to do with it. And surely having someone to talk to about a book makes it all the more fun. But is the best of all time the same as the most popular? What is the role of genre in ranking them? Can you be someone who likes a lot of Sci-Fi but does not like Sci-Fi? And what are best-of lists even for? Be aware! Spoiler alert for Anna Karenina ahead!

Ben, Mike and Logan ask what it means "to take something back." They stumble into the topics of opinions versus facts, the value of a promise, and the proper way to crack an egg.

Happy Independence Day! In this episode, Aaqib, Ben, Ian, Logan, Mackenzie and Michael discuss what makes a government a government, and how in a moment of crisis, taking up the mantle of power gives an initial semblance of legitimacy. Or is legitimacy just a Phony-Bologna concept? They argue over whether there is a meaningful distinction between gangs and a government, and what that might come from. They ask is it possible to organize a government without the use of force? Is force distinct from violence? And what is there a relation between expectations and responsibilities? I'm happy to report we successfully answered one of these questions.

Aaqib, Ben, Ian, Logan and Mike ask if the 2000-2010 was a tough time for music. Opinions vary wildly. They discuss what is complexity in music now? How can music theory encompass the increasing importance of production? And how does technology of a given time change the how we should view its art?

Ben, Ian and Logan discuss the how to evaluate policy decisions and the wisdom of playing catch with a bowling ball from a tall building. It's hard to evaluate policy based on the consequence, but it seems ludicrous to evaluate it with another set of ethics. The higher up the boss, the further they are from things actually happening. So the most powerful are also the most powerless. Ian compares leaders to coaches to resolve (almost) this problem.

Ben, Logan and Mike exam what your moral obligation is in given scenarios. They discuss Peter Singer's famous shallow pond thought experiment, and consider whether that obligates you to be a lifeguard. They look at the moral obligations of Oscar Schindler and Peter Parker and try to decide what they would think of a coworker with an absurdly large cake.

In one of our most contentious episodes yet! Beau, Mike, Logan and Ben try to reconcile radically different views of what is Law, what is a State (or a state) and what claims a state has on its citizens (if any). They will discuss the command theory of law, the social contract, Max Weber's definition of a state and disagree of the concept and relevance of Legitimacy. It's an exciting Philosophical throw-down you don't want to miss!

Mike begins by asking Katie, Ben and Logan if, after a decade of meeting to discuss philosophy, they have gotten any better at Philosophy? The four of them discuss the skills of thinking deeply, as well as the art of listening deeply to create philosophical conversations. Later, Logan asks "when is it reasonable to believe something we do not know to be true?" He thinks that many things, our existence, ethics, our feelings fall into this category of things we cannot know, but the group (joined by Aaqib and Seamus) wonder together what justifies these beliefs? The group revisits Mike's original question. Without exploring the ideas yourself, you cannot understand them. When I was younger, there was an internal voice that questioned everything. And now there is an intellectual laziness that quiets that voice.

Johny Mac rescues a floundering Ben and Mike and they continue to explore the conservation and destruction of culture. They ask how much sharing will destroy uniqueness? Is the erasure of cultures inevitable? How do we feel about Bluegrass Music?