060: Ep56 – Inclusion and Philosophy

Philosophy Bakes Bread radio show and podcast

Grace Joy CebreroIn this fifty-sixth episode of the Philosophy Bakes Bread radio show and podcast, Anthony and Eric talk with Grace Cebrero, a rising star in philosophy, a graduate of Mount Saint Mary’s University, and an alumna of the Philosophy in an Inclusive Key Summer Institute. We talk with Grace about “Inclusion and Philosophy.”

An image of a tree with multicolored hands for leaves.

Grace has worked as a research intern for a professor at MSMU and has been recognized a number of times in impressive ways. She was a leader on campus, furthermore, having revived Mount Saint Mary’s Philosophy Club known as “The Seekers.” She has been recognized as a University of Michigan Compass Scholar and as an Iris Marion Young Fellow in the PIKSI program at Penn State University. She received two Mount Saint Mary’s President’s Awards, including the Mother Margaret Mary Brady Founder’s Award and the Sister Dolorosa Alumnae Courage Award. She’s also won two awards from the Philosophy department. She is pursuing graduate study next and was greatly inspired and encouraged by her experience in the PIKSI program. We ask Grace about that, but also more generally about inclusion and exclusion in philosophy education.

Listen for our “You Tell Me!” questions and for some jokes in one of our concluding segments, called “Philosophunnies.” Reach out to us on Facebook @PhilosophyBakesBread and on Twitter @PhilosophyBB; email us at philosophybakesbread@gmail.com; or call and record a voicemail that we play on the show, at 859.257.1849. Philosophy Bakes Bread is a production of the Society of Philosophers in America (SOPHIA). Check us out online at PhilosophyBakesBread.com and check out SOPHIA at PhilosophersInAmerica.com.

 

 

Notes

  1. Plato, Parmenides.
  2. The Philosophy in an Inclusive Key Summer Institutes (PIKSI) program, with application deadline of January 31st.
  3. Robert Sanchez and Carlos Sanchez, Mexican Philosophy in the 20th Century: Essential Readings (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017).

 

You Tell Me!

For our future “You Tell Me!” segments, Grace posed the following questions in this episode:

Is it more important that we have “the best people” or a nice variety of people at the table? For an example, consider conferences and publishers, in terms of what they choose, include, and exclude.

Let us know what you think! Via TwitterFacebookEmail, or by commenting here below.

Waking from the Dream of Total Victory in the Contests for Public Truth

Civil American, Volume 3, Article 1 (January 19, 2018).

| By Paul Croce |

Can academics support the democratic struggle not just to critique fake news, but also to engage the public in the stories that make those false facts appealing?

 

Adobe logo, to serve as a link to the Adobe PDF version of the transcript.The Oxford English Dictionary named “Post-Truth” its Word of the Year for 2016. The dictionary cites “appeals to emotion or personal belief,” which have gained more influence than “objective facts … in shaping public opinion.” The sober scholars of the OED spotlighted this word not to glorify this way of thinking, but to call attention to a disturbing trend. In 2005, Stephen Colbert had already identified “truthiness” as the posture of public figures who “feel the truth” even in the face of contrasting facts and reasons. The particular items of recent history are new, such as the claim that Democrats have been managing a ring of pedophiles out of the Comet Ping Pong Pizzeria in Washington, DC, but fabricated news has always been the exaggerating cousin of political spin. The multiplication of media outlets appealing to diverse clusters of people has made it particularly difficult to sort out corrupted truths from authentic stories.

This image is in the public domain.

Intellectual responses surely help identify the really true stories, but the problem of fakery runs deeper because of the way fake stories can seem plausible, at least to segments of the population, as a way to explain what’s happening around them. The political problem with “post-truth” is that, in its tendencies toward exaggerations of the truth, it reinforces already sharp suspicions about contrasting points of view. And it gets worse: people convinced by the fake stories, especially ones with lurid depictions of contrasting positions, tend to believe that the other side should not even get a hearing. At the righteous extreme of these extreme reports, fake news encourages the assumption that one side will simply need to defeat the other.

 

  1. Making a Case for Listening to the Stories that Make Fake News Appealing

Post-truth statements are not hidden in dark corners gaining no attention. The kindred label, “Alt.Truth,” is in wide enough circulation to be the name of a popular Homeland episode. The wide appeal of these distortions, not their merits, makes them an issue. And it is our democratic culture and commitments that makes popular appeal significant. Respect for the voice of the people calls for attempting to understand how stories stripped of truth gain support. That suggests a special role for academics and teachers, as long as they do not get so caught up in their learned ways that they come to believe that they can’t learn anything from the thinking of the average citizen. One of our most intellectual of presidents, Thomas Jefferson, even believed that the tangible experiences of “a ploughman” would foster a better decision on “a moral case” than the abstract reasoning of “a professor.” Even when not learned, citizens can shed light on the lived experience of democracy, and those lessons travel on the wings of stories instead of the highways of scholarship.

In The Death of Expertise, professor of comparative politics Thomas Nichols honors the “specialization and expertise” that have produced the marvels of the modern world, and he laments the squandering of those achievements by the “unfounded arrogance” of citizens with “stubborn ignorance.” Philosopher Zach Biondi has issued a call to action for philosophers to help the public “recognize incompetence and poor argument.” Investigative journalists gamely try to bridge the gap between knowledgeable professionals and citizen indifference about expert insights. The organization Snopes evaluates public statements from True to Mostly False to downright Legends that circulate despite their lack of factual support. These experts do great work and deserve wide support. This approach shows great faith in the power of knowledge, with the tacit assumption that people just need to learn objective facts to correct the appeal of false facts.

William James.

William James.

Accuracy of facts is surely important, and they can sometimes be persuasive, but the appeal of misinformation persists. American psychologist William James offers helpful insights for addressing this challenge. He formed his thoughts in the late nineteenth century, just as the age of information abundance and expertise was taking on its modern shape. His psychology both helps to explain the appeal of false facts and suggests ways to respond to them. Without understanding the appeal of fakery, the responses won’t get very far. His insights can actually support the goals of the experts and fact checkers.

First, James points to the formative role of selective attention in the establishment of sharply different views. In the vastness of experience, there is not only room for different interpretations of facts, but also for selection of different facts. To make sense of situations, James observes, we select portions of the abundant facts to construct likely stories, which provide guidance within the complexities of experience based on prior assumptions. The most basic elements of false information can generally be corrected rather directly with true information. But the false is often not simple; more complex settings call for deeper inquiry into the sources of those likely stories.

Second, when facing the resulting cacophony of different points of view, James acknowledges the complexity, and suggests the humbling effect that awareness of this range of interpretations can have for coping with this diversity. In reminding that “to no one type … whatsoever is the total fullness of truth … revealed,” his point is not that there is no truth, but that truth is immense and complicated. Even with his awareness of human limitations in the face of the vastness of experience, he firmly critiques those ready to use the elusiveness of truth as a cover for active promotion of untruths. In recognizing the rich complexity of truth, he points to the need for constant inquiry and cooperation among us mere mortals who each have portions of truth in degrees. Attention to the truths of others can even shed light on one’s own truths.

James’s insights about selective attention and the overarching complexity of experience suggest the importance of looking at problems of fabricated news not just as reported (false) information, but also as storytelling, people’s efforts to find meaningful truth in their experiences. Every claim to fact is embedded in a story, which enables that fact to be accepted or not based on the plausibility of the story surrounding it. Awareness of the power of stories is not an endorsement of the sometimes false facts within them, but an acknowledgement of their significance in the human mind, and this awareness can also serve as a resource for addressing their unsavory power. This is especially important when the well-informed voices of experts are not enough to persuade citizens. And this is most especially important in a democracy that values the voice of the people.

 

  1. Learning from People We Disagree With

Rembrandt's, "Two Men in Discussion, a Third Listening to Them."This essay could end here, with a message about listening for the appeal of stories embedded within the fake news. In fact, an earlier draft, “Telling Likely Stories,” effectively ended at this point. That essay, attempting to bridge from scholarly thinking to public discussion, ran the gauntlet of a major bastion of scholarly work, the Peer Review. Designed to ensure quality, this process of review by experts in the field helps to prevent the publication of errors and of sloppy thinking; as a result, the finished work tends to be more authoritative and trustworthy. In addition, because Peer Review involves multiple views from within the profession, it also tends to hive off points of view that stray from mainstream interpretations. The anonymity of the readers reinforces the tugs toward consensus because without having to reveal their identity, they can critique different perspectives at liberty.

My reviewers both helped me improve the composition of the essay and took issue with my departure from mainstream views. Most helpfully, they pointed out that, despite my intentions, reference to “telling likely stories” can seem like an endorsement of those stories of fakery, or at least a casual disregard for the intellectual and public problems they involve. The first reviewer said, “Your argument does not recognize how problematic ‘alt truth’” is, and urged addressing “the latest [President Donald] Trump nonsense” by pointing out how wrong it is. This helped me to realize that I needed to make clear that understanding fakery is not instead of outrage for its problems, but a step toward undercutting the power and appeal of post-truth talk. For those who have focused only on outrage, until that first step emerged clearly, my argument could be perceived as consorting with the enemy.

My professional reviewers went further, taking issue with the very attempt to address how false information can seem plausible and my depiction of the storytelling roots of the problems of misinformation. Instead, they maintained that the misinformation is simply and literally wrong, by confusion or from deliberate manipulation. Call them out! About one half of the country, from water coolers to talk shows, are taking just this approach to scold the other half. But many people are not listening to the professors’ proposed corrections, except those who already agree. This seems a formula for amplified polarization. Mow down the latest “nonsense,” and more will soon sprout until we address those stories at their roots. Identification of the trends is not a celebration of them, but a blueprint for action against them.

“No way,” declared my second reviewer, who stated firmly that in my openness to hearing out different views, “you appear to deny that there’s any such thing as truth.” It’s fine to care about other people, but “you can’t mix the idea of caring with the road to understanding.” Without adopting “independent standards for truth,” this professor said, my argument “seems magical and hard to take seriously.” This view represents a school of thought that does not reckon with the work of recent psychologists and philosophers who, in the spirit of William James, have emphasized the relationship of caring and other non-rational factors within the process of knowing, including Antonio Damasio, Catherine Elgin, Nel Noddings, and Martha Nussbaum. Without considering these perspectives, my reviewer colleague regarded my James-inspired proposition as a species of relativism. Then, “if all facts are relative, the facts of those we disagree with are at best useless to my own mind, or we are left to surrender to someone else’s facts becoming my facts.” This position would have been familiar to James whose pragmatism mediated objectivist and relativist philosophies, frustrating both sides. And he came to expect scolding from advocates of each, respectively, who called him a roader for the other side.

My reviewer seemed so confident, but I wondered, How would this perspective address the endurance of different points of view? As James’s student Walter Lippmann noted a century ago, “Knowing how unjust other people’s inferences are when they concern us,” can help us to understand how “ours may be unjust to them.” Considering the unprecedented superabundance of information and interpretations now available to so many people, add in the complexity of the world, and now what? The confident assertions of my peer reviewers seemed like a declaration of constant warfare, with the tacit hope that one set of standards will triumph or face “surrender.” This is the conventional wisdom of our time, even as there are variations on the ultimate source of triumph. With enough persuasion, the victory will be intellectual; with enough conversion, the victory will be religious; with enough proof, the victory will be scientific; with sufficient electoral majorities, the victory will be political; with enough force of arms, the victory will be military.

I planned my essay precisely because I don’t see much evidence that these plans for total victory have been working very effectively. Every victory brings a defeat for others; and those others, especially those with views that one side finds appalling, have not been ready to surrender. This has not stopped the insistence that my reviewer colleagues represent, and this insistence comes with great fear as one of them went on to explain: “Without independent standards, no one can be wrong or foolish. If no one is wrong or foolish, society is utterly adrift.” Yet I wondered, who among us in this democracy will remain content when called wrong or foolish? And when called so by a smarter set, aren’t those very people ready to wear that scorn with pride?—and prepare a fighting response.

Bring on more shirts and bumper stickers like the ones saying “I’m a deplorable!” after Hillary Clinton’s painfully quotable critiques of working-class citizens. When these slogans appear—brashly declaring “I’m wrong and foolish!”—the listening and learning will have stopped. In addition, the insistence on standards, planted firmly in the fluid world of political debate, offers an either-or contrast: either standards with certainty or rudderless drift. James suggests a third way. He calls for inquiry in pursuit of truthful directions emerging not by prior absolute plan, but in response to particular concrete experiences.

Zach Biondi.

Zach Biondi.

I read my reviewer comments feeling that I had just gone through a bracing scholarly seminar review of my work. My thoughtful colleagues represent the posture of many academics impatient with the contemporary level of public discourse. Their work has the benefit of encouraging constant intellectual vigilance about public claims to truth. In his call for just this kind of work, Biondi also urges intellectuals to avoid “complacently call[ing] their [surrounding] culture ‘anti-intellectual.’” Beyond avoiding this slur, the next step is to understand how average citizens think. In fact, and ironically, despite their intellectual merits, sophisticated critiques of public understanding, can seem like tit-for-tat responses to the impatience that many average citizens feel for the thinking of intellectuals.

Academics can up their game as contributors to the work of democracy. Other political systems have found effective but cruel ways to deal with distasteful positions or unwelcome people, through imprisoning, banishing, or killing the outliers. In living with the voice of the people, a democracy calls for getting along, even with people holding views that many, for many good reasons, call outrageous. James’s awareness of the role of selective attention in the formation of wildly different views and of the elusive complexities surrounding these and all views, suggests ways to get along without endorsement of any particular position, outlandish or otherwise. And in the openness to different people’s stories that he encourages, we may even learn new layers of truth that had remained out of view when in the comfortable embrace of discoursing with those who share our own perspectives. By letting go of our attempts to seize victory for any one of our positions, when we attempt to see the world through the eyes of others, we may achieve an even larger victory, not for any one position, but for the whole democratic community.

 

Dr. Paul Croce.Paul J. Croce is Professor of American Studies and History, Stetson University, pcroce@stetson.edu, author of Young William James Thinking (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018), and writer for The Public Classroom, and The Huffington Post.                     

Inviting International Philosophical Dialogue with Iran

An image from the poster at St. Olaf College about World Philosophy Day in 2017. On November 16th of 2017, many around the world celebrated World Philosophy Day, a UNESCO initiative. For years, Javad Hieran-Nia and colleagues at the Mehr News Agency in Tehran, who publish The Tehran Times, have interviewed philosophers from around the world. SOPHIA’s Executive Director Eric Weber has given quite a few interviews, including some that ended up on the front pageThe Tehran Times is Iran’s major English language newspaper.

Mr. Hieran-Nia prepared remarks that were delivered digitally via a video message partly presented to faculty and students at St. Olaf College, but also with a more general audience. In addition to having rich thoughts to offer about peace and international intellectual engagement, Hieran-Nia also shares the message that The Tehran Times has committed to expanding its space for intellectual dialogue with philosophers from around the world with readers online and in Iran via the newspaper. Hieran-Nia and the chief editor of The Tehran Times, Mohammad Ghaderi, both have called for more open and engaged dialogue with philosophers from all around the world and their newspaper.

If you are interested in writing Mr. Hieran-Nia and Mr. Ghaderi, reach out to SOPHIA’s Executive Director, Eric Weber, and let us know. Here is the video of Mr. Hieran-Nia’s remarks, along with Chief Editor’s Ghaderi’s invitation to engage in international philosophical dialogue via the forum of The Tehran Times (transcript of Mr. Hieran-Nia’s remarks here):

If you’re interested in learning more, read The Tehran Times‘s piece on their interaction with St. Olaf College and their World Philosophy Day celebration here.

 

 

2014 SOPHIA Grant Still Paying Off for Philosophy for Children

The Bakersfield Californian
September 16, 2017

Dr. Senem Saner of CSUB, talking with children about bravery. Henry Barrios / The Californian.

A few years back, SOPHIA awarded a grant for a “Philosophy for Children” program in Bakersfield, CA. Dr. Jackie Kegley of California State University Bakersfield shared the linked article to let us know that it “shows the success of our SOPHIA ‘Philosophy for Children‘ grant three years ago.”

059: Ep55 – Evaluating Public Philosophy

Philosophy Bakes Bread radio show and podcast

Dr. Eric Thomas Weber.Photo of Dr. Anthony Cashio.In this fifty-fifth episode of the Philosophy Bakes Bread radio show and podcast, Anthony and Eric talk about “Evaluating Public Philosophy,” in an episode based upon their recently co-authored paper, titled “Lessons Learned Baking Bread.” In this episode and in our paper, Anthony and Eric propose four criteria by which public philosophy can be evaluated: substance, accessibility, invitingness, and community building.

Judges scoring with numbers raised high.

Anthony and Eric presented this paper in the summer of 2017 at the Future of Philosophical Practice conference at UNC Asheville, in the beautiful hills of Asheville, North Carolina. We are grateful to Brian Butler for hosting a great event there, as well as for all the great feedback that we received at the event. In fact, that is where we met and interviewed Cole Nasrallah, our guest from episode 36, “Quality Philosophy for Everyone.” While we were there, we also interviewed John Shook and Randy Auxier for episode 34, on “Saving American Culture in a Yurt.”

Listen for our “You Tell Me!” questions and for some jokes in one of our concluding segments, called “Philosophunnies.” Reach out to us on Facebook @PhilosophyBakesBread and on Twitter @PhilosophyBB; email us at philosophybakesbread@gmail.com; or call and record a voicemail that we play on the show, at 859.257.1849. Philosophy Bakes Bread is a production of the Society of Philosophers in America (SOPHIA). Check us out online at PhilosophyBakesBread.com and check out SOPHIA at PhilosophersInAmerica.com.


(1 hr 8 mins)

Click here for a list of all the episodes of Philosophy Bakes Bread.

 

iTunes logo.Google PlayRSS logo feed icon and link.

Subscribe to the podcast! 

We’re on iTunes and Google Play, and we’ve got a regular RSS feed too!

 

Notes

  1. UPDATE: As of this podcast release, our updated numbers are: 27,500 downloads from 99 countries!
  2. Freeman Dyson, “What Can You Really Know,” The New York Review of Books, November 8, 2012. In that review essay, Dyson asks, “When and why did philosophy lose its bite? How did it become a toothless relic of past glories?”
  3. Our episode with Nancy McHugh, on “Philosophy and Social Change,” episode 47.
  4. Our episode with Amy Leask, on “Philosophy at Home,” episode 46.

 

You Tell Me!

For our future “You Tell Me!” segments, Anthony and Eric posed the following questions in this episode:

“Whom should we have on the show? It doesn’t have to be a philosopher, just someone thoughtful and fun to talk to, from any walk of life.”

“What rewards would be attractive for people who might want to support the show?”

Let us know what you think! Via TwitterFacebookEmail, or by commenting here below.

Looking Back on 11 Months of Philosophy Bakes Bread

Logo for Philosophy Bakes Bread, as of June 2017.

Click here to visit PhilosophyBakesBread.com.

SOPHIA released our first episode of the Philosophy Bakes Bread in our podcast series on January 19th of 2017. We had a handful of pilot episodes that now-co-host Eric Thomas Weber had made on his own. But in the third week of January, the show launched on the internet for the first time in its present form, with Anthony Cashio serving as our first guest. From then on, Cashio and Weber have to date released and aired 59 episodes on the radio, and 53 in the podcast. As we round the bend and think back on the year, we are also hopeful that this last month leading up to January 19th of 2018 will garner the 2,700 downloads remaining to mark 30,000 for our first year.

View of a sunset through a rear-view mirror.

Copyright Aldertree, CC0 license.

The hope is realistic. The month of November saw 3,500 downloads, and August saw more than 4,500. So, we’re excited. 30,000 seems like a nice round number that also has been mentioned in some of the podcasts that Weber and Cashio listen to regularly, and is considered an important milestone in bigger shows’ growth. Our 59th aired episode was actually our first one recorded entirely while live on the radio in Lexington, at WRFL, 88.1 FM. Anthony had to call in half way through the episode for family reasons. It worked and was a lot of fun. He says that he liked being able to pace as he spoke. That’s not usually an option when you’re in front of a condenser microphone.

In our most recent episode, we took a moment and [spoilers] talked about our most downloaded episodes, as well as which were the favorites for Anthony, Eric, and our returning guest, Dr. Annie Davis Weber. Annie has seen the mountains of work that have gone on behind the scenes to put the show together, edit it, and get it out to you all. Plus, the very first pilot episode of the show (not counting Weber’s roughly recorded speech), Ep0.1, had focused on how philosophy profoundly helped him to be happy despite challenges for the Webers’ daughter, Helen. Given that the episode was recorded so long ago, and was told from Eric’s perspective, Anthony and Eric decided to interview Annie about the matter. She was also helped by philosophical thinking. For Eric, it was stoicism that helped most. For Annie, Buddhist philosophy. We’ll have that episode out in the podcast in a few weeks, but as we round out the year, we thought we’d provide some spoilers about which were our favorite episodes, as well as which have been the most downloaded.

For anyone who hasn’t heard the following episodes, here’s your chance to catch up on them and to help us reach our target milestone of 30,000 downloads by January 19th, 2018. Let’s start with our most downloaded episodes and then we’ll share with you which ones we said were our favorites.

 

Our most downloaded episodes:

 


Dr. Daniel Brunson.#5 of Our Most Downloaded Episodes

Our fifth most downloaded episode featured Drs. Seth Vannatta and Daniel Brunson! The episode was the first part of a two part series:

 

Episode 6: “Part I of II – Teaching Philosophy to First-Generation College Students”

Dr. Seth Vannatta

As of December 20th, 2017, this episode has had 826 downloads. To listen alongside show notes and a transcript, you can click on the link here above, or just listen to it right here:

 

(1hr 5 mins)

(more…)

“Opportunities and Challenges for Building Local Communities of Philosophical Conversation”

A SOPHIA panel organized for the 2018 meeting of the Public Philosophy Network, featuring:
Cashio.

“Liberating the Liberal Arts: Encouraging Philosophical Engagement Outside of the Classroom”
Anthony Cashio

Dr. Sergia Hay.Dr. Michael Rings“Building Philosophical Community in the South Puget Sound chapter of SOPHIA”
Michael Rings and Sergia Hay

Dr. Eric Thomas Weber.“Communities Take Roots: Challenges for Locally Grown Communities of Philosophical Conversation”
Eric Thomas Weber

Date: February 9, 2018
Time: 01:15-02:45 p.m.
Event: SOPHIA Panel at the 2018 Public Philosophy Network Conference
Topic: Philosophy Impact
Sponsor: The Public Philosophy Network
Venue: Embassy Suites and Hilton Garden Inn Hotels
303.443.2600
Location: 2601 Canyon Boulevard
Boulder, CO 80302
USA
Public: Public
Registration: Click here to register.
More Info: Click here for more information.

057: Ep53 – Kneeling and Civil Protest

Philosophy Bakes Bread radio show and podcast

Dr. Arnold Farr.In this fifty-third episode of the Philosophy Bakes Bread radio show and podcast, we interview Dr. Arnold Farr about “Kneeling and Civil Protest,” concerning the conflicts that have arisen in the last few months about football star Colin Kaepernick and many others who followed his example.

Embed from Getty Images

Arnold is a professor of philosophy at The University of Kentucky. He authored Critical Theory and Democratic Vision: Herbert Marcuse and Recent Liberation Philosophies. He is currently writing a new book on The New White Supremacy. He is focusing on race and African Philosophy. In addition to these works, Arnold has written numerous articles and book chapters on subjects like German idealism, Marxism, critical theory, and philosophy of race. In addition to his writings, Arnold is the founder of the International Herbert Marcuse Society.

Listen for our “You Tell Me!” questions and for some jokes in one of our concluding segments, called “Philosophunnies.” Reach out to us on Facebook @PhilosophyBakesBread and on Twitter @PhilosophyBB; email us at philosophybakesbread@gmail.com; or call and record a voicemail that we play on the show, at 859.257.1849. Philosophy Bakes Bread is a production of the Society of Philosophers in America (SOPHIA). Check us out online at PhilosophyBakesBread.com and check out SOPHIA at PhilosophersInAmerica.com.

 

(1 hr 4 mins)

Click here for a list of all the episodes of Philosophy Bakes Bread.

 

iTunes logo.Google PlayRSS logo feed icon and link.

Subscribe to the podcast! 

We’re on iTunes and Google Play, and we’ve got a regular RSS feed too!

 

Notes

  1. John Branch, “The Awakening of Colin Kaepernick,” The New York Times, September 7, 2017.
  2. The Editors of GQ, “Colin Kaepernick Is GQ‘s 2017 Citizen of the Year,” and “Colin Kaepernick Will Not Be Silenced,” GQ, November 13, 2017.
  3. The International Herbert Marcuse Society.

 

You Tell Me!

For our future “You Tell Me!” segments, Arnold posed the following question in this episode:

“What is democracy and how can we achieve it?”

Let us know what you think! Via TwitterFacebookEmail, or by commenting here below.

056: Ep 52 – Against the Common Core

Philosophy Bakes Bread radio show and podcast

Dr. Nicholas Tampio. In this fifty-second episode of the Philosophy Bakes Bread radio show and podcast, we interview Dr. Nicholas Tampio, author of Common Core: National Education Standards and the Threat to Democracy.

A snippet of the cover for Tampio's book, 'Common Core,' featuring the letters of the title in bubble format, as if each letter were an answer on a multiple choice test.

Nicholas is Associate Professor of Political Science at Fordham University. In addition to his forthcoming book, he has also authored a book titled Kantian Courage, and another titled Deleuze’s Political Vision. More recently, he has authored a number of essays for popular audiences for such venues as the Huffington Post, Aeon, and CNN.com.

Listen for our “You Tell Me!” questions and for some jokes in one of our concluding segments, called “Philosophunnies.” Reach out to us on Facebook @PhilosophyBakesBread and on Twitter @PhilosophyBB; email us at philosophybakesbread@gmail.com; or call and record a voicemail that we play on the show, at 859.257.1849. Philosophy Bakes Bread is a production of the Society of Philosophers in America (SOPHIA). Check us out online at PhilosophyBakesBread.com and check out SOPHIA at PhilosophersInAmerica.com.


(1 hr 5 mins)

Click here for a list of all the episodes of Philosophy Bakes Bread.

 

iTunes logo.Google PlayRSS logo feed icon and link.

Subscribe to the podcast! 

We’re on iTunes and Google Play, and we’ve got a regular RSS feed too!

 

Notes

  1. Nicholas Tampio, Common Core: National Education Standards and the Threat to Democracy (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018), available for pre-order.
  2. Nicholas Tampio, “In Praise of Dewey,” Aeon, July 28, 2016.
  3. Nicholas Tampio, “Why Common Core Tests Are Bad,” CNN.com, April 24, 2014.
  4. Lindsay Layden, “How Bill Gates Pulled Off the Swift Common Core Revolution,” The Washington Post, June 7, 2014.

 

You Tell Me!

For our future “You Tell Me!” segments, Nicholas posed the following question in this episode:

“Should America have national education standards, and why or why not?”

Let us know what you think! Via TwitterFacebookEmail, or by commenting here below.

055: Ep 51 – What Philosophers Owe Society

Philosophy Bakes Bread radio show and podcast

In this fifty-first episode of the Philosophy Bakes Bread radio show and podcast, we interview UCLA philosophy graduate student and co-founder of the Vim BlogZach Biondi, about “What Philosophers Owe Society,” the subject of a set of essays that he wrote for the Vim.

Zach Biondi.

Zach caught our attention with three essays that he wrote for the Vim Blog, which were released in part in the effort to define what the Vim Blog is all about. According to the site, “The Vim Blog is a collection of philosophers who write and podcast about issues in politics. It is a rethinking of the think piece. The goal is not to write the news but instead to discuss broader trends and the philosophical ideas that are pertinent in the current political climate. The Vim is not embedded in the news cycle. Each article is written to be relevant for a longer term.” Zach’s three essays begin with “What Philosophy Owes Society” here. See also parts II and III

Listen for our “You Tell Me!” questions and for some jokes in one of our concluding segments, called “Philosophunnies.” Reach out to us on Facebook @PhilosophyBakesBread and on Twitter @PhilosophyBB; email us at philosophybakesbread@gmail.com; or call and record a voicemail that we play on the show, at 859.257.1849. Philosophy Bakes Bread is a production of the Society of Philosophers in America (SOPHIA). Check us out online at PhilosophyBakesBread.com and check out SOPHIA at PhilosophersInAmerica.com.

 

 

(1 hr 6 mins)

Click here for a list of all the episodes of Philosophy Bakes Bread.

 

iTunes logo.Google PlayRSS logo feed icon and link.

Subscribe to the podcast! 

We’re on iTunes and Google Play, and we’ve got a regular RSS feed too!

 

Notes

  1. The Vim Blog.
  2. Zach’s first Vim essay, “What Philosophy Owes Society, Part I.”
  3. Zach’s second Vim essay, “Anti-Intellectualism.”
  4. Zach’s third Vim essay, “A New Public Philosophy.”
  5. Michael Sandel, Justice (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2010).
  6. Michael Sandel, What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2013).

 

You Tell Me!

For our future “You Tell Me!” segments, Zach posed the following questions in this episode:

“Do you adopt the Socratic attitude — the openness to question any of our beliefs — which Socrates thought was necessary for a life worth living? And, what kinds of political consequences would adopting that attitude have?”

Let us know what you think! Via TwitterFacebookEmail, or by commenting here below.