BROADCASTS.com

S2E05 Americans Dont Know How to Sing the Blues w/ Brad Elliott Stone & Jacob Goodson

Listed in: Culture

S2E04 Does Metamodernism Actually Move Us Past Postmodernism? w/ Jason Ananda Josephson Storm

Listed in: Culture

S2E03 Literature Must Be an Unsettling Force for Democracy w/ Elin Danielsen Huckerby

Listed in: Culture

S2E02 Fear of Breakdown in American Democracy w/ Noelle McAfee

Listed in: Culture

S2E01 Scientific Knowledge Is Metaphorical w/ Jessica Wahman

Listed in: Culture

S1E20 Can Pragmatism Help Us Live Well? w/ John Stuhr

Listed in: Culture

S1E19 Buddhist Reflections on Race and Liberation w/ Charles Johnson

S1E1 Richard Rorty and Achieving Our Country w/ Adrian Rutt (2020)

\\xa0

S1E10 Unschooling and Gentle Parenting w/ Tiersa McQueen (2021)

Listed in: Culture

S1E18 A Friendly Introduction to Stoicism w/ Derek Parsons

Listed in: Culture

S1E17 Reversing Climate Change w/ Ross Kenyon

Listed in: Culture

S1E16 Where Do Animals Fit into Human Flourishing? w/ Ike Sharpless

Listed in: Culture

S1E15 Making the Commons More Common w/ Neal Gorenflo

Listed in: Culture

S1E14 A Tool for a Pluralistic World w/ Justin Marshall

Coming to some semblance of consensus opinion is a paramount challenge in a pluralistic world. We disagree on what constitutes truth and how we ought to obtain it, whether our undertaking be moral, scientific, or political.\\xa0

It has been a common practice in Western philosophy to focus on uncovering an accurate reflection of reality, in hopes that by showing others these true representations of the world, we can bring our community members into agreement. This view holds that if we can clearly present objective truth, we can create meaningful consensus en route to fostering a more peaceful and thriving existence for humanity.

In reality, people disagree\\u2014oftentimes vehemently, and even violently\\u2014on what counts as evidence and which methods for discovering truth are most convincing. We pit our chosen experts against one another. Your preferred philosopher or politician may persuade you and your circle of friends, but what do we do when others are unmoved by what seems, to us, to be so obviously true?\\xa0

Jeffrey Howard speaks with Justin Marshall, a pragmatist philosopher with a graduate degree from George Mason University. He argues that better understanding how our beliefs are formed can help us to navigate the ways in which truth and divergent viewpoints continually perplex liberal democracies and pluralistic societies. Drawing inspiration from thinkers like William James, Charles Sanders Peirce, and Richard Rorty, he explains the roles personal temperament, experiences, language, and culture play in shaping truth. He challenges us to practice more intellectual humility and to reconsider the idea that we can know whether our ideas actually hook up to reality in any meaningful or certain way.

To what degree are our beliefs reflections of our temperaments rather than reflections of objective reality? How might it benefit us to view language as a tool for helping us to better cope with reality rather than as a one-to-one representation of the world? If our notions of truth are contingent upon our particular cultures, personal histories, or demographic backgrounds, how do we avoid the trap of philosophical relativism? And, what social and political solutions can philosophical pragmatism offer us in a pluralistic world?

Show Notes

\\u201cThe Fixation of Belief\\u201d by Charles Sanders Peirce (1877)

Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking by William James (1907)

\\u201cHuman Rights, Rationality, and Sentimentality\\u201d by Richard Rorty (1998)

\\u201cWhat Is It Like to Be a Bat?\\u201d by Thomas Nagel (1974)

The Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant (1781)

Overdoing Democracy by Robert Talisse (2019)

Pragmatism, Postmodernism, and the Future of Philosophy by John Stuhr (2003)

S1E07 Charles Sanders Peirce and Inquiry as an Act of Love w/ David O\\u2019Hara (2021)

S1E01 Richard Rorty and Achieving Our Country w/ Adrian Rutt (2020)

Listed in: Culture

S1E13 The Philosophy of Lived Experience w/ Henriikka Hannula

Listed in: Culture

Ep. 12 Philosophers Need to Care About the Poor with Jacob Goodson

While some philosophers view their primary task as one of discovering the nature of reality and then describing it accurately for the rest of us, others have practiced philosophy as an edifying enterprise, asserting that it should be employed to help us better resolve social and political problems—to change the world.

Although both of these approaches have been utilized throughout history, the philosopher John McCumber argues that this later movement in philosophy was mostly purged from academia in the United States starting during the Cold War. 1950s McCarthyism and the “Red Scare” made many American politicians and professors wary of becoming blacklisted or punished for expressing viewpoints associated with communism. These views included concerns for the poor and economically-disadvantaged, support for labor unions, and outcries regarding exploitative economic practices. In turn, this meant that many academics were pushed out of their positions at colleges and universities if they engaged in rhetoric or activities that were perceived as being too “red.” 

This academic McCarthyism, according to McCumber, further enabled the ascent of analytic philosophy, a method that attempts to describe the world in the most linguistically precise way possible, leaning heavily toward a mathematical-like language to capture an accurate picture of reality. As a result, philosophy departments throughout the United States became less interested in engaging in edifying philosophy. Consequently, academic McCarthyism helped elevate subjects like mathematics, philosophy of science, and logic at the expense of political and social philosophy.

In the later part of the twentieth century, Richard Rorty ushered in a new era of philosophy. Turning their own methods against them, Rorty argued that we ought to jettison analytic philosophy, instead focusing on the practical consequences of our ideas as they manifest in politics and society. Rejecting a representationalist approach, Rorty spent much of his career rallying philosophers around a more edifying position, suggesting that we’re better served by focusing on how ideas can advance society and improve social conditions for people—especially the poor and marginalized. In fact, Rorty went so far as to make several political predictions regarding the practical uses of philosophy and literature in the twenty-first century. On numerous occasions, he outlined how they would be applied throughout society to transform politics following what he imagines will be the darkest years in American history—from 2014 to 2044.

Jeffrey Howard speaks with Jacob Goodson, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Southwestern College in Winfield, Kansas. Goodson believes that, despite some of Rorty’s philosophical shortcomings, we ought to embrace a more edifying orientation toward ideas. In his recent book, The Dark Years?: Philosophy, Politics, and the Problem of Predictions (2020), he considers Rorty’s political predictions and how they might help guide us toward a better future. Goodson examines which predictions have already been realized—including the election of a “strongman” in 2016—which ones might be coming to fruition now, and whether Rorty’s conception of an idealized future will unfold in the way the neopragmatist philosopher hopes it will. 

A few questions to ponder. In what ways might analytic philosophy be inadequate for addressing social and political problems? Should philosophers focus on changing society or is their primary role to help us better understand the nature of reality? What does philosophy stand to lose by following Richard Rorty into his neopragmatist vision for the discipline? And where should we place our hope for the future?

Show Notes

The Dark Years?: Philosophy, Politics, and The Problem of Predictions by Jacob Goodson (2020)

Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America by Richard Rorty (1997)

Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity by Richard Rorty (1989)

Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature by Richard Rorty (1979)

Overdoing Democracy: Why We Must Put Politics in Its Place by Robert Talisse (2019)

“Suspending Politics to Save Democracy” by Lawrence Torcello (2020)

“We’re Overdoing Democracy. But Why?” by Kevin Vallier (2019)

The Philosophy Scare: The Politics of Reason in the Early Cold War by John McCumber (2016)

Time in a Ditch: American Philosophy and the McCarthy Era by John McCumber (2001)

Philosophy and Social Hope by Richard Rorty (2000)

Richard Rorty: The Making of an American Philosopher by Neil Gross (2008)

Analytic Philosophy

“Self-Reliance” by Ralph Waldo Emerson (1841)

Ep. 1 Richard Rorty and Achieving Our Country with Adrian Rutt (2020)

The Future of Religion by Richard Rorty and Gianni Vattimo (2007)

Walter Rauschenbusch

Jeffrey Stout

Listed in: Culture

S1E12 Philosophers Need to Care About the Poor w/ Jacob Goodson

While some philosophers view their primary task as one of discovering the nature of reality and then describing it accurately for the rest of us, others have practiced philosophy as an edifying enterprise, asserting that it should be employed to help us better resolve social and political problems\\u2014to change the world.

Although both of these approaches have been utilized throughout history, the philosopher John McCumber argues that this later movement in philosophy was mostly purged from academia in the United States starting during the Cold War. 1950s McCarthyism and the \\u201cRed Scare\\u201d made many American politicians and professors wary of becoming blacklisted or punished for expressing viewpoints associated with communism. These views included concerns for the poor and economically-disadvantaged, support for labor unions, and outcries regarding exploitative economic practices. In turn, this meant that many academics were pushed out of their positions at colleges and universities if they engaged in rhetoric or activities that were perceived as being too \\u201cred.\\u201d\\xa0

This academic McCarthyism, according to McCumber, further enabled the ascent of analytic philosophy, a method that attempts to describe the world in the most linguistically precise way possible, leaning heavily toward a mathematical-like language to capture an accurate picture of reality. As a result, philosophy departments throughout the United States became less interested in engaging in edifying philosophy. Consequently, academic McCarthyism helped elevate subjects like mathematics, philosophy of science, and logic at the expense of political and social philosophy.

In the later part of the twentieth century, Richard Rorty ushered in a new era of philosophy. Turning their own methods against them, Rorty argued that we ought to jettison analytic philosophy, instead focusing on the practical consequences of our ideas as they manifest in politics and society. Rejecting a representationalist approach, Rorty spent much of his career rallying philosophers around a more edifying position, suggesting that we\\u2019re better served by focusing on how ideas can advance society and improve social conditions for people\\u2014especially the poor and marginalized. In fact, Rorty went so far as to make several political predictions regarding the practical uses of philosophy and literature in the twenty-first century. On numerous occasions, he outlined how they would be applied throughout society to transform politics following what he imagines will be the darkest years in American history\\u2014from 2014 to 2044.

Jeffrey Howard speaks with Jacob Goodson, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Southwestern College in Winfield, Kansas. Goodson believes that, despite some of Rorty\\u2019s philosophical shortcomings, we ought to embrace a more edifying orientation toward ideas. In his recent book, The Dark Years?: Philosophy, Politics, and the Problem of Predictions (2020), he considers Rorty\\u2019s political predictions and how they might help guide us toward a better future. Goodson examines which predictions have already been realized\\u2014including the election of a \\u201cstrongman\\u201d in 2016\\u2014which ones might be coming to fruition now, and whether Rorty\\u2019s conception of an idealized future will unfold in the way the neopragmatist philosopher hopes it will.\\xa0

A few questions to ponder. In what ways might analytic philosophy be inadequate for addressing social and political problems? Should philosophers focus on changing society or is their primary role to help us better understand the nature of reality? What does philosophy stand to lose by following Richard Rorty into his neopragmatist vision for the discipline? And where should we place our hope for the future?

Show Notes

The Dark Years?: Philosophy, Politics, and The Problem of Predictions by Jacob Goodson (2020)

Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America by Richard Rorty (1997)

Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity by Richard Rorty (1989)

Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature by Richard Rorty (1979)

Overdoing Democracy: Why We Must Put Politics in Its Place by Robert Talisse (2019)

\\u201cSuspending Politics to Save Democracy\\u201d by Lawrence Torcello (2020)

\\u201cWe\\u2019re Overdoing Democracy. But Why?\\u201d by Kevin Vallier (2019)

The Philosophy Scare: The Politics of Reason in the Early Cold War by John McCumber (2016)

Time in a Ditch: American Philosophy and the McCarthy Era by John McCumber (2001)

Philosophy and Social Hope by Richard Rorty (2000)

Richard Rorty: The Making of an American Philosopher by Neil Gross (2008)

Analytic Philosophy

\\u201cSelf-Reliance\\u201d by Ralph Waldo Emerson (1841)

S1E01 Richard Rorty and Achieving Our Country with Adrian Rutt (2020)

The Future of Religion by Richard Rorty and Gianni Vattimo (2007)

Walter Rauschenbusch

Jeffrey Stout

Listed in: Culture

Ep. 11 A Small Farm Future with Chris Smaje

It wouldn’t be unreasonable to say that we are always in an age of crisis. Whether this entails more apocalyptic tendencies or more tempered framings, crisis seems to be a constant companion throughout human history.  At present, crises abound regarding climate change, exploitation of land, and soil degradation. We’re seeing major cracks in political economies, many of which stem from misguided cultural paradigms. 

With an industrialized global economy based on fossil fuels and an ethos that disregards limits, we find ourselves in an unsustainable present, with what is becoming an increasingly likely catastrophic future. Most people agree that we can’t continue along the same trajectory we're currently on. Yet, many attempts to forestall the further collapse of prevailing systems appear insufficient for the tasks at hand.

What will it take to shift toward more egalitarian and low-carbon societies? Is it possible for global supply chains to be ecologically sustainable and ethically justifiable? What negative impacts do global and industrialized political economies have regarding personal autonomy, spiritual fulfillment, community connectedness, and ecological conviviality? When should we practice skepticism toward centralized and tech-optimist solutions to our many crises?

Jeffrey Howard speaks with Chris Smaje, a farmer and social scientist that has coworked a small farm in southwest England for more than 15 years. In his new book, A Small Farm Future (2020), he argues that societies built around local economies, self-provisioning, agricultural diversity, and commoning of certain ecological resources are our best shot for creating a sustainable future—in terms of the ecological, nutritional, and psychosocial. 

In this small farm future, Smaje doesn’t imply that there will be no place for large farms or industrialization. Similarly, he doesn’t propose this vision as a panacea for all our problems nor as a utopia looking backward toward a romanticized past. There will be trade-offs. Difficult ones. He offers a melioristic way forward, believing that ecological and moral limits are going to force our hand, compelling us to consider more radical alternatives than the status quo allows.

A Small Farm Future advances a surprising amount of optimism despite how much dominant systems are not only showing signs of significant breakdown—made more pronounced by the COVID pandemic—but suggesting their likely collapse. Whether or not the types of collapse Smaje discusses actually happen in the ways he anticipates, he believes that the earth’s population will be better off if we shift toward small-holding property ownership, oriented around place-based communities and local economies. 

Several questions worth contemplating. In what ways does scaling up systems make us less able to deal with crises effectively? What advantages do permaculture and regenerative agriculture have over large-scale, monocultural approaches? What are some politically feasible ways to make land access more egalitarian? And what trade-offs might we have to make in moving toward a small farm future?

Show Notes

A Small Farm Future: Making the Case for a Society Built Around Local Economies, Self-Provisioning, Agricultural Diversity, and a Shared Earth by Chris Smaje (2021)

Degrowth by Giorgos Kallis (2018)

Limits: Why Malthus Was Wrong and Why Environmentalists Should Care by Giorgos Kallis (2019)

Less Is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World by Jason Hickel (2021)

Farming While Black: Soul Fire Farm's Practical Guide to Liberation on Land by Leah Penniman (2018)

Smallholders, Householders: Farm Families and the Ecology of Intensive, Sustainable Agriculture by Robert McC. Netting (1993)

Stuffed and Starved: Markets, Power, and the Hidden Battle for the World’s Food System by Raj Patel (2007)

Peasants and the Art of Farming by Jan Douwe van der Ploeg (2013)

Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States by James Scott (2017)

Ramp Hollow: The Ordeal of Appalachia by Steven Stoll (2017)

A Small Farm Future blog by Chris Smaje

Listed in: Culture

S1E11 A Small Farm Future w/ Chris Smaje

It wouldn\\u2019t be unreasonable to say that we are always in an age of crisis. Whether this entails more apocalyptic tendencies or more tempered framings, crisis seems to be a constant companion throughout human history. At present, crises abound regarding climate change, exploitation of land, and soil degradation. We\\u2019re seeing major cracks in political economies, many of which stem from misguided cultural paradigms.

With an industrialized global economy based on fossil fuels and an ethos that disregards limits, we find ourselves in an unsustainable present, with what is becoming an increasingly likely catastrophic future. Most people agree that we can\\u2019t continue along the same trajectory we\'re currently on. Yet, many attempts to forestall the further collapse of prevailing systems appear insufficient for the tasks at hand.

What will it take to shift toward more egalitarian and low-carbon societies? Is it possible for global supply chains to be ecologically sustainable and ethically justifiable? What negative impacts do global and industrialized political economies have regarding personal autonomy, spiritual fulfillment, community connectedness, and ecological conviviality? When should we practice skepticism toward centralized and tech-optimist solutions to our many crises?

Jeffrey Howard speaks with Chris Smaje, a farmer and social scientist that has coworked a small farm in southwest England for more than 15 years. In his new book, A Small Farm Future (2020), he argues that societies built around local economies, self-provisioning, agricultural diversity, and commoning of certain ecological resources are our best shot for creating a sustainable future\\u2014in terms of the ecological, nutritional, and psychosocial.\\xa0

In this small farm future, Smaje doesn\\u2019t imply that there will be no place for large farms or industrialization. Similarly, he doesn\\u2019t propose this vision as a panacea for all our problems nor as a utopia looking backward toward a romanticized past. There will be trade-offs. Difficult ones. He offers a melioristic way forward, believing that ecological and moral limits are going to force our hand, compelling us to consider more radical alternatives than the status quo allows.

A Small Farm Future advances a surprising amount of optimism despite how much dominant systems are not only showing signs of significant breakdown\\u2014made more pronounced by the COVID pandemic\\u2014but suggesting their likely collapse. Whether or not the types of collapse Smaje discusses actually happen in the ways he anticipates, he believes that the earth\\u2019s population will be better off if we shift toward small-holding property ownership, oriented around place-based communities and local economies.\\xa0

Several questions worth contemplating. In what ways does scaling up systems make us less able to deal with crises effectively? What advantages do permaculture and regenerative agriculture have over large-scale, monocultural approaches? What are some politically feasible ways to make land access more egalitarian? And what trade-offs might we have to make in moving toward a small farm future?

Show Notes

A Small Farm Future: Making the Case for a Society Built Around Local Economies, Self-Provisioning, Agricultural Diversity, and a Shared Earth by Chris Smaje (2021)

Degrowth by Giorgos Kallis (2018)

Limits: Why Malthus Was Wrong and Why Environmentalists Should Care by Giorgos Kallis (2019)

Less Is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World by Jason Hickel (2021)

Farming While Black: Soul Fire Farm\'s Practical Guide to Liberation on Land by Leah Penniman (2018)

Smallholders, Householders: Farm Families and the Ecology of Intensive, Sustainable Agriculture by Robert McC. Netting (1993)

Stuffed and Starved: Markets, Power, and the Hidden Battle for the World\\u2019s Food System by Raj Patel (2007)

Peasants and the Art of Farming by Jan Douwe van der Ploeg (2013)

Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States by James Scott (2017)

Ramp Hollow: The Ordeal of Appalachia by Steven Stoll (2017)

A Small Farm Future blog by Chris Smaje

S1E08 Subsistence Agriculture During the Collapse of Industria Capitalism w/ Ashley Colby (2021)

Listed in: Culture

Ep. 10 Unschooling and Gentle Parenting with Tiersa McQueen

Mass schooling is a relatively recent phenomenon, an experiment in education that gained steam following the industrial revolution, becoming increasingly widespread in the nineteenth century, in part, due to advocates like Horace Mann. Mann was a social reformer skeptical of parents’ abilities to properly educate their children to become future employees and democratic citizens. He believed that these common schools, as they were called, could remedy the lack of proper discipline found in some homes. Notably, Mann homeschooled his own children outside the dictates of these common schools he advanced for other people’s children. Further, he and his fellow reformers worried about the flood of diverse immigrant families that were challenging contemporary cultural and social hegemony. Mann went so far as to argue that these marginalized groups were “wholly of another kind in morals and intellect.” 

Mass schooling champions asserted that compulsory education was necessary for preventing the corruption of young children in the hands of those they deemed ill-suited to properly foster their moral and intellectual development—namely, their families and respective communities. Traditional schools were to be the means of instilling a particular sense of shared American identity that would allow American democracy to function well.

This is not to color all mass schooling advocates as cultural chauvinists but to highlight that what we consider traditional schooling today is, in many ways, informed by the notion that parents and children lack the skills required to learn outside the schooling system. Traditional schooling embraces a view that learning best occurs when a uniform curriculum is imposed upon young minds, children being segregated according to age within rigid classroom structures. It is commonly held that becoming a successful and contributing member of a democratic society requires going through the mass schooling system. Conventional schooling’s primary goal is knowledge acquisition—with everything else being secondary. Students tend to be treated as passive subjects, receptacles for the knowledge considered necessary by their teachers, school system administrators, and other centralized educational authorities. 

What might a more student-centered learning environment look like? What if instead of imposing a universal curriculum onto children, they were instead provided with the resources needed to help them achieve their own self-selected goals? What if becoming a socially- and emotionally-intelligent human being was the primary goal of an educational approach, rather than being supplemental to knowledge acquisition? 

Jeffrey Howard speaks with Tiersa McQueen, an unschooling parent of four children. Following her own experiences as a teacher and her children’s encounters with mass schooling, her family has embraced unschooling and gentle parenting. According to McQueen, these two philosophies go hand-in-hand, holding central the idea that children deserve full respect, greater autonomy, and tailored support as they learn how to thrive as young people—and eventually, as adults. 

Despite her advocacy for self-directed learning, she acknowledges that she isn’t completely opposed to schooling. It’s still an option for her kids should they choose it. However, as a Black parent, she is well-aware of the school-to-prison pipeline and the reality that Black children are punished far more frequently and severely than other children in schooling environments. She expresses that she can’t wait for traditional schools to change in order for them to become safe and nurturing places for her children.

McQueen considers the criticisms lobbed at unschoolers and self-directed education advocates, suggesting that many of them are stereotypes pertaining to a type of homeschooler that doesn’t really exist anymore. Unschooling and gentle parenting are difficult for some people to imagine, and have their own share of difficulties, but she observes that her relationships with her own children have never been better. She also notes that the depth of her children’s learning has increased dramatically as they’ve been able to direct time and attention toward their own goals and interests. 

Some things to further consider. A century ago, the philosopher and social activist John Dewey proposed a notion of education as “learning by doing,” emphasizing the need for practicality in meaningful learning. What might happen if more young minds were afforded this approach, supported by family and community members as they experimented with overcoming the challenges they face in their particular social environments? In what ways might an unschooling approach to learning better prepare people to navigate the demands and problems unique to their local contexts? And how might unschooling better prepare children to participate in democratic living?

Show Notes

“When You Get Into Unschooling, It’s Almost Like a Religion” by Molly Worthen (2020)

Raising Free People: Unschooling as Liberation and Healing Work by Akilah S. Richards (2020) 

Untigering: Peaceful Parenting for the Deconstructing Tiger Parent by Iris Chen (2020)

Free to Learn: Why Unleashing the Instinct to Play Will Make Our Children Happier, More Self-Reliant, and Better Students for Life by Peter Gray (2013)

John Holt

“First Impressions of an Unschooling School” by Jeffrey Howard (2018)

Unschooled: Raising Curious, Well-Educated Children Outside the Conventional Classroom by Kerry McDonald (2019)

Horace Mann’s Troubling Legacy: The Education of Democratic Citizens by Bob Pepperman Taylor (2010)

“My Pedagogic Creed” by John Dewey (1897)

Democracy and Education by John Dewey (1916)

Listed in: Culture

S1E10 Unschooling and Gentle Parenting w/ Tiersa McQueen

Mass schooling champions asserted that compulsory education was necessary for preventing the corruption of young children in the hands of those they deemed ill-suited to properly foster their moral and intellectual development\\u2014namely, their families and respective communities. Traditional schools were to be the means of instilling a particular sense of shared American identity that would allow American democracy to function well.

This is not to color all mass schooling advocates as cultural chauvinists but to highlight that what we consider traditional schooling today is, in many ways, informed by the notion that parents and children lack the skills required to learn outside the schooling system. Traditional schooling embraces a view that learning best occurs when a uniform curriculum is imposed upon young minds, children being segregated according to age within rigid classroom structures. It is commonly held that becoming a successful and contributing member of a democratic society requires going through the mass schooling system. Conventional schooling\\u2019s primary goal is knowledge acquisition\\u2014with everything else being secondary. Students tend to be treated as passive subjects, receptacles for the knowledge considered necessary by their teachers, school system administrators, and other centralized educational authorities.\\xa0

\\xa0

What might a more student-centered learning environment look like? What if instead of imposing a universal curriculum onto children, they were provided with the resources needed to help them achieve their own self-selected goals? What if becoming a socially and emotionally intelligent human being was the primary goal of an educational approach, rather than being supplemental to knowledge acquisition?\\xa0

\\xa0

Jeffrey Howard speaks with Tiersa McQueen, an unschooling parent of four children. Following her own experiences as a teacher and her children\\u2019s encounters with mass schooling, her family has embraced unschooling and gentle parenting. According to McQueen, these two philosophies go hand-in-hand, holding central the idea that children deserve full respect, greater autonomy, and tailored support as they learn how to thrive as young people\\u2014and eventually, as adults.\\xa0

\\xa0

Despite her advocacy for self-directed learning, she acknowledges that she isn\\u2019t completely opposed to schooling. It\\u2019s still an option for her kids should they choose it. However, as a Black parent, she is well aware of the school-to-prison pipeline and the reality that Black children are punished far more frequently and severely than other children in schooling environments. She expresses that she can\\u2019t wait for traditional schools to change in order for them to become safe and nurturing places for her children.

\\xa0

McQueen considers the criticisms lobbed at unschoolers and self-directed education advocates, suggesting that many of them are stereotypes pertaining to a type of homeschooler that doesn\\u2019t really exist anymore. Unschooling and gentle parenting are difficult for some people to imagine, and have their own share of difficulties, but she observes that her relationships with her own children have never been better. She also notes that the depth of her children\\u2019s learning has increased dramatically as they\\u2019ve been able to direct time and attention toward their own goals and interests.\\xa0

\\xa0

Some things to further consider. A century ago, the philosopher and social activist John Dewey proposed a notion of education as \\u201clearning by doing,\\u201d emphasizing the need for practicality in meaningful learning. What might happen if more young minds were afforded this approach, supported by family and community members as they experimented with overcoming the challenges they face in their particular social environments? In what ways might an unschooling approach to learning better prepare people to navigate the demands and problems unique to their local contexts? And how might unschooling better prepare children to participate in democratic living?

Show Notes

\\u201cWhen You Get Into Unschooling, It\\u2019s Almost Like a Religion\\u201d by Molly Worthen (2020)

\\xa0

Raising Free People: Unschooling as Liberation and Healing Work by Akilah S. Richards (2020)\\xa0

\\xa0

Untigering: Peaceful Parenting for the Deconstructing Tiger Parent by Iris Chen (2020)

\\xa0

Free to Learn: Why Unleashing the Instinct to Play Will Make Our Children Happier, More Self-Reliant, and Better Students for Life by Peter Gray (2013)

\\xa0

John Holt

\\xa0

\\u201cFirst Impressions of an Unschooling School\\u201d by Jeffrey Howard (2018)

\\xa0

Unschooled: Raising Curious, Well-Educated Children Outside the Conventional Classroom by Kerry McDonald (2019)

\\xa0

Horace Mann\\u2019s Troubling Legacy: The Education of Democratic Citizens by Bob Pepperman Taylor (2010)

\\xa0

\\u201cMy Pedagogic Creed\\u201d by John Dewey (1897)

\\xa0

Democracy and Education by John Dewey (1916)

\\xa0

S1E19 Buddhist Reflections on Race and Liberation w/ Charles Johnson (2021)

Listed in: Culture

Ep. 9 Trust in a Polarized Age with Kevin Vallier

Trust plays a central role in democratic societies. If we can’t rely upon fellow community members to act in accordance with generally accepted norms, then we’re going to be in a really bad way. Social trust in the US has fallen dramatically. In the early 1970s, around half of Americans said that most people can be trusted. Today, less than a third of Americans feel that way.

Similarly, political trust—our faith in political institutions and processes to function properly—has declined as well. In the 1960s, more than 70 percent of Americans said that they trusted the federal government always or most of the time. Today, that figure hovers around 17 percent.

In an idealized liberal democracy, a healthy dose of skepticism toward politicians and government officials is vital for assuring fruitful outcomes. However, we must be careful so that that accountability mechanism doesn’t turn into a cynicism that corrodes democratic norms. Rampant distrust prevents us from solving problems with our neighbors and broader communities. Alternatively, trust helps to grease the wheels of democracy. This enables us to better overcome inherited differences and to arrive at more pluralistic perspectives on the problems we face.

Instead, we find ourselves in an increasingly polarized age, where we seem less and less to share common realities or notions of truth. Distrust breeds polarization, and polarization begets more distrust. When we no longer hold the same media or news sources in common or we maintain a thoroughgoing distrust of media institutions, what will prevent us from further polarization?

Jeffrey Howard speaks with Kevin Vallier, a political philosopher and associate professor of philosophy at Bowling Green State University, where he directs their program in Philosophy, Politics, Economics, and Law. In his new book Trust in a Polarized Age (2020), Vallier advocates for public reason liberalism as a way of revitalizing social and political trust. He draws on empirical trust literature to argue a way forward for reducing polarization. He proposes that we reinvest in liberal democratic political and economic institutions: high-quality governance, procedural fairness, markets, social welfare programs, and freedom of association. Vallier believes that if we can educate ourselves on how elections and political parties take advantage of mistrust and polarization, we can protect American democracy against new authoritarian threats. 

This raises some questions. What relationship is there between the scope of government and the degree of political trust in the broader society? Rather than view our political opponents as essentially evil, what might happen instead if we primarily acted as if they were misguided or ill-informed? How much more trust would be fostered if we focused locally rather than turning our eyes toward Washington DC or to the headquarters of multinational firms? What can we do to restore trust in the media? And what hope do we have of breaking the distrust-divergence feedback loop?

Show Notes

Trust in a Polarized Age by Kevin Vallier (2020)

“Trust in a Age of Reactionaries and Revolutionaries” by Matthew Downhour (2021)

“We’re Overdoing Democracy. But Why?” by Kevin Vallier (2019)

“Suspending Politics to Save Democracy” by Lawrence Torcello (2020)

The Spirit of the Disciplines by Dallas Willard (1996)

The Divine Conspiracy by Dallas Willard (1998)

Free to Choose: A Personal Statement by Milton Friedman and Rose Friedman (1990)

Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman (2002)

The Theory of Moral Sentiments by Adam Smith (1759)

The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith (1776)

A Theory of Justice by John Rawls (1971)

Political Liberalism by John Rawls (1993)

The Constitution of Liberty by F.A. Hayek (1960)

Law, Legislation, and Liberty, Vol I.: Rules and Order by F. A. Hayek (1973)

The Order of Public Reason by Gerald Gaus (2010)

Listed in: Culture

S1E09 Trust in a Polarized Age w/ Kevin Vallier

Trust plays a central role in democratic societies. If we can\\u2019t rely upon fellow community members to act in accordance with generally accepted norms, then we\\u2019re going to be in a really bad way. Social trust in the US has fallen dramatically. In the early 1970s, around half of Americans said that most people can be trusted. Today, less than a third of Americans feel that way.

Similarly, political trust\\u2014our faith in political institutions and processes to function properly\\u2014has declined as well. In the 1960s, more than 70 percent of Americans said that they trusted the federal government always or most of the time. Today, that figure hovers around 17 percent.

In an idealized liberal democracy, a healthy dose of skepticism toward politicians and government officials is vital for assuring fruitful outcomes. However, we must be careful so that that accountability mechanism doesn\\u2019t turn into a cynicism that corrodes democratic norms. Rampant distrust prevents us from solving problems with our neighbors and broader communities. Alternatively, trust helps to grease the wheels of democracy. This enables us to better overcome inherited differences and to arrive at more pluralistic perspectives on the problems we face.

Instead, we find ourselves in an increasingly polarized age, where we seem less and less to share common realities or notions of truth. Distrust breeds polarization, and polarization begets more distrust. When we no longer hold the same media or news sources in common or we maintain a thoroughgoing distrust of media institutions, what will prevent us from further polarization?

Jeffrey Howard speaks with Kevin Vallier, a political philosopher and associate professor of philosophy at Bowling Green State University, where he directs their program in Philosophy, Politics, Economics, and Law. In his new book Trust in a Polarized Age (2020), Vallier advocates for public reason liberalism as a way of revitalizing social and political trust. He draws on empirical trust literature to argue a way forward for reducing polarization. He proposes that we reinvest in liberal democratic political and economic institutions: high-quality governance, procedural fairness, markets, social welfare programs, and freedom of association. Vallier believes that if we can educate ourselves on how elections and political parties take advantage of mistrust and polarization, we can protect American democracy against new authoritarian threats.\\xa0

This raises some questions. What relationship is there between the scope of government and the degree of political trust in the broader society? Rather than view our political opponents as essentially evil, what might happen instead if we primarily acted as if they were misguided or ill-informed? How much more trust would be fostered if we focused locally rather than turning our eyes toward Washington DC or to the headquarters of multinational firms? What can we do to restore trust in the media? And what hope do we have of breaking the distrust-divergence feedback loop?

Show Notes

Trust in a Polarized Age by Kevin Vallier (2020)

\\u201cTrust in a Age of Reactionaries and Revolutionaries\\u201d by Matthew Downhour (2021)

\\u201cWe\\u2019re Overdoing Democracy. But Why?\\u201d by Kevin Vallier (2019)

\\u201cSuspending Politics to Save Democracy\\u201d by Lawrence Torcello (2020)

The Spirit of the Disciplines by Dallas Willard (1996)

The Divine Conspiracy by Dallas Willard (1998)

Free to Choose: A Personal Statement by Milton Friedman and Rose Friedman (1990)

Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman (2002)

The Theory of Moral Sentiments by Adam Smith (1759)

The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith (1776)

A Theory of Justice by John Rawls (1971)

Political Liberalism by John Rawls (1993)

The Constitution of Liberty by F.A. Hayek (1960)

Law, Legislation, and Liberty, Vol I.: Rules and Order by F. A. Hayek (1973)

The Order of Public Reason by Gerald Gaus (2010)

S1E01 Richard Rorty and Achieving Our Country w/ Adrian Rutt (2020)

S1E02 Toward a Politics of Uncertainty w/ Daniel Wortel-London (2020)

Listed in: Culture

Ep. 8 Embracing Subsistence Agriculture During the Collapse of Industrial Capitalism with Ashley Colby

We occupy human environments that are overlapped by numerous social, moral, and political systems. Some of these interlock while it’s unclear how exactly others relate to one another. The more theoretically-minded among us—and the more ideology-craving parts within us—tend to reach for rather all-encompassing frameworks to help us make sense of what creates social and environmental ills. We look around ourselves and see nutritious food shortages, ecological exploitation, social injustices, atomization, political radicalization, and tyranny. And depending on our ideological proclivities, we use divergent language as tools for identifying their sources, in hopes of then addressing these identified problems—using terms like socialism, capitalism, fascism, or liberalism, to name a few. 

Abstractions or idealized conceptions like these have important roles to play, but how helpful are they in bringing about social change? What if instead of leading out with political ideology or philosophical theorizing, we focused our efforts on meeting needs as they present themselves? What would happen if instead of organizing with an eye toward finding like-minded individuals that share our same dogmas and creeds, we targeted concrete problems that we face within particular places or communities? 

Jeffrey Howard speaks with Ashley Colby, a sociologist and author of Subsistence Agriculture in the United States: Reconnecting to Work, Nature, and Community (2020). She earned her PhD focusing on environmental sociology from Washington State University in 2018. She is currently pursuing research projects based in Uruguay, where she has recently founded Rizoma Field School for experiential learning in the area of sustainability and agroecology. Ashley is a new member of the Executive Board of the Sustainable Consumption Research and Action Initiative (SCORAI) based in North America.

Colby spotlights subsistence food producers in the United States, uncovering how “practitioner networks” empower community members with different ideological and political commitments to come together and solve local problems. She believes that our current mass agricultural system—a central element of what she frequently refers to as “industrial capitalism”—is not only in crisis but moving toward gradual collapse. Drawing from original ethnographic studies and her own experience as a subsistence food producer, she explores some of the more promising alternatives to the current system, or “shadow structures,” as she calls them.

She takes on the misconception that subsistence farming only happens in rural areas and in the Global South, highlighting food producers and chicken keepers in the Chicago area. She further expresses optimism that as industrial farming, consumerism, and global supply chains continue to push beyond their ecological and moral limits, that permaculture and subsistence agriculture will serve as the fruitful nexus for what is becoming the next collection of social and political systems that will enable communities to thrive beyond the twenty-first century. 

Despite Colby’s optimism, how feasible or desirable are these movements away from mass-scale agriculture? How much meaningful change can happen when political activists take this more practical approach to problems rather than leading out with theoretical frameworks? What role does polemical theorizing have in bringing about social change?

Show Notes:

Subsistence Agriculture in the United States: Reconnecting to Work, Nature, and Community by Ashley Colby (2020)

Wandering God by Morris Berman (2000)

Coming to Our Senses: Body and Spirit in the Hidden History of the West by Morris Berman (1989)

The Reenchantment of the World by Morris Berman (1981)

The Art of Loving by Eric Fromm (1956)

On the Road by Jack Kerouac (1957)

“Self-Reliance” by Ralph Waldo Emerson (1841)

Walden by Henry David Thoreau (1854)

My First Summer in the Sierra by John Muir (1911)

Straw Dogs BY John Gray (2002)

Desert Solitaire by Edward Abbey (1968)

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values by Robert Pirsig (1974)

Critical Theory (The Frankfurt School)

Listed in: Culture

S1E08 Subsistence Agriculture During the Collapse of Industrial Capitalism w/ Ashley Colby

We occupy human environments that are overlapped by numerous social, moral, and political systems. Some of these interlock while it\\u2019s unclear how exactly others relate to one another. The more theoretically-minded among us\\u2014and the more ideology-craving parts within us\\u2014tend to reach for rather all-encompassing frameworks to help us make sense of what creates social and environmental ills. We look around ourselves and see nutritious food shortages, ecological exploitation, social injustices, atomization, political radicalization, and tyranny. And depending on our ideological proclivities, we use divergent language as tools for identifying their sources, in hopes of then addressing these identified problems\\u2014using terms like socialism, capitalism, fascism, or liberalism, to name a few.\\xa0

Abstractions or idealized conceptions like these have important roles to play, but how helpful are they in bringing about social change? What if instead of leading out with political ideology or philosophical theorizing, we focused our efforts on meeting needs as they present themselves? What would happen if instead of organizing with an eye toward finding like-minded individuals that share our same dogmas and creeds, we targeted concrete problems that we face within particular places or communities?\\xa0

Jeffrey Howard speaks with Ashley Colby, a sociologist and author of Subsistence Agriculture in the United States: Reconnecting to Work, Nature, and Community (2020). She earned her PhD focusing on environmental sociology from Washington State University in 2018. She is currently pursuing research projects based in Uruguay, where she has recently founded Rizoma Field School for experiential learning in the area of sustainability and agroecology. Ashley is a new member of the Executive Board of the Sustainable Consumption Research and Action Initiative (SCORAI) based in North America.

Colby spotlights subsistence food producers in the United States, uncovering how \\u201cpractitioner networks\\u201d empower community members with different ideological and political commitments to come together and solve local problems. She believes that our current mass agricultural system\\u2014a central element of what she frequently refers to as \\u201cindustrial capitalism\\u201d\\u2014is not only in crisis but moving toward gradual collapse. Drawing from original ethnographic studies and her own experience as a subsistence food producer, she explores some of the more promising alternatives to the current system, or \\u201cshadow structures,\\u201d as she calls them.

She takes on the misconception that subsistence farming only happens in rural areas and in the Global South, highlighting food producers and chicken keepers in the Chicago area. She further expresses optimism that as industrial farming, consumerism, and global supply chains continue to push beyond their ecological and moral limits, that permaculture and subsistence agriculture will serve as the fruitful nexus for what is becoming the next collection of social and political systems that will enable communities to thrive beyond the twenty-first century.\\xa0

Despite Colby\\u2019s optimism, how feasible or desirable are these movements away from mass-scale agriculture? How much meaningful change can happen when political activists take this more practical approach to problems rather than leading out with theoretical frameworks? What role does polemical theorizing have in bringing about social change?

Show Notes:

Subsistence Agriculture in the United States: Reconnecting to Work, Nature, and Community by Ashley Colby (2020)

Wandering God by Morris Berman (2000)

Coming to Our Senses: Body and Spirit in the Hidden History of the West by Morris Berman (1989)

The Reenchantment of the World by Morris Berman (1981)

The Art of Loving by Eric Fromm (1956)

On the Road by Jack Kerouac (1957)

\\u201cSelf-Reliance\\u201d by Ralph Waldo Emerson (1841)

Walden by Henry David Thoreau (1854)

My First Summer in the Sierra by John Muir (1911)

Straw Dogs BY John Gray (2002)

Desert Solitaire by Edward Abbey (1968)

S1E16 Where Do Animals Fit Into Human Flourishing? w/ Ike Sharpless (2021)

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values by Robert Pirsig (1974)

Critical Theory (The Frankfurt School)

S1E11 A Small Farm Future w/ Chris Smaje\\xa0(2021)

S1E15 Making the Commons More Common w/ Neal Gorenflo\\xa0(2021)

Listed in: Culture

Ep. 7 Charles Peirce and Inquiry as an Act of Love with David O'Hara

Listed in: Culture

S1E07 Charles Peirce and Inquiry as an Act of Love w/ David O'Hara

Listed in: Culture

Ep. 6 Levinas and James: A Pragmatic Phenomenology with Megan Craig

Early in life we learn rules for moral conduct. We are taught which actions are right and which ones are wrong. Eventually we’re able to grasp principles and closed systems that allege to hold in place the reasons for why any particular action has moral value. In philosophical terms, this might look like John Stuart Mill’s utilitarian happiness principle: an action is right insofar as it maximizes utility or pleasure for the greatest number of people. It might resemble Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative: to act only according to a maxim whereby you can will at the same time that it should become a universal law. 

There is an assurance and comfort in having this sort of written in stone approach to morality. A moral reality that is unchanged, universal, enclosed in the structure of the universe. We just have to discover it, reason our way to it, and once we pen it to paper, we have moral laws we can always fall back on. This reliability and simplicity has its appeal, but what if closed moral systems are incomplete, wrongheaded? What if ethical living arises from a more ambiguous and ineffable place? What if we were instead to understand that the moral life is embedded in face-to-face interactions, that ethics is derived from a place of radical subjectivity and infinite responsibility to “the Other”?

Emmanuel Levinas is a twentieth-century French philosopher who rejected rules-based notions of morality. Informed by phenomenologists like Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger, Levinas champions a subjective approach to the ethical life that demands a constant vigilance and moral responsiveness from us. The “face” is interruptive and constantly calling after us for attention. Levinas suggests an immense obligation to others that seems inexhaustible, a moral demand we’ll never be able to satisfy.

Jeffrey Howard speaks with Megan Craig, a multi-media artist and associate professor of philosophy at Stony Brook University. In her book, Levinas and James: Toward a Pragmatic Phenomenology (2010), she offers us an overview of Levinas’ ethics by positioning him alongside the pragmatist philosopher William James. She does this not only to introduce Americans to an otherwise opaque and challenging continental philosopher but as a way of revealing the more practical or pragmatic elements of his ethics.  

She wants us to consider what might be a more creative and vitalizing approach to ethical living, a perspective that prioritizes lived experience over moral abstractions and detached laws.

Show Notes

Levinas and James: Toward a Pragmatic Phenomenology by Megan Craig (2010)

Existence and Existents by Emmanuel Levinas (1978)

Ethics and Infinity by Emmanuel Levinas (1985)

Otherwise Than Being or Beyond Essence by Emmanuel Levinas (1974)

Totality and Infinity by Emmanuel Levinas (1969)

Essays in Radical Empiricism by William James (1906)

The Meaning of Truth by William James (1909)

Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking by William James (1907)

A Pluralistic Universe by William James (1908)

Being and Time by Martin Heidegger (1927)

Creative Evolution by Henri Bergson (1911)

Time and Free Will by Henri Bergson (1889)

The Writing of the Disaster by Maurice Blanchot (1980)

Life and Fate by Vasily Grossman (1985)

Altered Reading: Levinas and Literature by Jill Robbins (1999)

The Principles of Psychology by William James (1890)

“Being with Others: Levinas and Ethics of Autism” by Megan Craig (2017) 

“Learning to Live with Derrida and Levinas” by Megan Craig (2018)

Listed in: Culture

S1E06 Levinas and James: A Pragmatic Phenomenology w/ Megan Craig

Early in life we learn rules for moral conduct. We are taught which actions are right and which ones are wrong. Eventually we\\u2019re able to grasp principles and closed systems that allege to hold in place the reasons for why any particular action has moral value. In philosophical terms, this might look like John Stuart Mill\\u2019s utilitarian happiness principle: an action is right insofar as it maximizes utility or pleasure for the greatest number of people. It might resemble Immanuel Kant\\u2019s categorical imperative: to act only according to a maxim whereby you can will at the same time that it should become a universal law.\\xa0

There is an assurance and comfort in having this sort of written in stone approach to morality. A moral reality that is unchanged, universal, enclosed in the structure of the universe. We just have to discover it, reason our way to it, and once we pen it to paper, we have moral laws we can always fall back on.\\xa0This reliability and simplicity has its appeal, but what if closed moral systems are incomplete, wrongheaded? What if ethical living arises from a more ambiguous and ineffable place? What if we were instead to understand that the moral life is embedded in face-to-face interactions, that ethics is derived from a place of radical subjectivity and infinite responsibility to \\u201cthe Other\\u201d?

Emmanuel Levinas is a twentieth-century French philosopher who rejected rules-based notions of morality. Informed by phenomenologists like Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger, Levinas champions a subjective approach to the ethical life that demands a constant vigilance and moral responsiveness from us. The \\u201cface\\u201d is interruptive and constantly calling after us for attention. Levinas suggests an immense obligation to others that seems inexhaustible, a moral demand we\\u2019ll never be able to satisfy.

Jeffrey Howard speaks with Megan Craig, a multi-media artist and associate professor of philosophy at Stony Brook University. In her book, Levinas and James: Toward a Pragmatic Phenomenology (2010), she offers us an overview of Levinas\\u2019 ethics by positioning him alongside the pragmatist philosopher William James. She does this not only to introduce Americans to an otherwise opaque and challenging continental philosopher but as a way of revealing the more practical or pragmatic elements of his ethics.\\xa0\\xa0

She wants us to consider what might be a more creative and vitalizing approach to ethical living, a perspective that prioritizes lived experience over moral abstractions and detached laws.

Show Notes

Levinas and James: Toward a Pragmatic Phenomenology by Megan Craig (2010)

Existence and Existents by Emmanuel Levinas (1978)

Ethics and Infinity by Emmanuel Levinas (1985)

Otherwise Than Being or Beyond Essence by Emmanuel Levinas (1974)

Totality and Infinity by Emmanuel Levinas (1969)

Essays in Radical Empiricism by William James (1906)

The Meaning of Truth by William James (1909)

Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking by William James (1907)

A Pluralistic Universe by William James (1908)

Being and Time by Martin Heidegger (1927)

Creative Evolution by Henri Bergson (1911)

Time and Free Will by Henri Bergson (1889)

The Writing of the Disaster by Maurice Blanchot (1980)

Life and Fate by Vasily Grossman (1985)

Altered Reading: Levinas and Literature by Jill Robbins (1999)

The Principles of Psychology by William James (1890)

\\u201cBeing with Others: Levinas and Ethics of Autism\\u201d by Megan Craig (2017)\\xa0

\\u201cLearning to Live with Derrida and Levinas\\u201d by Megan Craig (2018)

S1E14 A Tool for a Pluralistic World w/ Justin Marshall (2021)

S1E16 Where Do Animals Fit into Human Flourishing w/ Ike Sharpless (2021)

Listed in: Culture

Ep. 5 An Expansive and Democratic View of Physical Education with Nate Babcock

Theorists and activists argue that education is the bedrock of a democratic society. Having a well-educated citizenry is necessary for people to meet the demands required for democracies to thrive. In the United States, schooling is conceived of as one of the primary vehicles for educating these democratic citizens.

For many who have gone through traditional schooling, physical education seems like an interruption in the school day, for better or for worse, a distraction from the rest of our formal learning. Physical education conjures up a flurry of competitive sports, dodgeball, and fitness tests. Perhaps it brings to mind anxieties around your own body composition and getting in shape, being physically fit or failing to become properly athletic.

In part, this is the consequence of designing physical education with a narrow focus on physical literacy, control, efficiency, and a commitment to a contextless ideal. It could also be the byproduct of larger cultural forces obsessed with profit margins, results, and the bottom line.

Contrary to this viewpoint, some educators and scholars are pushing to make physical education a more prominent contributor to democratic living. 

Nate Babcock is an educator in Southern California. With 18 years experience, he is centered on broadening our views of physical education, approaching it as a way of encouraging mobility, physical and social, and democratic practices like cooperation, inclusion, dialogue, and collective exploration. 

How might concepts such as bodyfulness, corporeality, and phenomenology inform a more democratic approach to physical education? What might a more expansive and democratic view of physical education look like? And how do we enlarge conceptions of physical fitness to include how we interact with one another beyond the gym and the classroom, and into our communities?

Show Notes

“Toward Better Whys and Whats of P.E.” by Nate Babcock (2020)

Alfred North Whitehead

Henri Bergson

Gilles Deleuze

Mae-Wan Ho

John Dewey

Maurice Merleau-Ponty

Martin Buber

Carl Rogers

“Somaesthetics: A Disciplinary Proposal” by Richard Shusterman (1999)

“Life and Value: A Whiteheadian Perspective” by Nathaniel Barrett

"Enkinaesthesia: Proto-moral Value in Action-Enquiry and Interaction” by Susan A. J.  Stuart (2017) 

"How to be an Anti-Capitalist Today" by Erik Olin-Wright (2015)

“Who or What is the Self?” by Adam Robbert (2018)

”From Final Knowledge to Infinite Learning, with Chaudhuri, Whitehead, and Deleuze” by Matt Segall (2018)

”Process-Relational Philosophy as a Way of Life” by Adrian Ivakhiv (2018)

I and Thou by Martin Buber (1923)

Unflattening by Nick Sousanis (2015) 

Bodies in Revolt: A Primer in Somatic Thinking by Thomas Hanna (1985)

The Play Ethic: A Manifesto for a Different Way of Living by Pat Kane (2004)

Lucretius II: An Ethics of Motion by Thomas Nail (2020)

Noumenautics: Metaphysics - Meta-Ethics - Psychedelics by Peter Sjöstedt-H (2015)

Ethics in John Cobb's Process Theology by Paul Custodio Bube (1989)

Attunement Through the Body by Shigenori Nagatomo (1992)

The Body, Self Cultivation, and Ki Energy by Yasuo Yuasa (1993)

Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach by Martha C. Nussbaum (2013)

Meaning of Life and the Universe by Mae-Wan Ho (2017)

Listed in: Culture

S1E05 An Expansive and Democratic View of Physical Education w/ Nate Babcock

Theorists and activists argue that education is the bedrock of a democratic society. Having a well-educated citizenry is necessary for people to meet the demands required for democracies to thrive. In the United States, schooling is conceived of as one of the primary vehicles for educating these democratic citizens.

For many who have gone through traditional schooling, physical education seems like an interruption in the school day, for better or for worse, a distraction from the rest of our formal learning. Physical education conjures up a flurry of competitive sports, dodgeball, and fitness tests. Perhaps it brings to mind anxieties around your own body composition and getting in shape, being physically fit or failing to become properly athletic.

In part, this is the consequence of designing physical education with a narrow focus on physical literacy, control, efficiency, and a commitment to a contextless ideal. It could also be the byproduct of larger cultural forces obsessed with profit margins, results, and the bottom line.

Contrary to this viewpoint, some educators and scholars are pushing to make physical education a more prominent contributor to democratic living.\\xa0

Nate Babcock is an educator in Southern California. With 18 years experience, he is centered on broadening our views of physical education, approaching it as a way of encouraging mobility, physical and social, and democratic practices like cooperation, inclusion, dialogue, and collective exploration.\\xa0

How might concepts such as bodyfulness, corporeality, and phenomenology inform a more democratic approach to physical education? What might a more expansive and democratic view of physical education look like? And how do we enlarge conceptions of physical fitness to include how we interact with one another beyond the gym and the classroom, and into our communities?

Show Notes

\\u201cToward Better Whys and Whats of P.E.\\u201d by Nate Babcock (2020)

Alfred North Whitehead

Henri Bergson

Gilles Deleuze

Mae-Wan Ho

John Dewey

Maurice Merleau-Ponty

Martin Buber

Carl Rogers

\\u201cSomaesthetics: A Disciplinary Proposal\\u201d by Richard Shusterman (1999)

\\u201cLife and Value: A Whiteheadian Perspective\\u201d by Nathaniel Barrett

"Enkinaesthesia: Proto-moral Value in Action-Enquiry and Interaction\\u201d by Susan A. J.\\xa0 Stuart (2017)\\xa0

"How to be an Anti-Capitalist Today" by Erik Olin-Wright (2015)

\\u201cWho or What is the Self?\\u201d by Adam Robbert (2018)

\\u201dFrom Final Knowledge to Infinite Learning, with Chaudhuri, Whitehead, and Deleuze\\u201d by Matt Segall (2018)

\\u201dProcess-Relational Philosophy as a Way of Life\\u201d by Adrian Ivakhiv (2018)

I and Thou by Martin Buber (1923)

Unflattening by Nick Sousanis (2015)\\xa0

Bodies in Revolt: A Primer in Somatic Thinking by Thomas Hanna (1985)

The Play Ethic: A Manifesto for a Different Way of Living\\xa0by Pat Kane (2004)

Lucretius II: An Ethics of Motion by Thomas Nail (2020)

Noumenautics: Metaphysics - Meta-Ethics - Psychedelics by Peter Sj\\xf6stedt-H (2015)

Ethics in John Cobb\'s Process Theology by Paul Custodio Bube (1989)

Attunement Through the Body by Shigenori Nagatomo (1992)

The Body, Self Cultivation, and Ki Energy by Yasuo Yuasa (1993)

Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach by Martha C. Nussbaum (2013)

Meaning of Life and the Universe by Mae-Wan Ho (2017)

S1E02 Toward a Politics of Uncertainty w/ Daniel Wortel-London (2020)

Listed in: Culture

Ep. 4 Religious Disagreement and Whether Religious Expertise Exists with Helen De Cruz

We want to be in proper relationship with the world. In other words, we want to have as many true beliefs as possible, or, at least, fewer false beliefs. We hope the ideas we hold will suit us well for adapting to the demands of our social, moral, and physical environments.

This is also true when it comes to religious beliefs, but how do we discern which ones are justified true beliefs and which ones are wrongheaded?

The numberless instances of religious disagreements should cause us to seriously doubt our religious truth claims and to exercise caution when interpreting our personal religious experiences. When it comes to settling religious disagreements, how do we determine who qualifies as an epistemic peer? How seriously ought we to take the religious views of other people?

In this episode, Jeffrey Howard talks with Helen De Cruz, the Danforth Chair in the Humanities at Saint Louis University. Her research is concerned with the questions of why and how humans can deal with abstract, difficult to grapple concepts such as God or mathematical objects, and how we can engage in creative endeavors such as art and philosophy.

She is also working on the question of how philosophy can help in discussions in the public sphere, including her recent monograph Religious Disagreement. She has received grants from the British Academy, the American Philosophical Association, and most recently, the John Templeton Foundation for a study on the origins of human-specific morality. Her work has been published in journals such as Philosophical Studies, the American Philosophical Quarterly, and the Australasian Journal of Philosophy. 

Religious experts are supposed to have privileged knowledge about religion. Yet, philosophers, including philosophers of religion, tend to hold a variety of views that mirror those of the general public. If that’s the case, are they really that expert? Furthermore, what do we do about religious disagreement among laypeople? What are we to make of the knowledge gap between novices and experts? And how can we benefit by taking the conveyed religious experiences and beliefs of other people seriously?

Show Notes:

Religious Disagreement by Helen De Cruz (2019)

Why We Need Religion by Stephen Asma (2018)

The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James (1902)

The Joy of Religion: Exploring the Nature of Pleasure in Spiritual Life by Ariel Glucklich (2020)

”What Should We Do When We Disagree?” by Jennifer Lackey  (2008)

“Experts and Peer Disagreement” by Jennifer Lackey (2018)

Epistemic Authority: A Theory of Trust, Authority, and Autonomy in Belief by Linda Zagzebski (2012)

“Numerical Cognition and Mathematical Realism” by Helen De Cruz (2016)

Fits, Trances, and Visions: Experiencing Religion and Explaining Experience from Wesley to James by Ann Taves (2000)

Listed in: Culture

S1E04 Religious Disagreement and Whether Religious Expertise Exists w/ Helen De Cruz

We want to be in proper relationship with the world. In other words, we want to have as many true beliefs as possible, or, at least, fewer false beliefs. We hope the ideas we hold will suit us well for adapting to the demands of our social, moral, and physical environments.

This is also true when it comes to religious beliefs, but how do we discern which ones are justified true beliefs and which ones are wrongheaded?

The numberless instances of religious disagreements should cause us to seriously doubt our religious truth claims and to exercise caution when interpreting our personal religious experiences. When it comes to settling religious disagreements, how do we determine who qualifies as an epistemic peer? How seriously ought we to take the religious views of other people?

In this episode, Jeffrey Howard talks with Helen De Cruz, the Danforth Chair in the Humanities at Saint Louis University. Her research is concerned with the questions of why and how humans can deal with abstract, difficult to grapple concepts such as God or mathematical objects, and how we can engage in creative endeavors such as art and philosophy.

She is also working on the question of how philosophy can help in discussions in the public sphere, including her recent monograph Religious Disagreement. She has received grants from the British Academy, the American Philosophical Association, and most recently, the John Templeton Foundation for a study on the origins of human-specific morality. Her work has been published in journals such as Philosophical Studies, the American Philosophical Quarterly, and the Australasian Journal of Philosophy.\\xa0

Religious experts are supposed to have privileged knowledge about religion. Yet, philosophers, including philosophers of religion, tend to hold a variety of views that mirror those of the general public. If that\\u2019s the case, are they really that expert? Furthermore, what do we do about religious disagreement among laypeople? What are we to make of the knowledge gap between novices and experts? And how can we benefit by taking the conveyed religious experiences and beliefs of other people seriously?

Show Notes:

Religious Disagreement by Helen De Cruz (2019)

Why We Need Religion by Stephen Asma (2018)

The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James (1902)

The Joy of Religion: Exploring the Nature of Pleasure in Spiritual Life by Ariel Glucklich (2020)

\\u201dWhat Should We Do When We Disagree?\\u201d by Jennifer Lackey\\xa0 (2008)

\\u201cExperts and Peer Disagreement\\u201d by Jennifer Lackey (2018)

Epistemic Authority: A Theory of Trust, Authority, and Autonomy in Belief by Linda Zagzebski (2012)

\\u201cNumerical Cognition and Mathematical Realism\\u201d by Helen De Cruz (2016)

Fits, Trances, and Visions: Experiencing Religion and Explaining Experience from Wesley to James by Ann Taves (2000)

S1E14 A Tool for a Pluralistic World w/ Justin Marshall (2021)

S1E07 Charles Peirce and Inquiry as an Act of Love w/ David O\'Hara (2021)

Listed in: Culture

Ep. 3 Placemaking and the Benefits of Local Scale with Jaime Izurieta

Listed in: Culture

S1E03 Placemaking and the Benefits of Local Scale w/ Jaime Izurieta

Listed in: Culture

Ep. 2 Toward a Politics of Uncertainty with Daniel Wortel-London

In the process of creating political worldviews, there are a variety of values we integrate and use as foundational. Liberty, equality, fraternity, and solidarity are commonly held political values in both the United States and Europe. But what might it look like for one to create a political worldview informed by uncertainty, not just as a reality of life to be accepted, but even as a central guiding principle in one’s politics?

In this episode of Damn the Absolute!, Jeffrey Howard talks with Daniel Wortel-London. Daniel is a historian of urban economics and political economy based in New York City. He received his Phd from NYU in 2020.

Together they examine how a cadre of thinkers around the turn of the twentieth century, including the pragmatist philosopher John Dewey, created a political, ethical, and philosophical framework with uncertainty at its center. 

They consider the benefits and dangers of a politics of uncertainty and what we can do to engage with uncertainty in an intelligent and non-dogmatic way. This discussion includes forays into land value taxes, social democratic policies, and progressive politics.

Show Notes:

Howard Zinn

Michel Foucault

"Essential vs. Accidental Properties" from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2016)

The Public and Its Problems by John Dewey (1954)

"Twilight of Idols" by Randolph Bourne (1917)

Uncertain Victory: Social Democracy and Progressivism in European and American Thought, 1870-1920 by James T. Kloppenberg (1986)

The Promise of Pragmatism: Modernism and the Crisis of Knowledge and Authority by John Patrick Diggins (1994)

"A Land Value Tax Fosters Stronger Communities" by Matthew Downhour (2020)

Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking by William James (1907)

Henry George

Max Weber

"The Uses of Anger" by Audre Lorde (1981)

"The Uses of Binary Thinking" by Peter Elbow (1993)

John Dewey

W.E.B. Du Bois

Karl Marx

Listed in: Culture

S1E02 Toward a Politics of Uncertainty w/ Daniel Wortel-London

In the process of creating political worldviews, there are a variety of values we integrate and use as foundational. Liberty, equality, fraternity, and solidarity are commonly held political values in both the United States and Europe. But what might it look like for one to create a political worldview informed by uncertainty, not just as a reality of life to be accepted, but even as a central guiding principle in one\\u2019s politics?

In this episode of Damn the Absolute!, Jeffrey Howard talks with Daniel Wortel-London. Daniel is a historian of urban economics and political economy based in New York City. He received his Phd from NYU in 2020.

Together they examine how a cadre of thinkers around the turn of the twentieth century, including the pragmatist philosopher John Dewey, created a political, ethical, and philosophical framework with uncertainty at its center.\\xa0

\\xa0

They consider the benefits and dangers of a politics of uncertainty and what we can do to engage with uncertainty in an intelligent and non-dogmatic way. This discussion includes forays into land value taxes, social democratic policies, and progressive politics.

\\xa0

Show Notes:

Howard Zinn

\\xa0

Michel Foucault

\\xa0

"Essential vs. Accidental Properties" from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2016)

\\xa0

The Public and Its Problems by John Dewey (1954)

\\xa0

"Twilight of Idols" by Randolph Bourne (1917)

\\xa0

Uncertain Victory: Social Democracy and Progressivism in European and American Thought, 1870-1920 by James T. Kloppenberg (1986)

\\xa0

The Promise of Pragmatism: Modernism and the Crisis of Knowledge and Authority by John Patrick Diggins (1994)

\\xa0

"A Land Value Tax Fosters Stronger Communities" by Matthew Downhour (2020)

\\xa0

Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking by William James (1907)

\\xa0

Henry George

\\xa0

Max Weber

\\xa0

"The Uses of Anger" by Audre Lorde (1981)

\\xa0

"The Uses of Binary Thinking" by Peter Elbow (1993)

\\xa0

John Dewey

\\xa0

W.E.B. Du Bois

\\xa0

Karl Marx

\\xa0

"Rortian Liberalism and the Problem of Truth" by Adrian Rutt (2021)

\\xa0

S1E14 A Tool for a Pluralistic World w/ Justin Marshall (2021)

\\xa0

S1E12 Philosophers Need to Care About the Poor w/ Jacob Goodson (2021)

\\xa0

S1E01 Richard Rorty and Achieving Our Country w/ Adrian Rutt (2020)

Listed in: Culture

Ep. 1 Richard Rorty and Achieving Our Country with Adrian Rutt

Listed in: Culture

S1E01 Richard Rorty and Achieving Our Country w/ Adrian Rutt

Listed in: Culture