<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/plugins/seriously-simple-podcasting/templates/feed-stylesheet.xsl"?><rss version="2.0"
	 xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	 xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	 xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	 xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	 xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	 xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	 xmlns:googleplay="http://www.google.com/schemas/play-podcasts/1.0"
	 xmlns:podcast="https://podcastindex.org/namespace/1.0"
	>
		<channel>
		<title>Philosophy Talk</title>
		<atom:link href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/feed/podcast/philosophy-talk/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
		<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/philosophy-talk/</link>
		<description>&quot;The program that questions everything -- except your intelligence.&quot;

Philosophy on the radio? You&#039;ve got to be kidding? Well, sometimes we do (kid, that is). Mostly we look at today&#039;s important ideas with an eye to thinking them through.

Philosophy Talk is a weekly, one-hour radio series. The hosts&#039; down-to-earth and no-nonsense approach brings the richness of philosophic thought to everyday subjects. Topics are lofty (Truth, Beauty, Justice), arresting (Terrorism, Intelligent Design, Suicide), and engaging (Baseball, Love, Happiness).

This is not a lecture or a college course; it&#039;s philosophy in action!

Philosophy Talk is a fun opportunity to explore issues of importance to your audience in a thoughtful, friendly fashion, where thinking is encouraged.</description>
		<lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2025 18:55:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<language>en-US</language>
		<copyright>© 2025 Philosophy Talk</copyright>
		<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
		<itunes:author>Philosophy Talk</itunes:author>
		<itunes:type>episodic</itunes:type>
		<itunes:summary>&quot;The program that questions everything -- except your intelligence.&quot;

Philosophy on the radio? You&#039;ve got to be kidding? Well, sometimes we do (kid, that is). Mostly we look at today&#039;s important ideas with an eye to thinking them through.

Philosophy Talk is a weekly, one-hour radio series. The hosts&#039; down-to-earth and no-nonsense approach brings the richness of philosophic thought to everyday subjects. Topics are lofty (Truth, Beauty, Justice), arresting (Terrorism, Intelligent Design, Suicide), and engaging (Baseball, Love, Happiness).

This is not a lecture or a college course; it&#039;s philosophy in action!

Philosophy Talk is a fun opportunity to explore issues of importance to your audience in a thoughtful, friendly fashion, where thinking is encouraged.</itunes:summary>
		<itunes:owner>
			<itunes:name>Philosophy Talk</itunes:name>
		</itunes:owner>
		<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
		<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Logo_sq_hires_blank-copy-2.jpg"></itunes:image>
			
		<itunes:category text="Education">
			<itunes:category text="Philosophy"></itunes:category>
		</itunes:category>
		<googleplay:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></googleplay:author>
						<googleplay:description>&quot;The program that questions everything -- except your intelligence.&quot;

Philosophy on the radio? You&#039;ve got to be kidding? Well, sometimes we do (kid, that is). Mostly we look at today&#039;s important ideas with an eye to thinking them through.

Philosophy Talk is a weekly, one-hour radio series. The hosts&#039; down-to-earth and no-nonsense approach brings the richness of philosophic thought to everyday subjects. Topics are lofty (Truth, Beauty, Justice), arresting (Terrorism, Intelligent Design, Suicide), and engaging (Baseball, Love, Happiness).

This is not a lecture or a college course; it&#039;s philosophy in action!

Philosophy Talk is a fun opportunity to explore issues of importance to your audience in a thoughtful, friendly fashion, where thinking is encouraged.</googleplay:description>
			<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
			<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Logo_sq_hires_blank-copy-2.jpg"></googleplay:image>
			<podcast:guid>5eca0583-8892-595b-9d59-0fc7e9584772</podcast:guid>
		
		<!-- podcast_generator="SSP by Castos/3.10.4" Seriously Simple Podcasting plugin for WordPress (https://wordpress.org/plugins/seriously-simple-podcasting/) -->
		<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.5</generator>

<item>
	<title>Private Lives</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/private-lives/</link>
	<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2025 07:00:30 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=10198</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Cultural attitudes towards privacy seem to be in conflict. On the one hand, we are concerned about corporations getting their hands on or selling our personal data. On the other, many people like to broadcast every little bit of their daily lives. But what exactly is privacy, and is it something we should care about? Is there a difference between having a private life and having a secret life? And does the rise of reality TV and social media mean the realm of privacy is shrinking inexorably? Josh and Ray look through the peephole with Lowry Pressly from Stanford University, author of The Right to Oblivion: Privacy and the Good Life.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Cultural attitudes towards privacy seem to be in conflict. On the one hand, we are concerned about corporations getting their hands on or selling our personal data. On the other, many people like to broadcast every little bit of their daily lives. But wh]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Cultural attitudes towards privacy seem to be in conflict. On the one hand, we are concerned about corporations getting their hands on or selling our personal data. On the other, many people like to broadcast every little bit of their daily lives. But what exactly is privacy, and is it something we should care about? Is there a difference between having a private life and having a secret life? And does the rise of reality TV and social media mean the realm of privacy is shrinking inexorably? Josh and Ray look through the peephole with Lowry Pressly from Stanford University, author of The Right to Oblivion: Privacy and the Good Life.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/10198/private-lives.mp3" length="49059716" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Cultural attitudes towards privacy seem to be in conflict. On the one hand, we are concerned about corporations getting their hands on or selling our personal data. On the other, many people like to broadcast every little bit of their daily lives. But what exactly is privacy, and is it something we should care about? Is there a difference between having a private life and having a secret life? And does the rise of reality TV and social media mean the realm of privacy is shrinking inexorably? Josh and Ray look through the peephole with Lowry Pressly from Stanford University, author of The Right to Oblivion: Privacy and the Good Life.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/dayne-topkin-u5Zt-HoocrM-unsplash-scaled.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Cultural attitudes towards privacy seem to be in conflict. On the one hand, we are concerned about corporations getting their hands on or selling our personal data. On the other, many people like to broadcast every little bit of their daily lives. But what exactly is privacy, and is it something we should care about? Is there a difference between having a private life and having a secret life? And does the rise of reality TV and social media mean the realm of privacy is shrinking inexorably? Josh and Ray look through the peephole with Lowry Pressly from Stanford University, author of The Right to Oblivion: Privacy and the Good Life.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/dayne-topkin-u5Zt-HoocrM-unsplash-scaled.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Schopenhauer: Living Your Worst Life</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/schopenhauer-living-your-worst-life/</link>
	<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2025 07:00:02 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=11130</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) is considered one of the great European philosophers of the nineteenth century. His most famous work, The World as Will and Representation, presents a pessimistic view of a world filled with endless strife and suffering, where happiness can only be but fleeting. So, how did Schopenhauer think we ought to live with one another in such a world? Did he believe there was ultimately a way to overcome the pain of the human condition? Or are we all doomed to live frustration-filled lives? Josh and Ray keep a sunny disposition with David Bather Woods from the University of Warwick, author of Arthur Schopenhauer: The Life and Thought of Philosophy’s Greatest Pessimist (forthcoming).]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) is considered one of the great European philosophers of the nineteenth century. His most famous work, The World as Will and Representation, presents a pessimistic view of a world filled with endless strife and suffering, w]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) is considered one of the great European philosophers of the nineteenth century. His most famous work, The World as Will and Representation, presents a pessimistic view of a world filled with endless strife and suffering, where happiness can only be but fleeting. So, how did Schopenhauer think we ought to live with one another in such a world? Did he believe there was ultimately a way to overcome the pain of the human condition? Or are we all doomed to live frustration-filled lives? Josh and Ray keep a sunny disposition with David Bather Woods from the University of Warwick, author of Arthur Schopenhauer: The Life and Thought of Philosophy’s Greatest Pessimist (forthcoming).]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/11130/schopenhauer-living-your-worst-life.mp3" length="48950124" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) is considered one of the great European philosophers of the nineteenth century. His most famous work, The World as Will and Representation, presents a pessimistic view of a world filled with endless strife and suffering, where happiness can only be but fleeting. So, how did Schopenhauer think we ought to live with one another in such a world? Did he believe there was ultimately a way to overcome the pain of the human condition? Or are we all doomed to live frustration-filled lives? Josh and Ray keep a sunny disposition with David Bather Woods from the University of Warwick, author of Arthur Schopenhauer: The Life and Thought of Philosophy’s Greatest Pessimist (forthcoming).]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Arthur_Schopenhauer_by_J_Schafer_1859b-1-e1661773711565.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) is considered one of the great European philosophers of the nineteenth century. His most famous work, The World as Will and Representation, presents a pessimistic view of a world filled with endless strife and suffering, where happiness can only be but fleeting. So, how did Schopenhauer think we ought to live with one another in such a world? Did he believe there was ultimately a way to overcome the pain of the human condition? Or are we all doomed to live frustration-filled lives? Josh and Ray keep a sunny disposition with David Bather Woods from the University of Warwick, author of Arthur Schopenhauer: The Life and Thought of Philosophy’s Greatest Pessimist (forthcoming).]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Arthur_Schopenhauer_by_J_Schafer_1859b-1-e1661773711565.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Philippa Foot</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/philippa-foot/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 15 Jun 2025 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/philippa-foot/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Philippa Foot originally formulated the famous thought experiment, the Trolley Problem. Despite the vast industry of “trolleyology” it inspired, Foot’s goal to illuminate debates on abortion and euthanasia often gets lost in the mix. Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with John Hacker-Wright from the University of Guelph, author of Philippa Foot&#8217;s Moral Thought.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Philippa Foot originally formulated the famous thought experiment, the Trolley Problem. Despite the vast industry of “trolleyology” it inspired, Foot’s goal to illuminate debates on abortion and euthanasia often gets lost in the mix. Josh and Ray explore]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Philippa Foot originally formulated the famous thought experiment, the Trolley Problem. Despite the vast industry of “trolleyology” it inspired, Foot’s goal to illuminate debates on abortion and euthanasia often gets lost in the mix. Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with John Hacker-Wright from the University of Guelph, author of Philippa Foot&#8217;s Moral Thought.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/758/philippa-foot.mp3" length="49151581" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Philippa Foot originally formulated the famous thought experiment, the Trolley Problem. Despite the vast industry of “trolleyology” it inspired, Foot’s goal to illuminate debates on abortion and euthanasia often gets lost in the mix. Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with John Hacker-Wright from the University of Guelph, author of Philippa Foot&#8217;s Moral Thought.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Logo_sq_hires_blank-copy.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Philippa Foot originally formulated the famous thought experiment, the Trolley Problem. Despite the vast industry of “trolleyology” it inspired, Foot’s goal to illuminate debates on abortion and euthanasia often gets lost in the mix. Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with John Hacker-Wright from the University of Guelph, author of Philippa Foot&#8217;s Moral Thought.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Logo_sq_hires_blank-copy.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Mary Midgley</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/mary-midgley/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 18 May 2025 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/mary-midgely/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Mary Midgley became one of the best known public intellectuals in the UK, and was one of the first philosophers to talk about climate change. Though she didn’t publish her first book, Beast and Man, until she was 59, she wrote many influential works on science, ethics, and animal rights. So, why did Midgley argue that the climate crisis was ultimately a conceptual problem? What was her criticism of scientism, the view that only science can provide knowledge about the world around us? And why did she think the work of the philosopher is a bit like that of the plumber?  Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with Clare Mac Cumhaill from Durham University, co-author of Metaphysical Animals: How Four Women Brought Philosophy Back to Life.
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Mary Midgley became one of the best known public intellectuals in the UK, and was one of the first philosophers to talk about climate change. Though she didn’t publish her first book, Beast and Man, until she was 59, she wrote many influential works on s]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Mary Midgley became one of the best known public intellectuals in the UK, and was one of the first philosophers to talk about climate change. Though she didn’t publish her first book, Beast and Man, until she was 59, she wrote many influential works on science, ethics, and animal rights. So, why did Midgley argue that the climate crisis was ultimately a conceptual problem? What was her criticism of scientism, the view that only science can provide knowledge about the world around us? And why did she think the work of the philosopher is a bit like that of the plumber?  Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with Clare Mac Cumhaill from Durham University, co-author of Metaphysical Animals: How Four Women Brought Philosophy Back to Life.
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/755/mary-midgley.mp3" length="49720915" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Mary Midgley became one of the best known public intellectuals in the UK, and was one of the first philosophers to talk about climate change. Though she didn’t publish her first book, Beast and Man, until she was 59, she wrote many influential works on science, ethics, and animal rights. So, why did Midgley argue that the climate crisis was ultimately a conceptual problem? What was her criticism of scientism, the view that only science can provide knowledge about the world around us? And why did she think the work of the philosopher is a bit like that of the plumber?  Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with Clare Mac Cumhaill from Durham University, co-author of Metaphysical Animals: How Four Women Brought Philosophy Back to Life.
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/mary-midley.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Mary Midgley became one of the best known public intellectuals in the UK, and was one of the first philosophers to talk about climate change. Though she didn’t publish her first book, Beast and Man, until she was 59, she wrote many influential works on science, ethics, and animal rights. So, why did Midgley argue that the climate crisis was ultimately a conceptual problem? What was her criticism of scientism, the view that only science can provide knowledge about the world around us? And why did she think the work of the philosopher is a bit like that of the plumber?  Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with Clare Mac Cumhaill from Durham University, co-author of Metaphysical Animals: How Four Women Brought Philosophy Back to Life.
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/mary-midley.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Are Rules Meant to Be Broken?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/are-rules-meant-be-broken/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 27 Apr 2025 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/are-rules-meant-to-be-broken/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Rules exist for a reason: they tell us what to expect, they help us coordinate our actions, and they stop us from exploiting one another. But isn&#8217;t it possible to be too much of a rule follower? Aren&#8217;t some rules arbitrary, unjust, or just plain inefficient? When should we exercise our judgment to reinterpret the rules, and when should we ignore them altogether? Josh and Ray break all rules with Barry Lam from UC Riverside, author of Fewer Rules, Better People The Case for Discretion.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Rules exist for a reason: they tell us what to expect, they help us coordinate our actions, and they stop us from exploiting one another. But isn&#8217;t it possible to be too much of a rule follower? Aren&#8217;t some rules arbitrary, unjust, or just pl]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Rules exist for a reason: they tell us what to expect, they help us coordinate our actions, and they stop us from exploiting one another. But isn&#8217;t it possible to be too much of a rule follower? Aren&#8217;t some rules arbitrary, unjust, or just plain inefficient? When should we exercise our judgment to reinterpret the rules, and when should we ignore them altogether? Josh and Ray break all rules with Barry Lam from UC Riverside, author of Fewer Rules, Better People The Case for Discretion.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5795/are-rules-meant-be-broken.mp3" length="48741145" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Rules exist for a reason: they tell us what to expect, they help us coordinate our actions, and they stop us from exploiting one another. But isn&#8217;t it possible to be too much of a rule follower? Aren&#8217;t some rules arbitrary, unjust, or just plain inefficient? When should we exercise our judgment to reinterpret the rules, and when should we ignore them altogether? Josh and Ray break all rules with Barry Lam from UC Riverside, author of Fewer Rules, Better People The Case for Discretion.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/iCkP3Ppg1hA.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Rules exist for a reason: they tell us what to expect, they help us coordinate our actions, and they stop us from exploiting one another. But isn&#8217;t it possible to be too much of a rule follower? Aren&#8217;t some rules arbitrary, unjust, or just plain inefficient? When should we exercise our judgment to reinterpret the rules, and when should we ignore them altogether? Josh and Ray break all rules with Barry Lam from UC Riverside, author of Fewer Rules, Better People The Case for Discretion.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/iCkP3Ppg1hA.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Iris Murdoch</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/iris-murdoch/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2025 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/iris-murdoch/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Iris Murdoch may be best known for her works of fiction, but her philosophical contributions were equally significant. A moral realist influenced by Plato and Simone Weil, she developed theories in virtue ethics and care ethics. So what is the relationship between Murdoch&#8217;s works of fiction and her philosophical writings? Why did she believe that &#8220;nothing in life is of any value except the attempt to be virtuous&#8221;? And given that, why did she think human life has no purpose? Josh and Ray explore Murdoch&#8217;s life and thought with Eva-Maria Düringer from the University of Tübingen, author of Evaluating Emotions.
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Iris Murdoch may be best known for her works of fiction, but her philosophical contributions were equally significant. A moral realist influenced by Plato and Simone Weil, she developed theories in virtue ethics and care ethics. So what is the relationsh]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Iris Murdoch may be best known for her works of fiction, but her philosophical contributions were equally significant. A moral realist influenced by Plato and Simone Weil, she developed theories in virtue ethics and care ethics. So what is the relationship between Murdoch&#8217;s works of fiction and her philosophical writings? Why did she believe that &#8220;nothing in life is of any value except the attempt to be virtuous&#8221;? And given that, why did she think human life has no purpose? Josh and Ray explore Murdoch&#8217;s life and thought with Eva-Maria Düringer from the University of Tübingen, author of Evaluating Emotions.
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/752/iris-murdoch.mp3" length="49695420" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Iris Murdoch may be best known for her works of fiction, but her philosophical contributions were equally significant. A moral realist influenced by Plato and Simone Weil, she developed theories in virtue ethics and care ethics. So what is the relationship between Murdoch&#8217;s works of fiction and her philosophical writings? Why did she believe that &#8220;nothing in life is of any value except the attempt to be virtuous&#8221;? And given that, why did she think human life has no purpose? Josh and Ray explore Murdoch&#8217;s life and thought with Eva-Maria Düringer from the University of Tübingen, author of Evaluating Emotions.
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/original-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:59</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Iris Murdoch may be best known for her works of fiction, but her philosophical contributions were equally significant. A moral realist influenced by Plato and Simone Weil, she developed theories in virtue ethics and care ethics. So what is the relationship between Murdoch&#8217;s works of fiction and her philosophical writings? Why did she believe that &#8220;nothing in life is of any value except the attempt to be virtuous&#8221;? And given that, why did she think human life has no purpose? Josh and Ray explore Murdoch&#8217;s life and thought with Eva-Maria Düringer from the University of Tübingen, author of Evaluating Emotions.
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/original-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Judith Jarvis Thomson</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/judith-jarvis-thomson/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2025 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/judith-jarvis-thomson/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Judith Jarvis Thomson is best known for arguing that abortion is morally permissible, even granting the fetus the status of person. Her colorful thought experiments illustrate that a right to life does not mean the right to use another person&#8217;s body to survive. So, what exactly is a right to life and what does it permit or prohibit? Does pregnancy come with certain moral obligations to the fetus? And how can thought experiments, like the Trolley Problem, shed light on these questions? Josh and Ray explore Thomson&#8217;s life and thought with Elizabeth Harman from Princeton University, author of When to Be a Hero (forthcoming).
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Judith Jarvis Thomson is best known for arguing that abortion is morally permissible, even granting the fetus the status of person. Her colorful thought experiments illustrate that a right to life does not mean the right to use another person&#8217;s bod]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Judith Jarvis Thomson is best known for arguing that abortion is morally permissible, even granting the fetus the status of person. Her colorful thought experiments illustrate that a right to life does not mean the right to use another person&#8217;s body to survive. So, what exactly is a right to life and what does it permit or prohibit? Does pregnancy come with certain moral obligations to the fetus? And how can thought experiments, like the Trolley Problem, shed light on these questions? Josh and Ray explore Thomson&#8217;s life and thought with Elizabeth Harman from Princeton University, author of When to Be a Hero (forthcoming).
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/761/judith-jarvis-thomson.mp3" length="49121142" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Judith Jarvis Thomson is best known for arguing that abortion is morally permissible, even granting the fetus the status of person. Her colorful thought experiments illustrate that a right to life does not mean the right to use another person&#8217;s body to survive. So, what exactly is a right to life and what does it permit or prohibit? Does pregnancy come with certain moral obligations to the fetus? And how can thought experiments, like the Trolley Problem, shed light on these questions? Josh and Ray explore Thomson&#8217;s life and thought with Elizabeth Harman from Princeton University, author of When to Be a Hero (forthcoming).
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Judith-Jarvis-Thomson-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Judith Jarvis Thomson is best known for arguing that abortion is morally permissible, even granting the fetus the status of person. Her colorful thought experiments illustrate that a right to life does not mean the right to use another person&#8217;s body to survive. So, what exactly is a right to life and what does it permit or prohibit? Does pregnancy come with certain moral obligations to the fetus? And how can thought experiments, like the Trolley Problem, shed light on these questions? Josh and Ray explore Thomson&#8217;s life and thought with Elizabeth Harman from Princeton University, author of When to Be a Hero (forthcoming).
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Judith-Jarvis-Thomson-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The 2025 Dionysus Awards</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/2025-dionysus-awards/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2025 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-2025-dionysus-awards/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What movies of the past year challenged your assumptions and made you think about things in new ways? Josh and guest co-host Jeremy Sabol present our annual Dionysus Awards for the most thought-provoking movies of the last twelve months, including:


		Best Movie About Religious People Who Aren&#8217;t Entirely What They Seem

		Most Moving Meditation on Fierce Female Friendship

		Best Film in Which Character Change Is Not All It&#8217;s Cracked Up To Be]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What movies of the past year challenged your assumptions and made you think about things in new ways? Josh and guest co-host Jeremy Sabol present our annual Dionysus Awards for the most thought-provoking movies of the last twelve months, including:


		B]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What movies of the past year challenged your assumptions and made you think about things in new ways? Josh and guest co-host Jeremy Sabol present our annual Dionysus Awards for the most thought-provoking movies of the last twelve months, including:


		Best Movie About Religious People Who Aren&#8217;t Entirely What They Seem

		Most Moving Meditation on Fierce Female Friendship

		Best Film in Which Character Change Is Not All It&#8217;s Cracked Up To Be]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5792/2025-dionysus-awards.mp3" length="49928642" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What movies of the past year challenged your assumptions and made you think about things in new ways? Josh and guest co-host Jeremy Sabol present our annual Dionysus Awards for the most thought-provoking movies of the last twelve months, including:


		Best Movie About Religious People Who Aren&#8217;t Entirely What They Seem

		Most Moving Meditation on Fierce Female Friendship

		Best Film in Which Character Change Is Not All It&#8217;s Cracked Up To Be]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/970kVWvq4Mw.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What movies of the past year challenged your assumptions and made you think about things in new ways? Josh and guest co-host Jeremy Sabol present our annual Dionysus Awards for the most thought-provoking movies of the last twelve months, including:


		Best Movie About Religious People Who Aren&#8217;t Entirely What They Seem

		Most Moving Meditation on Fierce Female Friendship

		Best Film in Which Character Change Is Not All It&#8217;s Cracked Up To Be]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/970kVWvq4Mw.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Philosophical Worlds of Borges</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-philosophical-worlds-of-borges/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 16 Feb 2025 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://phil.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=4461</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Argentinian writer Jorge Luís Borges wrote some of the world’s most brilliant, mind-bending, and philosophical stories. Drawing on sources from Europe, India, China, and Persia, these stories tackled topics like time, reality, selfhood, and art. Yet Borges also said &#8220;I don’t think ideas are important.&#8221; So what can we get out of philosophical stories that don’t try to teach us what to think? And how can Borges help us grapple with our mortality, our confusion, our doubts? Josh and Ray explore the labyrinth with Héctor Hoyos from Stanford University, author of Beyond Bolaño: The Global Latin American Novel.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Argentinian writer Jorge Luís Borges wrote some of the world’s most brilliant, mind-bending, and philosophical stories. Drawing on sources from Europe, India, China, and Persia, these stories tackled topics like time, reality, selfhood, and art. Yet Borg]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Argentinian writer Jorge Luís Borges wrote some of the world’s most brilliant, mind-bending, and philosophical stories. Drawing on sources from Europe, India, China, and Persia, these stories tackled topics like time, reality, selfhood, and art. Yet Borges also said &#8220;I don’t think ideas are important.&#8221; So what can we get out of philosophical stories that don’t try to teach us what to think? And how can Borges help us grapple with our mortality, our confusion, our doubts? Josh and Ray explore the labyrinth with Héctor Hoyos from Stanford University, author of Beyond Bolaño: The Global Latin American Novel.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/4461/the-philosophical-worlds-of-borges.mp3" length="49094389" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Argentinian writer Jorge Luís Borges wrote some of the world’s most brilliant, mind-bending, and philosophical stories. Drawing on sources from Europe, India, China, and Persia, these stories tackled topics like time, reality, selfhood, and art. Yet Borges also said &#8220;I don’t think ideas are important.&#8221; So what can we get out of philosophical stories that don’t try to teach us what to think? And how can Borges help us grapple with our mortality, our confusion, our doubts? Josh and Ray explore the labyrinth with Héctor Hoyos from Stanford University, author of Beyond Bolaño: The Global Latin American Novel.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Gi3MzA0ggbM.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Argentinian writer Jorge Luís Borges wrote some of the world’s most brilliant, mind-bending, and philosophical stories. Drawing on sources from Europe, India, China, and Persia, these stories tackled topics like time, reality, selfhood, and art. Yet Borges also said &#8220;I don’t think ideas are important.&#8221; So what can we get out of philosophical stories that don’t try to teach us what to think? And how can Borges help us grapple with our mortality, our confusion, our doubts? Josh and Ray explore the labyrinth with Héctor Hoyos from Stanford University, author of Beyond Bolaño: The Global Latin American Novel.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Gi3MzA0ggbM.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Alan Turing and the Limits of Computation</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/alan-turing-and-limits-computation/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 09 Feb 2025 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://phil.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=4475</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Alan Turing was a 20th-Century English mathematician and cryptologist who is widely considered to be the father of theoretical computer science. In 1950, he published a definition of a computer that is both universal, general enough to apply to any specific computing architecture, and mathematically rigorous, so that it lets us prove claims about what computers can and can&#8217;t do. What does Turing&#8217;s writing teach us about the bounds of reason? Which thoughts are too complicated for a computer to express? Is the human brain just another kind of computer, or can it do things that machines can&#8217;t? Josh and Ray calculate the answers with Juliet Floyd from Boston University, editor of Philosophical Explorations of the Legacy of Alan Turing.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Alan Turing was a 20th-Century English mathematician and cryptologist who is widely considered to be the father of theoretical computer science. In 1950, he published a definition of a computer that is both universal, general enough to apply to any speci]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Alan Turing was a 20th-Century English mathematician and cryptologist who is widely considered to be the father of theoretical computer science. In 1950, he published a definition of a computer that is both universal, general enough to apply to any specific computing architecture, and mathematically rigorous, so that it lets us prove claims about what computers can and can&#8217;t do. What does Turing&#8217;s writing teach us about the bounds of reason? Which thoughts are too complicated for a computer to express? Is the human brain just another kind of computer, or can it do things that machines can&#8217;t? Josh and Ray calculate the answers with Juliet Floyd from Boston University, editor of Philosophical Explorations of the Legacy of Alan Turing.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/4475/alan-turing-and-limits-computation.mp3" length="49480932" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Alan Turing was a 20th-Century English mathematician and cryptologist who is widely considered to be the father of theoretical computer science. In 1950, he published a definition of a computer that is both universal, general enough to apply to any specific computing architecture, and mathematically rigorous, so that it lets us prove claims about what computers can and can&#8217;t do. What does Turing&#8217;s writing teach us about the bounds of reason? Which thoughts are too complicated for a computer to express? Is the human brain just another kind of computer, or can it do things that machines can&#8217;t? Josh and Ray calculate the answers with Juliet Floyd from Boston University, editor of Philosophical Explorations of the Legacy of Alan Turing.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/dgcEvXQMwFs.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Alan Turing was a 20th-Century English mathematician and cryptologist who is widely considered to be the father of theoretical computer science. In 1950, he published a definition of a computer that is both universal, general enough to apply to any specific computing architecture, and mathematically rigorous, so that it lets us prove claims about what computers can and can&#8217;t do. What does Turing&#8217;s writing teach us about the bounds of reason? Which thoughts are too complicated for a computer to express? Is the human brain just another kind of computer, or can it do things that machines can&#8217;t? Josh and Ray calculate the answers with Juliet Floyd from Boston University, editor of Philosophical Explorations of the Legacy of Alan Turing.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/dgcEvXQMwFs.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>How to Create Virtuous Leaders</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/how-create-virtuous-leaders/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 19 Jan 2025 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/how-create-virtuous-leaders/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Ancient philosophers like Socrates and Plato believed that an education focused on developing good character could create virtuous leaders who work for the people, not their own benefit. Nowadays, though, it seems too many politicians are power hungry, corrupt, and out of touch. So how do we train our leaders to be more virtuous? Is good character something that can be taught? And what can we learn from the Ancients about how we can each lead an excellent life? Josh and Ray virtuously welcome back Massimo Pigliucci from the City College of New York, author of The Quest for Character: What the Story of Socrates and Alcibiades Teaches Us about Our Search for Good Leaders.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Ancient philosophers like Socrates and Plato believed that an education focused on developing good character could create virtuous leaders who work for the people, not their own benefit. Nowadays, though, it seems too many politicians are power hungry, c]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Ancient philosophers like Socrates and Plato believed that an education focused on developing good character could create virtuous leaders who work for the people, not their own benefit. Nowadays, though, it seems too many politicians are power hungry, corrupt, and out of touch. So how do we train our leaders to be more virtuous? Is good character something that can be taught? And what can we learn from the Ancients about how we can each lead an excellent life? Josh and Ray virtuously welcome back Massimo Pigliucci from the City College of New York, author of The Quest for Character: What the Story of Socrates and Alcibiades Teaches Us about Our Search for Good Leaders.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/648/how-create-virtuous-leaders.mp3" length="48915476" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Ancient philosophers like Socrates and Plato believed that an education focused on developing good character could create virtuous leaders who work for the people, not their own benefit. Nowadays, though, it seems too many politicians are power hungry, corrupt, and out of touch. So how do we train our leaders to be more virtuous? Is good character something that can be taught? And what can we learn from the Ancients about how we can each lead an excellent life? Josh and Ray virtuously welcome back Massimo Pigliucci from the City College of New York, author of The Quest for Character: What the Story of Socrates and Alcibiades Teaches Us about Our Search for Good Leaders.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/GVC4gSsSYog-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Ancient philosophers like Socrates and Plato believed that an education focused on developing good character could create virtuous leaders who work for the people, not their own benefit. Nowadays, though, it seems too many politicians are power hungry, corrupt, and out of touch. So how do we train our leaders to be more virtuous? Is good character something that can be taught? And what can we learn from the Ancients about how we can each lead an excellent life? Josh and Ray virtuously welcome back Massimo Pigliucci from the City College of New York, author of The Quest for Character: What the Story of Socrates and Alcibiades Teaches Us about Our Search for Good Leaders.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/GVC4gSsSYog-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Elizabeth Anscombe</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/elizabeth-anscombe/</link>
	<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jan 2025 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/elizabeth-anscombe/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Elizabeth Anscombe made hugely influential contributions to contemporary action theory, moral theory, and philosophy of mind. She also famously protested Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb when he was awarded an honorary degree at Oxford. Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with Rachael Wiseman from the University of Liverpool, co-author of Metaphysical Animals: How Four Women Brought Philosophy Back to Life.
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Elizabeth Anscombe made hugely influential contributions to contemporary action theory, moral theory, and philosophy of mind. She also famously protested Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb when he was awarded an honorary degree at Oxford. Josh and]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Elizabeth Anscombe made hugely influential contributions to contemporary action theory, moral theory, and philosophy of mind. She also famously protested Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb when he was awarded an honorary degree at Oxford. Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with Rachael Wiseman from the University of Liverpool, co-author of Metaphysical Animals: How Four Women Brought Philosophy Back to Life.
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/749/elizabeth-anscombe.mp3" length="48948452" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Elizabeth Anscombe made hugely influential contributions to contemporary action theory, moral theory, and philosophy of mind. She also famously protested Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb when he was awarded an honorary degree at Oxford. Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with Rachael Wiseman from the University of Liverpool, co-author of Metaphysical Animals: How Four Women Brought Philosophy Back to Life.
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/E13ThSakNY0.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Elizabeth Anscombe made hugely influential contributions to contemporary action theory, moral theory, and philosophy of mind. She also famously protested Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb when he was awarded an honorary degree at Oxford. Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with Rachael Wiseman from the University of Liverpool, co-author of Metaphysical Animals: How Four Women Brought Philosophy Back to Life.
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/E13ThSakNY0.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Examined Year: 2024</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/examined-year-2024/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 29 Dec 2024 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/examined-year-2024/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What happened over the past year that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Josh and Ray talk to philosophers and more about the events and ideas that shaped the last twelve months:

The Year in Philosophy with Justin Weinberg, creator and editor of the Daily Nous
The Year in Unjust Deserts with Elie Honig, author of Untouchable: How Powerful People Get Away With It
The Year in Electoral Futility with Alex Guerrero, author Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What happened over the past year that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Josh and Ray talk to philosophers and more about the events and ideas that shaped the last twelve months:

The Year in Philosophy with Justin Wei]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What happened over the past year that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Josh and Ray talk to philosophers and more about the events and ideas that shaped the last twelve months:

The Year in Philosophy with Justin Weinberg, creator and editor of the Daily Nous
The Year in Unjust Deserts with Elie Honig, author of Untouchable: How Powerful People Get Away With It
The Year in Electoral Futility with Alex Guerrero, author Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/768/examined-year-2024.mp3" length="50491558" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What happened over the past year that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Josh and Ray talk to philosophers and more about the events and ideas that shaped the last twelve months:

The Year in Philosophy with Justin Weinberg, creator and editor of the Daily Nous
The Year in Unjust Deserts with Elie Honig, author of Untouchable: How Powerful People Get Away With It
The Year in Electoral Futility with Alex Guerrero, author Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/2024-year-inside-magnifier-glass-yellow-background-focus-preparation-new-year-change-start-new-business-target-strategy-concept_50039-4796.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What happened over the past year that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Josh and Ray talk to philosophers and more about the events and ideas that shaped the last twelve months:

The Year in Philosophy with Justin Weinberg, creator and editor of the Daily Nous
The Year in Unjust Deserts with Elie Honig, author of Untouchable: How Powerful People Get Away With It
The Year in Electoral Futility with Alex Guerrero, author Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/2024-year-inside-magnifier-glass-yellow-background-focus-preparation-new-year-change-start-new-business-target-strategy-concept_50039-4796.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Crisis and Creativity in Mayan Mythology</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/crisis-and-creativity-mayan-mythology/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 15 Dec 2024 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/crisis-and-creativity-mayan-mythology/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The Popol Vuh, written in 1702, was based on a Mayan oral tradition encompassing creation myths, history, and cosmology. These stories were written in a time of crisis: European colonialism had decimated the Mayan population and destroyed much of their cultural knowledge. How do stories help a society survive and thrive? Can they console us in times of crisis? How much of a culture can historians save in times of devastation? Josh and Ray rewrite history with Edgar Garcia from the University of Chicago, author of Emergency: Reading the Popol Vuh in a Time of Crisis.
This episode was generously sponsored by the Stanford Humanities Center.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The Popol Vuh, written in 1702, was based on a Mayan oral tradition encompassing creation myths, history, and cosmology. These stories were written in a time of crisis: European colonialism had decimated the Mayan population and destroyed much of their c]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The Popol Vuh, written in 1702, was based on a Mayan oral tradition encompassing creation myths, history, and cosmology. These stories were written in a time of crisis: European colonialism had decimated the Mayan population and destroyed much of their cultural knowledge. How do stories help a society survive and thrive? Can they console us in times of crisis? How much of a culture can historians save in times of devastation? Josh and Ray rewrite history with Edgar Garcia from the University of Chicago, author of Emergency: Reading the Popol Vuh in a Time of Crisis.
This episode was generously sponsored by the Stanford Humanities Center.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/765/crisis-and-creativity-mayan-mythology.mp3" length="49476412" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The Popol Vuh, written in 1702, was based on a Mayan oral tradition encompassing creation myths, history, and cosmology. These stories were written in a time of crisis: European colonialism had decimated the Mayan population and destroyed much of their cultural knowledge. How do stories help a society survive and thrive? Can they console us in times of crisis? How much of a culture can historians save in times of devastation? Josh and Ray rewrite history with Edgar Garcia from the University of Chicago, author of Emergency: Reading the Popol Vuh in a Time of Crisis.
This episode was generously sponsored by the Stanford Humanities Center.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/CNyUSoGvWxQ.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The Popol Vuh, written in 1702, was based on a Mayan oral tradition encompassing creation myths, history, and cosmology. These stories were written in a time of crisis: European colonialism had decimated the Mayan population and destroyed much of their cultural knowledge. How do stories help a society survive and thrive? Can they console us in times of crisis? How much of a culture can historians save in times of devastation? Josh and Ray rewrite history with Edgar Garcia from the University of Chicago, author of Emergency: Reading the Popol Vuh in a Time of Crisis.
This episode was generously sponsored by the Stanford Humanities Center.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/CNyUSoGvWxQ.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>What&#8217;s So Special About Humans?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/whats-so-special-about-humans/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 01 Dec 2024 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/whats-so-special-about-humans/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Human beings share the planet with many different organisms with vastly diverse ways of life. We like to think we&#8217;re a higher form of intelligence. But are we really that unique? How different are we as a species when it comes to language, thought, and culture? Where does our specifically human form of consciousness come from? And if other animals are so similar to us, should we stop eating them? The Philosophers walk the Earth with Peter Godfrey-Smith from the University of Sydney, author of Living on Earth Forests, Corals, Consciousness, and the Making of the World.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Human beings share the planet with many different organisms with vastly diverse ways of life. We like to think we&#8217;re a higher form of intelligence. But are we really that unique? How different are we as a species when it comes to language, thought,]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Human beings share the planet with many different organisms with vastly diverse ways of life. We like to think we&#8217;re a higher form of intelligence. But are we really that unique? How different are we as a species when it comes to language, thought, and culture? Where does our specifically human form of consciousness come from? And if other animals are so similar to us, should we stop eating them? The Philosophers walk the Earth with Peter Godfrey-Smith from the University of Sydney, author of Living on Earth Forests, Corals, Consciousness, and the Making of the World.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/763/whats-so-special-about-humans.mp3" length="49551986" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Human beings share the planet with many different organisms with vastly diverse ways of life. We like to think we&#8217;re a higher form of intelligence. But are we really that unique? How different are we as a species when it comes to language, thought, and culture? Where does our specifically human form of consciousness come from? And if other animals are so similar to us, should we stop eating them? The Philosophers walk the Earth with Peter Godfrey-Smith from the University of Sydney, author of Living on Earth Forests, Corals, Consciousness, and the Making of the World.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/BnRV9CsSt-o.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Human beings share the planet with many different organisms with vastly diverse ways of life. We like to think we&#8217;re a higher form of intelligence. But are we really that unique? How different are we as a species when it comes to language, thought, and culture? Where does our specifically human form of consciousness come from? And if other animals are so similar to us, should we stop eating them? The Philosophers walk the Earth with Peter Godfrey-Smith from the University of Sydney, author of Living on Earth Forests, Corals, Consciousness, and the Making of the World.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/BnRV9CsSt-o.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Emma Goldman</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/emma-goldman/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 17 Nov 2024 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/emma-goldman/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Activist and anarchist philosopher Emma Goldman fought for human liberation in every realm of life. While she opposed the women&#8217;s suffrage movement, she was a staunch advocate for women’s rights. So why did she think the right to vote was so unimportant? What did she think was required to achieve her anarchist goals? And how ahead of her time was she on labor, prison abolition, and sexual liberation? Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with Candace Falk, editor of Emma Goldman: A Documentary History of the American Years.
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Activist and anarchist philosopher Emma Goldman fought for human liberation in every realm of life. While she opposed the women&#8217;s suffrage movement, she was a staunch advocate for women’s rights. So why did she think the right to vote was so unimpo]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Activist and anarchist philosopher Emma Goldman fought for human liberation in every realm of life. While she opposed the women&#8217;s suffrage movement, she was a staunch advocate for women’s rights. So why did she think the right to vote was so unimportant? What did she think was required to achieve her anarchist goals? And how ahead of her time was she on labor, prison abolition, and sexual liberation? Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with Candace Falk, editor of Emma Goldman: A Documentary History of the American Years.
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/744/emma-goldman.mp3" length="49402848" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Activist and anarchist philosopher Emma Goldman fought for human liberation in every realm of life. While she opposed the women&#8217;s suffrage movement, she was a staunch advocate for women’s rights. So why did she think the right to vote was so unimportant? What did she think was required to achieve her anarchist goals? And how ahead of her time was she on labor, prison abolition, and sexual liberation? Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with Candace Falk, editor of Emma Goldman: A Documentary History of the American Years.
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/XsjrzKBRQs.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Activist and anarchist philosopher Emma Goldman fought for human liberation in every realm of life. While she opposed the women&#8217;s suffrage movement, she was a staunch advocate for women’s rights. So why did she think the right to vote was so unimportant? What did she think was required to achieve her anarchist goals? And how ahead of her time was she on labor, prison abolition, and sexual liberation? Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with Candace Falk, editor of Emma Goldman: A Documentary History of the American Years.
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/XsjrzKBRQs.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Simone Weil</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/simone-weil/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 27 Oct 2024 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/simone-weil/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[French philosopher and mystic Simone Weil was also an activist whose goal was to elevate the lower classes.  But she was opposed to the kind of revolution where the oppressed overthrow their oppressors. So, how did she think we could achieve peace and justice? Is it enough to pay the right kind of attention to each other&#8217;s suffering? And how does this connect to her conversion to a mystical form of Christianity? Josh and Ray attend to the life and thought with Rebecca Rozelle-Stone from the University of North Dakota, editor of Simone Weil and Continental Philosophy.
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[French philosopher and mystic Simone Weil was also an activist whose goal was to elevate the lower classes.  But she was opposed to the kind of revolution where the oppressed overthrow their oppressors. So, how did she think we could achieve peace and ju]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[French philosopher and mystic Simone Weil was also an activist whose goal was to elevate the lower classes.  But she was opposed to the kind of revolution where the oppressed overthrow their oppressors. So, how did she think we could achieve peace and justice? Is it enough to pay the right kind of attention to each other&#8217;s suffering? And how does this connect to her conversion to a mystical form of Christianity? Josh and Ray attend to the life and thought with Rebecca Rozelle-Stone from the University of North Dakota, editor of Simone Weil and Continental Philosophy.
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/746/simone-weil.mp3" length="49008221" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[French philosopher and mystic Simone Weil was also an activist whose goal was to elevate the lower classes.  But she was opposed to the kind of revolution where the oppressed overthrow their oppressors. So, how did she think we could achieve peace and justice? Is it enough to pay the right kind of attention to each other&#8217;s suffering? And how does this connect to her conversion to a mystical form of Christianity? Josh and Ray attend to the life and thought with Rebecca Rozelle-Stone from the University of North Dakota, editor of Simone Weil and Continental Philosophy.
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/HN3K2j0PGpE-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[French philosopher and mystic Simone Weil was also an activist whose goal was to elevate the lower classes.  But she was opposed to the kind of revolution where the oppressed overthrow their oppressors. So, how did she think we could achieve peace and justice? Is it enough to pay the right kind of attention to each other&#8217;s suffering? And how does this connect to her conversion to a mystical form of Christianity? Josh and Ray attend to the life and thought with Rebecca Rozelle-Stone from the University of North Dakota, editor of Simone Weil and Continental Philosophy.
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/HN3K2j0PGpE-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Anna Julia Cooper</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/anna-julia-cooper/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 06 Oct 2024 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/anna-julia-cooper/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Born into slavery in the nineteenth century, Anna Julia Cooper received a classical education, attended the Sorbonne, and became the fourth African American in history to be awarded a PhD. Her first book, A Voice from the South, offered one of the first articulations of how Black women are impacted by race, gender, and socioeconomic class. She believed that uplifting Black women through higher education would improve life for all Black people. Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with Kathryn Sophia Belle, author of Beauvoir and Belle: A Black Feminist Critique of The Second Sex.
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Born into slavery in the nineteenth century, Anna Julia Cooper received a classical education, attended the Sorbonne, and became the fourth African American in history to be awarded a PhD. Her first book, A Voice from the South, offered one of the first ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Born into slavery in the nineteenth century, Anna Julia Cooper received a classical education, attended the Sorbonne, and became the fourth African American in history to be awarded a PhD. Her first book, A Voice from the South, offered one of the first articulations of how Black women are impacted by race, gender, and socioeconomic class. She believed that uplifting Black women through higher education would improve life for all Black people. Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with Kathryn Sophia Belle, author of Beauvoir and Belle: A Black Feminist Critique of The Second Sex.
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/742/anna-julia-cooper.mp3" length="98444434" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Born into slavery in the nineteenth century, Anna Julia Cooper received a classical education, attended the Sorbonne, and became the fourth African American in history to be awarded a PhD. Her first book, A Voice from the South, offered one of the first articulations of how Black women are impacted by race, gender, and socioeconomic class. She believed that uplifting Black women through higher education would improve life for all Black people. Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with Kathryn Sophia Belle, author of Beauvoir and Belle: A Black Feminist Critique of The Second Sex.
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/cbBelIxtX-k.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Born into slavery in the nineteenth century, Anna Julia Cooper received a classical education, attended the Sorbonne, and became the fourth African American in history to be awarded a PhD. Her first book, A Voice from the South, offered one of the first articulations of how Black women are impacted by race, gender, and socioeconomic class. She believed that uplifting Black women through higher education would improve life for all Black people. Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with Kathryn Sophia Belle, author of Beauvoir and Belle: A Black Feminist Critique of The Second Sex.
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/cbBelIxtX-k.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Marx and Morality</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/marx-and-morality/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 22 Sep 2024 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/marx-and-morality/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Karl Marx famously attempted to explain our social, political, and economic systems in terms of class conflict. While he never explicitly states that capitalism is unjust, some scholars suggest that there is an implicit moral critique of it in his work. So, does Marx reject capitalism for its moral failures, or is his opposition to it purely socioeconomic? Can we get an account of gender and racial justice from Marx? And did he try, and perhaps fail, to abandon philosophy entirely? Josh and Ray share the means of production with Vanessa Wills from George Washington University, author of Marx’s Ethical Vision.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Karl Marx famously attempted to explain our social, political, and economic systems in terms of class conflict. While he never explicitly states that capitalism is unjust, some scholars suggest that there is an implicit moral critique of it in his work. ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Karl Marx famously attempted to explain our social, political, and economic systems in terms of class conflict. While he never explicitly states that capitalism is unjust, some scholars suggest that there is an implicit moral critique of it in his work. So, does Marx reject capitalism for its moral failures, or is his opposition to it purely socioeconomic? Can we get an account of gender and racial justice from Marx? And did he try, and perhaps fail, to abandon philosophy entirely? Josh and Ray share the means of production with Vanessa Wills from George Washington University, author of Marx’s Ethical Vision.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/740/marx-and-morality.mp3" length="48968771" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Karl Marx famously attempted to explain our social, political, and economic systems in terms of class conflict. While he never explicitly states that capitalism is unjust, some scholars suggest that there is an implicit moral critique of it in his work. So, does Marx reject capitalism for its moral failures, or is his opposition to it purely socioeconomic? Can we get an account of gender and racial justice from Marx? And did he try, and perhaps fail, to abandon philosophy entirely? Josh and Ray share the means of production with Vanessa Wills from George Washington University, author of Marx’s Ethical Vision.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/bEnMrITcEss.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Karl Marx famously attempted to explain our social, political, and economic systems in terms of class conflict. While he never explicitly states that capitalism is unjust, some scholars suggest that there is an implicit moral critique of it in his work. So, does Marx reject capitalism for its moral failures, or is his opposition to it purely socioeconomic? Can we get an account of gender and racial justice from Marx? And did he try, and perhaps fail, to abandon philosophy entirely? Josh and Ray share the means of production with Vanessa Wills from George Washington University, author of Marx’s Ethical Vision.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/bEnMrITcEss.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>How to Do Things With Your Mind</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/how-do-things-your-mind/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 08 Sep 2024 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/how-do-things-your-mind/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[We all engage in mental actions of various kinds, whether it’s planning the coming week, trying to remember the lyrics of a song, or imagining what we’d look like with a different haircut. These thought processes have significance for us and help us direct our other actions. But are we really in control of trains of thoughts or do they just pop into consciousness? Does it make sense to criticize others for what goes on inside their heads? And is there anything we can do to improve the quality of our thinking? Josh and guest-host Blakey Vermeule do things with the mind of their Stanford colleague Antonia Peacocke, author of Mental Means (forthcoming).]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[We all engage in mental actions of various kinds, whether it’s planning the coming week, trying to remember the lyrics of a song, or imagining what we’d look like with a different haircut. These thought processes have significance for us and help us dire]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[We all engage in mental actions of various kinds, whether it’s planning the coming week, trying to remember the lyrics of a song, or imagining what we’d look like with a different haircut. These thought processes have significance for us and help us direct our other actions. But are we really in control of trains of thoughts or do they just pop into consciousness? Does it make sense to criticize others for what goes on inside their heads? And is there anything we can do to improve the quality of our thinking? Josh and guest-host Blakey Vermeule do things with the mind of their Stanford colleague Antonia Peacocke, author of Mental Means (forthcoming).]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/738/how-do-things-your-mind.mp3" length="49046674" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[We all engage in mental actions of various kinds, whether it’s planning the coming week, trying to remember the lyrics of a song, or imagining what we’d look like with a different haircut. These thought processes have significance for us and help us direct our other actions. But are we really in control of trains of thoughts or do they just pop into consciousness? Does it make sense to criticize others for what goes on inside their heads? And is there anything we can do to improve the quality of our thinking? Josh and guest-host Blakey Vermeule do things with the mind of their Stanford colleague Antonia Peacocke, author of Mental Means (forthcoming).]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/ifvT8UQrNd4-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[We all engage in mental actions of various kinds, whether it’s planning the coming week, trying to remember the lyrics of a song, or imagining what we’d look like with a different haircut. These thought processes have significance for us and help us direct our other actions. But are we really in control of trains of thoughts or do they just pop into consciousness? Does it make sense to criticize others for what goes on inside their heads? And is there anything we can do to improve the quality of our thinking? Josh and guest-host Blakey Vermeule do things with the mind of their Stanford colleague Antonia Peacocke, author of Mental Means (forthcoming).]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/ifvT8UQrNd4-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Hildegard von Bingen</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/hildegard-of-bingen/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 25 Aug 2024 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/hildegard-of-bingen/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Hildegard von Bingen was a 12th century mystic, polymath, and composer whose work spanned visionary theology, philosophy, cosmology, medicine, botany, and music. Her extraordinary intellectual accomplishments belie her humble claim to be “just a woman”. Was her humility justified in the face of the divine, internalizing misogynistic stereotypes, or a strategic decision to get her voice heard? What can mystical experience teach us about the world? And how can we understand ourselves in relation to the divine? Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with Jennifer Bain from Dalhousie University, editor of The Cambridge Companion to Hildegard of Bingen.
Part of our series Wise Women, generously funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Hildegard von Bingen was a 12th century mystic, polymath, and composer whose work spanned visionary theology, philosophy, cosmology, medicine, botany, and music. Her extraordinary intellectual accomplishments belie her humble claim to be “just a woman”. ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Hildegard von Bingen was a 12th century mystic, polymath, and composer whose work spanned visionary theology, philosophy, cosmology, medicine, botany, and music. Her extraordinary intellectual accomplishments belie her humble claim to be “just a woman”. Was her humility justified in the face of the divine, internalizing misogynistic stereotypes, or a strategic decision to get her voice heard? What can mystical experience teach us about the world? And how can we understand ourselves in relation to the divine? Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with Jennifer Bain from Dalhousie University, editor of The Cambridge Companion to Hildegard of Bingen.
Part of our series Wise Women, generously funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/684/hildegard-of-bingen.mp3" length="49342427" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Hildegard von Bingen was a 12th century mystic, polymath, and composer whose work spanned visionary theology, philosophy, cosmology, medicine, botany, and music. Her extraordinary intellectual accomplishments belie her humble claim to be “just a woman”. Was her humility justified in the face of the divine, internalizing misogynistic stereotypes, or a strategic decision to get her voice heard? What can mystical experience teach us about the world? And how can we understand ourselves in relation to the divine? Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with Jennifer Bain from Dalhousie University, editor of The Cambridge Companion to Hildegard of Bingen.
Part of our series Wise Women, generously funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/XVOiaBzI_IY.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Hildegard von Bingen was a 12th century mystic, polymath, and composer whose work spanned visionary theology, philosophy, cosmology, medicine, botany, and music. Her extraordinary intellectual accomplishments belie her humble claim to be “just a woman”. Was her humility justified in the face of the divine, internalizing misogynistic stereotypes, or a strategic decision to get her voice heard? What can mystical experience teach us about the world? And how can we understand ourselves in relation to the divine? Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with Jennifer Bain from Dalhousie University, editor of The Cambridge Companion to Hildegard of Bingen.
Part of our series Wise Women, generously funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/XVOiaBzI_IY.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Who Speaks For You?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/who-speaks-you/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 21 Jul 2024 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/who-speaks-you/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[People often speak on behalf of others, like the concerned citizen who stands up for their neighbors at a city council meeting, or the activist who defends the rights of an oppressed group. Some of these spokespeople are elected, and some volunteer, but others simply get drafted into the role. What gives someone the right to speak on behalf of others? What responsibilities do they take on when they do? And how should the rest of us respond to what they say? Josh and Ray speak for themselves with their Stanford colleague Wendy Salkin, author of Speaking for Others: The Ethics of Informal Political Representation.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[People often speak on behalf of others, like the concerned citizen who stands up for their neighbors at a city council meeting, or the activist who defends the rights of an oppressed group. Some of these spokespeople are elected, and some volunteer, but ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[People often speak on behalf of others, like the concerned citizen who stands up for their neighbors at a city council meeting, or the activist who defends the rights of an oppressed group. Some of these spokespeople are elected, and some volunteer, but others simply get drafted into the role. What gives someone the right to speak on behalf of others? What responsibilities do they take on when they do? And how should the rest of us respond to what they say? Josh and Ray speak for themselves with their Stanford colleague Wendy Salkin, author of Speaking for Others: The Ethics of Informal Political Representation.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/736/who-speaks-you.mp3" length="48701899" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[People often speak on behalf of others, like the concerned citizen who stands up for their neighbors at a city council meeting, or the activist who defends the rights of an oppressed group. Some of these spokespeople are elected, and some volunteer, but others simply get drafted into the role. What gives someone the right to speak on behalf of others? What responsibilities do they take on when they do? And how should the rest of us respond to what they say? Josh and Ray speak for themselves with their Stanford colleague Wendy Salkin, author of Speaking for Others: The Ethics of Informal Political Representation.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/gaxz8uzzqo-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[People often speak on behalf of others, like the concerned citizen who stands up for their neighbors at a city council meeting, or the activist who defends the rights of an oppressed group. Some of these spokespeople are elected, and some volunteer, but others simply get drafted into the role. What gives someone the right to speak on behalf of others? What responsibilities do they take on when they do? And how should the rest of us respond to what they say? Josh and Ray speak for themselves with their Stanford colleague Wendy Salkin, author of Speaking for Others: The Ethics of Informal Political Representation.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/gaxz8uzzqo-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Nísia Floresta</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/nisia-floresta/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 07 Jul 2024 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/nisia-floresta/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Nísia Floresta was a 19th-century writer and translator known as “the Brazilian Mary Wollstonecraft.” She published the first book on women’s rights in South America, when Brazil was gaining independence from Portugal and a new post-colonial nation was being built. She also argued for the rights of the enslaved and indigenous Brazilians, who were marginalized and exploited in this new nation. Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with Nastassja Pugliese from the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, author of Nísia Floresta (Elements on Women in the History of Philosophy).
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Nísia Floresta was a 19th-century writer and translator known as “the Brazilian Mary Wollstonecraft.” She published the first book on women’s rights in South America, when Brazil was gaining independence from Portugal and a new post-colonial nation was b]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Nísia Floresta was a 19th-century writer and translator known as “the Brazilian Mary Wollstonecraft.” She published the first book on women’s rights in South America, when Brazil was gaining independence from Portugal and a new post-colonial nation was being built. She also argued for the rights of the enslaved and indigenous Brazilians, who were marginalized and exploited in this new nation. Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with Nastassja Pugliese from the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, author of Nísia Floresta (Elements on Women in the History of Philosophy).
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/696/nisia-floresta.mp3" length="49332558" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Nísia Floresta was a 19th-century writer and translator known as “the Brazilian Mary Wollstonecraft.” She published the first book on women’s rights in South America, when Brazil was gaining independence from Portugal and a new post-colonial nation was being built. She also argued for the rights of the enslaved and indigenous Brazilians, who were marginalized and exploited in this new nation. Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with Nastassja Pugliese from the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, author of Nísia Floresta (Elements on Women in the History of Philosophy).
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/m-JUHug-hpw.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Nísia Floresta was a 19th-century writer and translator known as “the Brazilian Mary Wollstonecraft.” She published the first book on women’s rights in South America, when Brazil was gaining independence from Portugal and a new post-colonial nation was being built. She also argued for the rights of the enslaved and indigenous Brazilians, who were marginalized and exploited in this new nation. Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with Nastassja Pugliese from the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, author of Nísia Floresta (Elements on Women in the History of Philosophy).
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/m-JUHug-hpw.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Daniel Dennett Retrospective</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/daniel-dennett-retrospective/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 30 Jun 2024 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/daniel-dennett-retrospective/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[In April 2024, we lost one of the greatest American philosophers of our time—Daniel Dennett. Known for his brilliant mind and controversial views, his contributions to philosophy include topics like consciousness, AI, evolution, atheism, intentions, free will and moral responsibility. In this special episode remembering his life and work, Josh and Ray are joined by Jenann Ismael from Johns Hopkins University, author of How Physics Makes Us Free, to listen to some of Dennett&#8217;s past appearances on the program with John and Ken.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[In April 2024, we lost one of the greatest American philosophers of our time—Daniel Dennett. Known for his brilliant mind and controversial views, his contributions to philosophy include topics like consciousness, AI, evolution, atheism, intentions, free]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[In April 2024, we lost one of the greatest American philosophers of our time—Daniel Dennett. Known for his brilliant mind and controversial views, his contributions to philosophy include topics like consciousness, AI, evolution, atheism, intentions, free will and moral responsibility. In this special episode remembering his life and work, Josh and Ray are joined by Jenann Ismael from Johns Hopkins University, author of How Physics Makes Us Free, to listen to some of Dennett&#8217;s past appearances on the program with John and Ken.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/732/daniel-dennett-retrospective.mp3" length="49635578" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[In April 2024, we lost one of the greatest American philosophers of our time—Daniel Dennett. Known for his brilliant mind and controversial views, his contributions to philosophy include topics like consciousness, AI, evolution, atheism, intentions, free will and moral responsibility. In this special episode remembering his life and work, Josh and Ray are joined by Jenann Ismael from Johns Hopkins University, author of How Physics Makes Us Free, to listen to some of Dennett&#8217;s past appearances on the program with John and Ken.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/w8kKxzxAiQs-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[In April 2024, we lost one of the greatest American philosophers of our time—Daniel Dennett. Known for his brilliant mind and controversial views, his contributions to philosophy include topics like consciousness, AI, evolution, atheism, intentions, free will and moral responsibility. In this special episode remembering his life and work, Josh and Ray are joined by Jenann Ismael from Johns Hopkins University, author of How Physics Makes Us Free, to listen to some of Dennett&#8217;s past appearances on the program with John and Ken.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/w8kKxzxAiQs-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Summer Reading List 2024</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/summer-reading-list-2024/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 09 Jun 2024 16:09:44 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=12323</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Looking for some deep dives into pop culture this summer? Josh and Ray talk to Sandra Laugier from the University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, author of TV-Philosophy in Action: The Ethics and Politics of TV Series, and Nathaniel Goldberg from Washington &#38; Lee University, co-author of Revising Reality: How Sequels, Remakes, Retcons, and Rejects Explain the World. And they get recommendations for philosophical science fiction from Sara Uckelman of Durham University, philosopher of language by day and writer of speculative fiction by night.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Looking for some deep dives into pop culture this summer? Josh and Ray talk to Sandra Laugier from the University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, author of TV-Philosophy in Action: The Ethics and Politics of TV Series, and Nathaniel Goldberg from Washingto]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Looking for some deep dives into pop culture this summer? Josh and Ray talk to Sandra Laugier from the University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, author of TV-Philosophy in Action: The Ethics and Politics of TV Series, and Nathaniel Goldberg from Washington &#38; Lee University, co-author of Revising Reality: How Sequels, Remakes, Retcons, and Rejects Explain the World. And they get recommendations for philosophical science fiction from Sara Uckelman of Durham University, philosopher of language by day and writer of speculative fiction by night.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/12323/summer-reading-list-2024.mp3" length="49922298" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Looking for some deep dives into pop culture this summer? Josh and Ray talk to Sandra Laugier from the University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, author of TV-Philosophy in Action: The Ethics and Politics of TV Series, and Nathaniel Goldberg from Washington &#38; Lee University, co-author of Revising Reality: How Sequels, Remakes, Retcons, and Rejects Explain the World. And they get recommendations for philosophical science fiction from Sara Uckelman of Durham University, philosopher of language by day and writer of speculative fiction by night.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/vHXzVxgMcnI.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Looking for some deep dives into pop culture this summer? Josh and Ray talk to Sandra Laugier from the University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, author of TV-Philosophy in Action: The Ethics and Politics of TV Series, and Nathaniel Goldberg from Washington &#38; Lee University, co-author of Revising Reality: How Sequels, Remakes, Retcons, and Rejects Explain the World. And they get recommendations for philosophical science fiction from Sara Uckelman of Durham University, philosopher of language by day and writer of speculative fiction by night.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/vHXzVxgMcnI.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>(Late) Summer Reading List 2024</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/late-summer-reading-list-2024/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 09 Jun 2024 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/late-summer-reading-list-2024/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Looking for some deep dives into pop culture this summer? Josh and Ray talk to Sandra Laugier from the University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, author of TV-Philosophy in Action: The Ethics and Politics of TV Series, and Nathaniel Goldberg from Washington &#38; Lee University, co-author of Revising Reality: How Sequels, Remakes, Retcons, and Rejects Explain the World. And they get recommendations for philosophical science fiction from Sara Uckelman of Durham University, philosopher of language by day and writer of speculative fiction by night.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Looking for some deep dives into pop culture this summer? Josh and Ray talk to Sandra Laugier from the University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, author of TV-Philosophy in Action: The Ethics and Politics of TV Series, and Nathaniel Goldberg from Washingto]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Looking for some deep dives into pop culture this summer? Josh and Ray talk to Sandra Laugier from the University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, author of TV-Philosophy in Action: The Ethics and Politics of TV Series, and Nathaniel Goldberg from Washington &#38; Lee University, co-author of Revising Reality: How Sequels, Remakes, Retcons, and Rejects Explain the World. And they get recommendations for philosophical science fiction from Sara Uckelman of Durham University, philosopher of language by day and writer of speculative fiction by night.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/734/late-summer-reading-list-2024.mp3" length="49922298" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Looking for some deep dives into pop culture this summer? Josh and Ray talk to Sandra Laugier from the University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, author of TV-Philosophy in Action: The Ethics and Politics of TV Series, and Nathaniel Goldberg from Washington &#38; Lee University, co-author of Revising Reality: How Sequels, Remakes, Retcons, and Rejects Explain the World. And they get recommendations for philosophical science fiction from Sara Uckelman of Durham University, philosopher of language by day and writer of speculative fiction by night.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/vHXzVxgMcnI.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Looking for some deep dives into pop culture this summer? Josh and Ray talk to Sandra Laugier from the University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, author of TV-Philosophy in Action: The Ethics and Politics of TV Series, and Nathaniel Goldberg from Washington &#38; Lee University, co-author of Revising Reality: How Sequels, Remakes, Retcons, and Rejects Explain the World. And they get recommendations for philosophical science fiction from Sara Uckelman of Durham University, philosopher of language by day and writer of speculative fiction by night.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/vHXzVxgMcnI.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Logic For Everyone</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/logic-everyone/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 26 May 2024 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/logic-everyone/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Logic may seem like a dry, abstract discipline that only the nerdiest of philosophers study. After all, logic textbooks are full of weird symbols and proofs about abstruse entities, like &#8220;the set of all sets.&#8221; On the other hand, don’t we all try to think logically, at least in some contexts? Why do we believe, for example, it’s bad to contradict yourself and good to be coherent? And what’s the connection between the abstract rules of logic and the everyday practice of poking holes in each other&#8217;s arguments? Josh and Ray entail their guest, Patrick Girard from the University of Auckland, author of Logic in the Wild.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Logic may seem like a dry, abstract discipline that only the nerdiest of philosophers study. After all, logic textbooks are full of weird symbols and proofs about abstruse entities, like &#8220;the set of all sets.&#8221; On the other hand, don’t we all ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Logic may seem like a dry, abstract discipline that only the nerdiest of philosophers study. After all, logic textbooks are full of weird symbols and proofs about abstruse entities, like &#8220;the set of all sets.&#8221; On the other hand, don’t we all try to think logically, at least in some contexts? Why do we believe, for example, it’s bad to contradict yourself and good to be coherent? And what’s the connection between the abstract rules of logic and the everyday practice of poking holes in each other&#8217;s arguments? Josh and Ray entail their guest, Patrick Girard from the University of Auckland, author of Logic in the Wild.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/729/logic-everyone.mp3" length="49172897" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Logic may seem like a dry, abstract discipline that only the nerdiest of philosophers study. After all, logic textbooks are full of weird symbols and proofs about abstruse entities, like &#8220;the set of all sets.&#8221; On the other hand, don’t we all try to think logically, at least in some contexts? Why do we believe, for example, it’s bad to contradict yourself and good to be coherent? And what’s the connection between the abstract rules of logic and the everyday practice of poking holes in each other&#8217;s arguments? Josh and Ray entail their guest, Patrick Girard from the University of Auckland, author of Logic in the Wild.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/0QinYxJukSU.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Logic may seem like a dry, abstract discipline that only the nerdiest of philosophers study. After all, logic textbooks are full of weird symbols and proofs about abstruse entities, like &#8220;the set of all sets.&#8221; On the other hand, don’t we all try to think logically, at least in some contexts? Why do we believe, for example, it’s bad to contradict yourself and good to be coherent? And what’s the connection between the abstract rules of logic and the everyday practice of poking holes in each other&#8217;s arguments? Josh and Ray entail their guest, Patrick Girard from the University of Auckland, author of Logic in the Wild.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/0QinYxJukSU.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Mary Wollstonecraft</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/mary-wollstonecraft/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 May 2024 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/mary-wollstonecraft/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Mary Wollstonecraft is often labeled as a “liberal feminist” because of her concern for women’s rights and conceptions of freedom. But that label narrows her work, which was broadly critical of all social inequalities that distort human relations. So why did Wollstonecraft think that virtue is not truly possible unless we are all free? What did she think was key to the liberation of women? And what were her criticisms of the powerful institutions of her day, like the monarchy? Josh and Ray explore the life and thought of Mary Wollstonecraft with Sylvana Tomaselli from the University of Cambridge, author of Wollstonecraft: Philosophy, Passion, and Politics.
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Mary Wollstonecraft is often labeled as a “liberal feminist” because of her concern for women’s rights and conceptions of freedom. But that label narrows her work, which was broadly critical of all social inequalities that distort human relations. So why]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Mary Wollstonecraft is often labeled as a “liberal feminist” because of her concern for women’s rights and conceptions of freedom. But that label narrows her work, which was broadly critical of all social inequalities that distort human relations. So why did Wollstonecraft think that virtue is not truly possible unless we are all free? What did she think was key to the liberation of women? And what were her criticisms of the powerful institutions of her day, like the monarchy? Josh and Ray explore the life and thought of Mary Wollstonecraft with Sylvana Tomaselli from the University of Cambridge, author of Wollstonecraft: Philosophy, Passion, and Politics.
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/692/mary-wollstonecraft.mp3" length="49319439" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Mary Wollstonecraft is often labeled as a “liberal feminist” because of her concern for women’s rights and conceptions of freedom. But that label narrows her work, which was broadly critical of all social inequalities that distort human relations. So why did Wollstonecraft think that virtue is not truly possible unless we are all free? What did she think was key to the liberation of women? And what were her criticisms of the powerful institutions of her day, like the monarchy? Josh and Ray explore the life and thought of Mary Wollstonecraft with Sylvana Tomaselli from the University of Cambridge, author of Wollstonecraft: Philosophy, Passion, and Politics.
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/8yi18q9ZLrU-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Mary Wollstonecraft is often labeled as a “liberal feminist” because of her concern for women’s rights and conceptions of freedom. But that label narrows her work, which was broadly critical of all social inequalities that distort human relations. So why did Wollstonecraft think that virtue is not truly possible unless we are all free? What did she think was key to the liberation of women? And what were her criticisms of the powerful institutions of her day, like the monarchy? Josh and Ray explore the life and thought of Mary Wollstonecraft with Sylvana Tomaselli from the University of Cambridge, author of Wollstonecraft: Philosophy, Passion, and Politics.
Part of our Wise Women series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/8yi18q9ZLrU-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Why Is the World So Weird?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/why-world-so-weird/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 28 Apr 2024 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/why-world-so-weird/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Quantum mechanics, mathematics, human consciousness&#8230;. whichever way you slice it, the universe is weird. How can our conscious minds be made from unconscious atoms? What should we make of quantum entanglement, or the fact that light can be both a particle and a wave? Why is it that there are exactly as many fractions as there are whole numbers? Josh and Ray raise an eyebrow with Eric Schwitzgebel from UC Riverside, author of The Weirdness of the World.
&#160;]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Quantum mechanics, mathematics, human consciousness&#8230;. whichever way you slice it, the universe is weird. How can our conscious minds be made from unconscious atoms? What should we make of quantum entanglement, or the fact that light can be both a p]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Quantum mechanics, mathematics, human consciousness&#8230;. whichever way you slice it, the universe is weird. How can our conscious minds be made from unconscious atoms? What should we make of quantum entanglement, or the fact that light can be both a particle and a wave? Why is it that there are exactly as many fractions as there are whole numbers? Josh and Ray raise an eyebrow with Eric Schwitzgebel from UC Riverside, author of The Weirdness of the World.
&#160;]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/727/why-world-so-weird.mp3" length="49016999" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Quantum mechanics, mathematics, human consciousness&#8230;. whichever way you slice it, the universe is weird. How can our conscious minds be made from unconscious atoms? What should we make of quantum entanglement, or the fact that light can be both a particle and a wave? Why is it that there are exactly as many fractions as there are whole numbers? Josh and Ray raise an eyebrow with Eric Schwitzgebel from UC Riverside, author of The Weirdness of the World.
&#160;]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Z-sshcQGBvI-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Quantum mechanics, mathematics, human consciousness&#8230;. whichever way you slice it, the universe is weird. How can our conscious minds be made from unconscious atoms? What should we make of quantum entanglement, or the fact that light can be both a particle and a wave? Why is it that there are exactly as many fractions as there are whole numbers? Josh and Ray raise an eyebrow with Eric Schwitzgebel from UC Riverside, author of The Weirdness of the World.
&#160;]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Z-sshcQGBvI-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Shakespeare&#8217;s Outsiders</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/shakespeares-outsiders/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 14 Apr 2024 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/shakespeares-outsiders/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Over 400 years after his death, Shakespeare is still widely regarded as the greatest dramatist of all time. His many plays tackle questions about power, influence, identity, and moral and social status. His characters—be they villains or heroes—are often disdained because of their race, religion, class, disability, or gender. So what do Shakespeare’s plays reveal about identity and status in his time? How might they shed light on who we include and who we exclude today? Could Shakespearian dramas have more in common with modern day soap operas than we think? Ray and guest-host Adrian Daub go inside with David Sterling Brown from Trinity College, author of Shakespeare&#8217;s White Others.
This episode is generously sponsored by the Stanford Humanities Center.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Over 400 years after his death, Shakespeare is still widely regarded as the greatest dramatist of all time. His many plays tackle questions about power, influence, identity, and moral and social status. His characters—be they villains or heroes—are often]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Over 400 years after his death, Shakespeare is still widely regarded as the greatest dramatist of all time. His many plays tackle questions about power, influence, identity, and moral and social status. His characters—be they villains or heroes—are often disdained because of their race, religion, class, disability, or gender. So what do Shakespeare’s plays reveal about identity and status in his time? How might they shed light on who we include and who we exclude today? Could Shakespearian dramas have more in common with modern day soap operas than we think? Ray and guest-host Adrian Daub go inside with David Sterling Brown from Trinity College, author of Shakespeare&#8217;s White Others.
This episode is generously sponsored by the Stanford Humanities Center.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/725/shakespeares-outsiders.mp3" length="48940968" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Over 400 years after his death, Shakespeare is still widely regarded as the greatest dramatist of all time. His many plays tackle questions about power, influence, identity, and moral and social status. His characters—be they villains or heroes—are often disdained because of their race, religion, class, disability, or gender. So what do Shakespeare’s plays reveal about identity and status in his time? How might they shed light on who we include and who we exclude today? Could Shakespearian dramas have more in common with modern day soap operas than we think? Ray and guest-host Adrian Daub go inside with David Sterling Brown from Trinity College, author of Shakespeare&#8217;s White Others.
This episode is generously sponsored by the Stanford Humanities Center.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/d8KI3Kz1McM-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Over 400 years after his death, Shakespeare is still widely regarded as the greatest dramatist of all time. His many plays tackle questions about power, influence, identity, and moral and social status. His characters—be they villains or heroes—are often disdained because of their race, religion, class, disability, or gender. So what do Shakespeare’s plays reveal about identity and status in his time? How might they shed light on who we include and who we exclude today? Could Shakespearian dramas have more in common with modern day soap operas than we think? Ray and guest-host Adrian Daub go inside with David Sterling Brown from Trinity College, author of Shakespeare&#8217;s White Others.
This episode is generously sponsored by the Stanford Humanities Center.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/d8KI3Kz1McM-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Mind Sharing</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/mind-sharing/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 31 Mar 2024 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/mind-sharing/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Mind reading might sound like the stuff of science fiction. But in philosophy and psychology, mind reading is something that human beings do whenever we try to guess what another person is thinking. Could it be that people are also natural born mind sharers, unconsciously shaping our behavior to be understood by others? How do we change or exaggerate our actions when others are present? And how can we use these insights to communicate better with our loved ones? Josh and Ray share their mind(s) with Julian Jara-Ettinger, Director of the Computational Social Cognition Lab at Yale University.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Mind reading might sound like the stuff of science fiction. But in philosophy and psychology, mind reading is something that human beings do whenever we try to guess what another person is thinking. Could it be that people are also natural born mind shar]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Mind reading might sound like the stuff of science fiction. But in philosophy and psychology, mind reading is something that human beings do whenever we try to guess what another person is thinking. Could it be that people are also natural born mind sharers, unconsciously shaping our behavior to be understood by others? How do we change or exaggerate our actions when others are present? And how can we use these insights to communicate better with our loved ones? Josh and Ray share their mind(s) with Julian Jara-Ettinger, Director of the Computational Social Cognition Lab at Yale University.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/722/mind-sharing.mp3" length="48798026" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Mind reading might sound like the stuff of science fiction. But in philosophy and psychology, mind reading is something that human beings do whenever we try to guess what another person is thinking. Could it be that people are also natural born mind sharers, unconsciously shaping our behavior to be understood by others? How do we change or exaggerate our actions when others are present? And how can we use these insights to communicate better with our loved ones? Josh and Ray share their mind(s) with Julian Jara-Ettinger, Director of the Computational Social Cognition Lab at Yale University.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/TShGgL4BOSw-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Mind reading might sound like the stuff of science fiction. But in philosophy and psychology, mind reading is something that human beings do whenever we try to guess what another person is thinking. Could it be that people are also natural born mind sharers, unconsciously shaping our behavior to be understood by others? How do we change or exaggerate our actions when others are present? And how can we use these insights to communicate better with our loved ones? Josh and Ray share their mind(s) with Julian Jara-Ettinger, Director of the Computational Social Cognition Lab at Yale University.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/TShGgL4BOSw-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Margaret Cavendish</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/margaret-cavendish/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 24 Mar 2024 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/margaret-cavendish/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Margaret Cavendish was a writer of poetry, philosophy, polemics, histories, plays, and utopian fiction. She employed many different genres as a way to overcome access barriers for women and build an audience for her subversive philosophical ideas. So, what was so radical about Cavendish&#8217;s views? Why did she think all matter, even rocks, was at least partially rational? And how did she anticipate the term &#8220;epistemic injustice&#8221; 400 years before it was coined? Josh and Ray explore the life and thought of Margaret Cavendish with Karen Detlefsen from the University of Pennsylvania, co-editor of The Routledge Handbook of Women and Early Modern European Philosophy.
Part of our series Wise Women, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Margaret Cavendish was a writer of poetry, philosophy, polemics, histories, plays, and utopian fiction. She employed many different genres as a way to overcome access barriers for women and build an audience for her subversive philosophical ideas. So, wh]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Margaret Cavendish was a writer of poetry, philosophy, polemics, histories, plays, and utopian fiction. She employed many different genres as a way to overcome access barriers for women and build an audience for her subversive philosophical ideas. So, what was so radical about Cavendish&#8217;s views? Why did she think all matter, even rocks, was at least partially rational? And how did she anticipate the term &#8220;epistemic injustice&#8221; 400 years before it was coined? Josh and Ray explore the life and thought of Margaret Cavendish with Karen Detlefsen from the University of Pennsylvania, co-editor of The Routledge Handbook of Women and Early Modern European Philosophy.
Part of our series Wise Women, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/688/margaret-cavendish.mp3" length="49038315" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Margaret Cavendish was a writer of poetry, philosophy, polemics, histories, plays, and utopian fiction. She employed many different genres as a way to overcome access barriers for women and build an audience for her subversive philosophical ideas. So, what was so radical about Cavendish&#8217;s views? Why did she think all matter, even rocks, was at least partially rational? And how did she anticipate the term &#8220;epistemic injustice&#8221; 400 years before it was coined? Josh and Ray explore the life and thought of Margaret Cavendish with Karen Detlefsen from the University of Pennsylvania, co-editor of The Routledge Handbook of Women and Early Modern European Philosophy.
Part of our series Wise Women, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/iNi02Y_7zHQ-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Margaret Cavendish was a writer of poetry, philosophy, polemics, histories, plays, and utopian fiction. She employed many different genres as a way to overcome access barriers for women and build an audience for her subversive philosophical ideas. So, what was so radical about Cavendish&#8217;s views? Why did she think all matter, even rocks, was at least partially rational? And how did she anticipate the term &#8220;epistemic injustice&#8221; 400 years before it was coined? Josh and Ray explore the life and thought of Margaret Cavendish with Karen Detlefsen from the University of Pennsylvania, co-editor of The Routledge Handbook of Women and Early Modern European Philosophy.
Part of our series Wise Women, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/iNi02Y_7zHQ-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The 2024 Dionysus Awards</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/2024-dionysus-awards/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 10 Mar 2024 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/2024-dionysus-awards/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What movies of the past year challenged your assumptions and made you think about things in new ways? Josh and guest co-host Jeremy Sabol present our annual Dionysus Awards for the most thought-provoking movies of 2023, including:

Best Film about Social Justice that Wonders What Makes a Good Film about Social Justice
Most Disturbing Exploration of a Female Criminal Who Thinks She May Be Innocent
Most Moving Film (or TV show!) about Difficult Choices]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What movies of the past year challenged your assumptions and made you think about things in new ways? Josh and guest co-host Jeremy Sabol present our annual Dionysus Awards for the most thought-provoking movies of 2023, including:

Best Film about Social]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What movies of the past year challenged your assumptions and made you think about things in new ways? Josh and guest co-host Jeremy Sabol present our annual Dionysus Awards for the most thought-provoking movies of 2023, including:

Best Film about Social Justice that Wonders What Makes a Good Film about Social Justice
Most Disturbing Exploration of a Female Criminal Who Thinks She May Be Innocent
Most Moving Film (or TV show!) about Difficult Choices]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/720/2024-dionysus-awards.mp3" length="49967895" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What movies of the past year challenged your assumptions and made you think about things in new ways? Josh and guest co-host Jeremy Sabol present our annual Dionysus Awards for the most thought-provoking movies of 2023, including:

Best Film about Social Justice that Wonders What Makes a Good Film about Social Justice
Most Disturbing Exploration of a Female Criminal Who Thinks She May Be Innocent
Most Moving Film (or TV show!) about Difficult Choices]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/hKRa4ZMe1Uk-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What movies of the past year challenged your assumptions and made you think about things in new ways? Josh and guest co-host Jeremy Sabol present our annual Dionysus Awards for the most thought-provoking movies of 2023, including:

Best Film about Social Justice that Wonders What Makes a Good Film about Social Justice
Most Disturbing Exploration of a Female Criminal Who Thinks She May Be Innocent
Most Moving Film (or TV show!) about Difficult Choices]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/hKRa4ZMe1Uk-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Im Yunjidang</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/im-yunjidang/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 25 Feb 2024 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/im-yunjidang/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[18th-century Korean philosopher Im Yunjidang was the first Confucian to argue for women’s equality in matters of morality and to claim that women, just like men, can be sages. She also argued that it isn&#8217;t just what you do that matters morally—it&#8217;s also how you decide. So what does it mean to be a sage and how does someone become one? How did Im Yunjidang use traditional Confucian texts to argue for women&#8217;s spiritual equality? And what did she think was important when it comes to making difficult moral choices? Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with Hwa Yeong Wang from Duke Kunshan University, editor of Korean Women Philosophers and the Ideal of a Female Sage: The Essential of Writings of Im Yungjidang and Gang Jeongildang.
Part of our series Wise Women, supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[18th-century Korean philosopher Im Yunjidang was the first Confucian to argue for women’s equality in matters of morality and to claim that women, just like men, can be sages. She also argued that it isn&#8217;t just what you do that matters morally—it&#]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[18th-century Korean philosopher Im Yunjidang was the first Confucian to argue for women’s equality in matters of morality and to claim that women, just like men, can be sages. She also argued that it isn&#8217;t just what you do that matters morally—it&#8217;s also how you decide. So what does it mean to be a sage and how does someone become one? How did Im Yunjidang use traditional Confucian texts to argue for women&#8217;s spiritual equality? And what did she think was important when it comes to making difficult moral choices? Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with Hwa Yeong Wang from Duke Kunshan University, editor of Korean Women Philosophers and the Ideal of a Female Sage: The Essential of Writings of Im Yungjidang and Gang Jeongildang.
Part of our series Wise Women, supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/694/im-yunjidang.mp3" length="48836022" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[18th-century Korean philosopher Im Yunjidang was the first Confucian to argue for women’s equality in matters of morality and to claim that women, just like men, can be sages. She also argued that it isn&#8217;t just what you do that matters morally—it&#8217;s also how you decide. So what does it mean to be a sage and how does someone become one? How did Im Yunjidang use traditional Confucian texts to argue for women&#8217;s spiritual equality? And what did she think was important when it comes to making difficult moral choices? Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with Hwa Yeong Wang from Duke Kunshan University, editor of Korean Women Philosophers and the Ideal of a Female Sage: The Essential of Writings of Im Yungjidang and Gang Jeongildang.
Part of our series Wise Women, supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/HFWS12uQWFo.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[18th-century Korean philosopher Im Yunjidang was the first Confucian to argue for women’s equality in matters of morality and to claim that women, just like men, can be sages. She also argued that it isn&#8217;t just what you do that matters morally—it&#8217;s also how you decide. So what does it mean to be a sage and how does someone become one? How did Im Yunjidang use traditional Confucian texts to argue for women&#8217;s spiritual equality? And what did she think was important when it comes to making difficult moral choices? Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with Hwa Yeong Wang from Duke Kunshan University, editor of Korean Women Philosophers and the Ideal of a Female Sage: The Essential of Writings of Im Yungjidang and Gang Jeongildang.
Part of our series Wise Women, supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/HFWS12uQWFo.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Can A.I. Help Us Understand Babies?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/can-ai-help-us-understand-babies/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 04 Feb 2024 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/can-ai-help-us-understand-babies/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Artificial intelligence is everywhere in our day-to-day lives and our interactions with the world. And it&#8217;s made impressive progress at a variety of visual, linguistic, and reasoning tasks. Does this improved performance indicate that computers are thinking, or is it just an engineering artifact? Can it help us understand how children acquire knowledge and develop language skills? Or are humans fundamentally different from machines? Josh and Ray decode the babble with Michael Frank, Professor of Human Biology at Stanford University and Director of the Symbolic Systems Program.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Artificial intelligence is everywhere in our day-to-day lives and our interactions with the world. And it&#8217;s made impressive progress at a variety of visual, linguistic, and reasoning tasks. Does this improved performance indicate that computers are]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Artificial intelligence is everywhere in our day-to-day lives and our interactions with the world. And it&#8217;s made impressive progress at a variety of visual, linguistic, and reasoning tasks. Does this improved performance indicate that computers are thinking, or is it just an engineering artifact? Can it help us understand how children acquire knowledge and develop language skills? Or are humans fundamentally different from machines? Josh and Ray decode the babble with Michael Frank, Professor of Human Biology at Stanford University and Director of the Symbolic Systems Program.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/718/can-ai-help-us-understand-babies.mp3" length="48696424" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Artificial intelligence is everywhere in our day-to-day lives and our interactions with the world. And it&#8217;s made impressive progress at a variety of visual, linguistic, and reasoning tasks. Does this improved performance indicate that computers are thinking, or is it just an engineering artifact? Can it help us understand how children acquire knowledge and develop language skills? Or are humans fundamentally different from machines? Josh and Ray decode the babble with Michael Frank, Professor of Human Biology at Stanford University and Director of the Symbolic Systems Program.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/98QBU71KkvM-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Artificial intelligence is everywhere in our day-to-day lives and our interactions with the world. And it&#8217;s made impressive progress at a variety of visual, linguistic, and reasoning tasks. Does this improved performance indicate that computers are thinking, or is it just an engineering artifact? Can it help us understand how children acquire knowledge and develop language skills? Or are humans fundamentally different from machines? Josh and Ray decode the babble with Michael Frank, Professor of Human Biology at Stanford University and Director of the Symbolic Systems Program.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/98QBU71KkvM-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>20th Anniversary Quiz Night</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/20th-anniversary-quiz-night/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jan 2024 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/20th-anniversary-quiz-night/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk made its radio debut on August 20, 2003 with a live pilot on KALW San Francisco and weekly broadcasts beginning in January 2004. To celebrate two decades on the air, in November 2023 we held our first-ever Quiz Night. Longtime listeners and first-time fans filled KALW&#8217;s popup space in downtown San Francisco as Director of Research Laura Maguire ran eight teams through the gauntlet of a philosophical pub quiz. In this special 20th anniversary episode, Josh and Ray (who participated in the quiz as regular contestants) revisit the drama and intellectual derring-do from that evening with their guest quiz-taker, host emeritus John Perry.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk made its radio debut on August 20, 2003 with a live pilot on KALW San Francisco and weekly broadcasts beginning in January 2004. To celebrate two decades on the air, in November 2023 we held our first-ever Quiz Night. Longtime listeners a]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk made its radio debut on August 20, 2003 with a live pilot on KALW San Francisco and weekly broadcasts beginning in January 2004. To celebrate two decades on the air, in November 2023 we held our first-ever Quiz Night. Longtime listeners and first-time fans filled KALW&#8217;s popup space in downtown San Francisco as Director of Research Laura Maguire ran eight teams through the gauntlet of a philosophical pub quiz. In this special 20th anniversary episode, Josh and Ray (who participated in the quiz as regular contestants) revisit the drama and intellectual derring-do from that evening with their guest quiz-taker, host emeritus John Perry.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/716/20th-anniversary-quiz-night.mp3" length="58012734" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk made its radio debut on August 20, 2003 with a live pilot on KALW San Francisco and weekly broadcasts beginning in January 2004. To celebrate two decades on the air, in November 2023 we held our first-ever Quiz Night. Longtime listeners and first-time fans filled KALW&#8217;s popup space in downtown San Francisco as Director of Research Laura Maguire ran eight teams through the gauntlet of a philosophical pub quiz. In this special 20th anniversary episode, Josh and Ray (who participated in the quiz as regular contestants) revisit the drama and intellectual derring-do from that evening with their guest quiz-taker, host emeritus John Perry.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/quiz-night.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk made its radio debut on August 20, 2003 with a live pilot on KALW San Francisco and weekly broadcasts beginning in January 2004. To celebrate two decades on the air, in November 2023 we held our first-ever Quiz Night. Longtime listeners and first-time fans filled KALW&#8217;s popup space in downtown San Francisco as Director of Research Laura Maguire ran eight teams through the gauntlet of a philosophical pub quiz. In this special 20th anniversary episode, Josh and Ray (who participated in the quiz as regular contestants) revisit the drama and intellectual derring-do from that evening with their guest quiz-taker, host emeritus John Perry.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/quiz-night.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>American Futures (Ken Taylor Memorial Episode)</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/american-futures/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 31 Dec 2023 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/american-futures/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[When Ken Taylor passed away, he was working on a manuscript titled Farewell to the Republic We Once Dreamed of. Was Ken right to think the American experiment is on the verge of collapse? Are we heading for authoritarian rule, a national divorce, or even a civil war? Or could better days be on the horizon? In Ken’s honor, Josh and Ray devote their end-of-year special to probing the future of the American republic with Barbara Walter from UC San Diego, Tamsin Shaw from New York University, and Rob Reich from Stanford University.
This episode was made possible by contributors to the Ken Taylor Memorial Fund.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[When Ken Taylor passed away, he was working on a manuscript titled Farewell to the Republic We Once Dreamed of. Was Ken right to think the American experiment is on the verge of collapse? Are we heading for authoritarian rule, a national divorce, or even]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[When Ken Taylor passed away, he was working on a manuscript titled Farewell to the Republic We Once Dreamed of. Was Ken right to think the American experiment is on the verge of collapse? Are we heading for authoritarian rule, a national divorce, or even a civil war? Or could better days be on the horizon? In Ken’s honor, Josh and Ray devote their end-of-year special to probing the future of the American republic with Barbara Walter from UC San Diego, Tamsin Shaw from New York University, and Rob Reich from Stanford University.
This episode was made possible by contributors to the Ken Taylor Memorial Fund.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/714/american-futures.mp3" length="54100635" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[When Ken Taylor passed away, he was working on a manuscript titled Farewell to the Republic We Once Dreamed of. Was Ken right to think the American experiment is on the verge of collapse? Are we heading for authoritarian rule, a national divorce, or even a civil war? Or could better days be on the horizon? In Ken’s honor, Josh and Ray devote their end-of-year special to probing the future of the American republic with Barbara Walter from UC San Diego, Tamsin Shaw from New York University, and Rob Reich from Stanford University.
This episode was made possible by contributors to the Ken Taylor Memorial Fund.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/dkOWPWrwPOI.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[When Ken Taylor passed away, he was working on a manuscript titled Farewell to the Republic We Once Dreamed of. Was Ken right to think the American experiment is on the verge of collapse? Are we heading for authoritarian rule, a national divorce, or even a civil war? Or could better days be on the horizon? In Ken’s honor, Josh and Ray devote their end-of-year special to probing the future of the American republic with Barbara Walter from UC San Diego, Tamsin Shaw from New York University, and Rob Reich from Stanford University.
This episode was made possible by contributors to the Ken Taylor Memorial Fund.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/dkOWPWrwPOI.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Impossible Worlds</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/impossible-worlds/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 17 Dec 2023 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/impossible-worlds/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Philosophers often speculate about possible worlds: ways that things could be. Some of them also believe in impossible worlds: ways that things couldn&#8217;t be. Are impossible worlds places where strange things happen, or descriptions, or abstract objects, or something else entirely? How can you describe an impossibility without contradicting yourself? Could we imagine worlds where even the laws of logic are different? Josh and Ray imagine the unimaginable with Koji Tanaka from the Australian National University, author of &#8220;Logically Impossible Worlds.&#8221;
&#160;]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Philosophers often speculate about possible worlds: ways that things could be. Some of them also believe in impossible worlds: ways that things couldn&#8217;t be. Are impossible worlds places where strange things happen, or descriptions, or abstract obje]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Philosophers often speculate about possible worlds: ways that things could be. Some of them also believe in impossible worlds: ways that things couldn&#8217;t be. Are impossible worlds places where strange things happen, or descriptions, or abstract objects, or something else entirely? How can you describe an impossibility without contradicting yourself? Could we imagine worlds where even the laws of logic are different? Josh and Ray imagine the unimaginable with Koji Tanaka from the Australian National University, author of &#8220;Logically Impossible Worlds.&#8221;
&#160;]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/709/impossible-worlds.mp3" length="48735294" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Philosophers often speculate about possible worlds: ways that things could be. Some of them also believe in impossible worlds: ways that things couldn&#8217;t be. Are impossible worlds places where strange things happen, or descriptions, or abstract objects, or something else entirely? How can you describe an impossibility without contradicting yourself? Could we imagine worlds where even the laws of logic are different? Josh and Ray imagine the unimaginable with Koji Tanaka from the Australian National University, author of &#8220;Logically Impossible Worlds.&#8221;
&#160;]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/iQk5I9N7e60.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Philosophers often speculate about possible worlds: ways that things could be. Some of them also believe in impossible worlds: ways that things couldn&#8217;t be. Are impossible worlds places where strange things happen, or descriptions, or abstract objects, or something else entirely? How can you describe an impossibility without contradicting yourself? Could we imagine worlds where even the laws of logic are different? Josh and Ray imagine the unimaginable with Koji Tanaka from the Australian National University, author of &#8220;Logically Impossible Worlds.&#8221;
&#160;]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/iQk5I9N7e60.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>In Awe of Wonder</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/awe-wonder/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 03 Dec 2023 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/awe-wonder/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Descartes said that the purpose of wonderment is “to enable us to learn and retain in our memory things of which we were formerly unaware.” He also said that those who are not inclined to wonder are “ordinarily very ignorant.” So what exactly is wonder, and how is it different from awe? Is wonder at the core of what drives us to search for novel insights? And can we suffer from an excess of wonderment? Josh and Ray stand in awe of Helen De Cruz from St. Louis University, author of Wonderstruck: How Wonder and Awe Shape the Way We Think (forthcoming).]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Descartes said that the purpose of wonderment is “to enable us to learn and retain in our memory things of which we were formerly unaware.” He also said that those who are not inclined to wonder are “ordinarily very ignorant.” So what exactly is wonder, ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Descartes said that the purpose of wonderment is “to enable us to learn and retain in our memory things of which we were formerly unaware.” He also said that those who are not inclined to wonder are “ordinarily very ignorant.” So what exactly is wonder, and how is it different from awe? Is wonder at the core of what drives us to search for novel insights? And can we suffer from an excess of wonderment? Josh and Ray stand in awe of Helen De Cruz from St. Louis University, author of Wonderstruck: How Wonder and Awe Shape the Way We Think (forthcoming).]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/711/awe-wonder.mp3" length="49303719" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Descartes said that the purpose of wonderment is “to enable us to learn and retain in our memory things of which we were formerly unaware.” He also said that those who are not inclined to wonder are “ordinarily very ignorant.” So what exactly is wonder, and how is it different from awe? Is wonder at the core of what drives us to search for novel insights? And can we suffer from an excess of wonderment? Josh and Ray stand in awe of Helen De Cruz from St. Louis University, author of Wonderstruck: How Wonder and Awe Shape the Way We Think (forthcoming).]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/KYBLv0V0QFE.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Descartes said that the purpose of wonderment is “to enable us to learn and retain in our memory things of which we were formerly unaware.” He also said that those who are not inclined to wonder are “ordinarily very ignorant.” So what exactly is wonder, and how is it different from awe? Is wonder at the core of what drives us to search for novel insights? And can we suffer from an excess of wonderment? Josh and Ray stand in awe of Helen De Cruz from St. Louis University, author of Wonderstruck: How Wonder and Awe Shape the Way We Think (forthcoming).]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/KYBLv0V0QFE.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Mary Astell</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/mary-astell/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 19 Nov 2023 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/mary-astell/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Mary Astell (1666–1731) was an English philosopher and writer who advocated for equal rights for women. While she described marriage as a type of “slavery,” she was also a staunch conservative who claimed that women who did marry should accept subordination to their husbands. So what was Astell&#8217;s vision for the education of women? How did she reconcile her seemingly conflicting views on marriage? And why did philosopher John Locke criticize her views on natural law? Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with Allauren Forbes from McMaster University, author of the Oxford Bibliography on Mary Astell.
Part of our series Wise Women, supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Mary Astell (1666–1731) was an English philosopher and writer who advocated for equal rights for women. While she described marriage as a type of “slavery,” she was also a staunch conservative who claimed that women who did marry should accept subordinat]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Mary Astell (1666–1731) was an English philosopher and writer who advocated for equal rights for women. While she described marriage as a type of “slavery,” she was also a staunch conservative who claimed that women who did marry should accept subordination to their husbands. So what was Astell&#8217;s vision for the education of women? How did she reconcile her seemingly conflicting views on marriage? And why did philosopher John Locke criticize her views on natural law? Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with Allauren Forbes from McMaster University, author of the Oxford Bibliography on Mary Astell.
Part of our series Wise Women, supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/690/mary-astell.mp3" length="49217039" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Mary Astell (1666–1731) was an English philosopher and writer who advocated for equal rights for women. While she described marriage as a type of “slavery,” she was also a staunch conservative who claimed that women who did marry should accept subordination to their husbands. So what was Astell&#8217;s vision for the education of women? How did she reconcile her seemingly conflicting views on marriage? And why did philosopher John Locke criticize her views on natural law? Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with Allauren Forbes from McMaster University, author of the Oxford Bibliography on Mary Astell.
Part of our series Wise Women, supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/zu4HDTLpyBs-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Mary Astell (1666–1731) was an English philosopher and writer who advocated for equal rights for women. While she described marriage as a type of “slavery,” she was also a staunch conservative who claimed that women who did marry should accept subordination to their husbands. So what was Astell&#8217;s vision for the education of women? How did she reconcile her seemingly conflicting views on marriage? And why did philosopher John Locke criticize her views on natural law? Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with Allauren Forbes from McMaster University, author of the Oxford Bibliography on Mary Astell.
Part of our series Wise Women, supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/zu4HDTLpyBs-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Zhuangzi: Being One with Ten Thousand Things</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/zhuangzi/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 05 Nov 2023 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/zhuangzi/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Zhuangzi, the 4th-century BCE Chinese philosopher, was arguably the most important figure in Taoism. He believed that a person’s ideal relationship to the world was to &#8220;be one with ten thousand things.&#8221; So how is someone supposed to achieve this ideal? What is at the core of Zhuangzi&#8217;s conception of the good life? And how could contemporary western readers benefit from his way of thinking? Josh and Ray welcome back Paul Kjellberg from Whittier College, editor of Essays on Skepticism, Relativism, and Ethics in The Zhuangzi.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Zhuangzi, the 4th-century BCE Chinese philosopher, was arguably the most important figure in Taoism. He believed that a person’s ideal relationship to the world was to &#8220;be one with ten thousand things.&#8221; So how is someone supposed to achieve t]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Zhuangzi, the 4th-century BCE Chinese philosopher, was arguably the most important figure in Taoism. He believed that a person’s ideal relationship to the world was to &#8220;be one with ten thousand things.&#8221; So how is someone supposed to achieve this ideal? What is at the core of Zhuangzi&#8217;s conception of the good life? And how could contemporary western readers benefit from his way of thinking? Josh and Ray welcome back Paul Kjellberg from Whittier College, editor of Essays on Skepticism, Relativism, and Ethics in The Zhuangzi.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/705/zhuangzi.mp3" length="48789467" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Zhuangzi, the 4th-century BCE Chinese philosopher, was arguably the most important figure in Taoism. He believed that a person’s ideal relationship to the world was to &#8220;be one with ten thousand things.&#8221; So how is someone supposed to achieve this ideal? What is at the core of Zhuangzi&#8217;s conception of the good life? And how could contemporary western readers benefit from his way of thinking? Josh and Ray welcome back Paul Kjellberg from Whittier College, editor of Essays on Skepticism, Relativism, and Ethics in The Zhuangzi.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ZzHDyrqliAM.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Zhuangzi, the 4th-century BCE Chinese philosopher, was arguably the most important figure in Taoism. He believed that a person’s ideal relationship to the world was to &#8220;be one with ten thousand things.&#8221; So how is someone supposed to achieve this ideal? What is at the core of Zhuangzi&#8217;s conception of the good life? And how could contemporary western readers benefit from his way of thinking? Josh and Ray welcome back Paul Kjellberg from Whittier College, editor of Essays on Skepticism, Relativism, and Ethics in The Zhuangzi.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ZzHDyrqliAM.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Elisabeth of Bohemia</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/elisabeth-bohemia/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 22 Oct 2023 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/elisabeth-bohemia/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia (1618–1680) is best known for her correspondence with René Descartes. In her letters, she articulated a devastating critique of his dualist theory of mind, in particular on the impossibility of mind-body interaction. So what was Elisabeth&#8217;s own position on the nature of mind? What can we ascertain about her moral and political concerns based on her various correspondences? And how are her ideas still relevant to current debates in philosophy? Josh and Ray explore Elisabeth&#8217;s life and thought with Lisa Shapiro from McGill University, editor of The Routledge Handbook of Women and Early Modern European Philosophy.
Part of our series Wise Women, supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia (1618–1680) is best known for her correspondence with René Descartes. In her letters, she articulated a devastating critique of his dualist theory of mind, in particular on the impossibility of mind-body interaction. So what]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia (1618–1680) is best known for her correspondence with René Descartes. In her letters, she articulated a devastating critique of his dualist theory of mind, in particular on the impossibility of mind-body interaction. So what was Elisabeth&#8217;s own position on the nature of mind? What can we ascertain about her moral and political concerns based on her various correspondences? And how are her ideas still relevant to current debates in philosophy? Josh and Ray explore Elisabeth&#8217;s life and thought with Lisa Shapiro from McGill University, editor of The Routledge Handbook of Women and Early Modern European Philosophy.
Part of our series Wise Women, supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/686/elisabeth-bohemia.mp3" length="48934917" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia (1618–1680) is best known for her correspondence with René Descartes. In her letters, she articulated a devastating critique of his dualist theory of mind, in particular on the impossibility of mind-body interaction. So what was Elisabeth&#8217;s own position on the nature of mind? What can we ascertain about her moral and political concerns based on her various correspondences? And how are her ideas still relevant to current debates in philosophy? Josh and Ray explore Elisabeth&#8217;s life and thought with Lisa Shapiro from McGill University, editor of The Routledge Handbook of Women and Early Modern European Philosophy.
Part of our series Wise Women, supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/B4qYW68lBP8-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia (1618–1680) is best known for her correspondence with René Descartes. In her letters, she articulated a devastating critique of his dualist theory of mind, in particular on the impossibility of mind-body interaction. So what was Elisabeth&#8217;s own position on the nature of mind? What can we ascertain about her moral and political concerns based on her various correspondences? And how are her ideas still relevant to current debates in philosophy? Josh and Ray explore Elisabeth&#8217;s life and thought with Lisa Shapiro from McGill University, editor of The Routledge Handbook of Women and Early Modern European Philosophy.
Part of our series Wise Women, supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/B4qYW68lBP8-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Can Architecture Be Political?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/can-architecture-be-political/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 08 Oct 2023 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/can-architecture-be-political/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[It’s common to judge a piece of architecture based on its functional and aesthetic values, and how the two might complement or compete with one other. It’s less common to judge architecture based on its political values. But can’t a building’s design also express a political viewpoint? Why are different styles of architecture associated with different ideologies? And can a historical edifice&#8217;s social purpose change over time? Josh and Ray build a foundation with Vladimir Kulić from Iowa State University, editor of Toward a Concrete Utopia: Architecture in Yugoslavia, 1948–1980.
This episode is generously sponsored by the Stanford Global Studies program.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[It’s common to judge a piece of architecture based on its functional and aesthetic values, and how the two might complement or compete with one other. It’s less common to judge architecture based on its political values. But can’t a building’s design als]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[It’s common to judge a piece of architecture based on its functional and aesthetic values, and how the two might complement or compete with one other. It’s less common to judge architecture based on its political values. But can’t a building’s design also express a political viewpoint? Why are different styles of architecture associated with different ideologies? And can a historical edifice&#8217;s social purpose change over time? Josh and Ray build a foundation with Vladimir Kulić from Iowa State University, editor of Toward a Concrete Utopia: Architecture in Yugoslavia, 1948–1980.
This episode is generously sponsored by the Stanford Global Studies program.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/703/can-architecture-be-political.mp3" length="48906496" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[It’s common to judge a piece of architecture based on its functional and aesthetic values, and how the two might complement or compete with one other. It’s less common to judge architecture based on its political values. But can’t a building’s design also express a political viewpoint? Why are different styles of architecture associated with different ideologies? And can a historical edifice&#8217;s social purpose change over time? Josh and Ray build a foundation with Vladimir Kulić from Iowa State University, editor of Toward a Concrete Utopia: Architecture in Yugoslavia, 1948–1980.
This episode is generously sponsored by the Stanford Global Studies program.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/b7BE6u_9UKw.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[It’s common to judge a piece of architecture based on its functional and aesthetic values, and how the two might complement or compete with one other. It’s less common to judge architecture based on its political values. But can’t a building’s design also express a political viewpoint? Why are different styles of architecture associated with different ideologies? And can a historical edifice&#8217;s social purpose change over time? Josh and Ray build a foundation with Vladimir Kulić from Iowa State University, editor of Toward a Concrete Utopia: Architecture in Yugoslavia, 1948–1980.
This episode is generously sponsored by the Stanford Global Studies program.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/b7BE6u_9UKw.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Are We Living in a Simulation?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/are-we-living-simulation/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 17 Sep 2023 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/are-we-living-simulation/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[With rapid advances in Virtual Reality technology and the like, it’s now possible for us to become absorbed in completely made-up worlds. We might wonder how soon it will be till we reach a point where VR is so good, we can’t tell it apart from the real world. But what if we’ve already reached that point? How would we know if we were currently living in a simulated reality, or are there always telltale signs? And if we were in a simulation, what difference would it make—pragmatically or morally—in how we live our lives and treat other people? Josh and Ray don&#8217;t fake it with David Chalmers from NYU, author of Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[With rapid advances in Virtual Reality technology and the like, it’s now possible for us to become absorbed in completely made-up worlds. We might wonder how soon it will be till we reach a point where VR is so good, we can’t tell it apart from the real ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[With rapid advances in Virtual Reality technology and the like, it’s now possible for us to become absorbed in completely made-up worlds. We might wonder how soon it will be till we reach a point where VR is so good, we can’t tell it apart from the real world. But what if we’ve already reached that point? How would we know if we were currently living in a simulated reality, or are there always telltale signs? And if we were in a simulation, what difference would it make—pragmatically or morally—in how we live our lives and treat other people? Josh and Ray don&#8217;t fake it with David Chalmers from NYU, author of Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/701/are-we-living-simulation.mp3" length="48941348" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[With rapid advances in Virtual Reality technology and the like, it’s now possible for us to become absorbed in completely made-up worlds. We might wonder how soon it will be till we reach a point where VR is so good, we can’t tell it apart from the real world. But what if we’ve already reached that point? How would we know if we were currently living in a simulated reality, or are there always telltale signs? And if we were in a simulation, what difference would it make—pragmatically or morally—in how we live our lives and treat other people? Josh and Ray don&#8217;t fake it with David Chalmers from NYU, author of Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/mtYS6O6IBt8.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[With rapid advances in Virtual Reality technology and the like, it’s now possible for us to become absorbed in completely made-up worlds. We might wonder how soon it will be till we reach a point where VR is so good, we can’t tell it apart from the real world. But what if we’ve already reached that point? How would we know if we were currently living in a simulated reality, or are there always telltale signs? And if we were in a simulation, what difference would it make—pragmatically or morally—in how we live our lives and treat other people? Josh and Ray don&#8217;t fake it with David Chalmers from NYU, author of Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/mtYS6O6IBt8.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Weird Wants</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/weird-wants/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 20 Aug 2023 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/weird-wants/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Philosophers from Aquinas to Anscombe have claimed that wanting something means seeing the good in it. Even if what you want is bad overall, like procrastinating on important work, you can still desire it for its positive qualities. But don&#8217;t we sometimes want things because of their badness, not in spite of it? Isn&#8217;t there joy in doing something totally pointless, or even in breaking the rules? And is it really impossible, logically speaking, to want to be bad? Josh and Ray unravel our weird wants with Paul Bloom from the University of Toronto, author of The Sweet Spot: The Pleasures of Suffering and the Search for Meaning.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Philosophers from Aquinas to Anscombe have claimed that wanting something means seeing the good in it. Even if what you want is bad overall, like procrastinating on important work, you can still desire it for its positive qualities. But don&#8217;t we so]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Philosophers from Aquinas to Anscombe have claimed that wanting something means seeing the good in it. Even if what you want is bad overall, like procrastinating on important work, you can still desire it for its positive qualities. But don&#8217;t we sometimes want things because of their badness, not in spite of it? Isn&#8217;t there joy in doing something totally pointless, or even in breaking the rules? And is it really impossible, logically speaking, to want to be bad? Josh and Ray unravel our weird wants with Paul Bloom from the University of Toronto, author of The Sweet Spot: The Pleasures of Suffering and the Search for Meaning.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/698/weird-wants.mp3" length="48452336" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Philosophers from Aquinas to Anscombe have claimed that wanting something means seeing the good in it. Even if what you want is bad overall, like procrastinating on important work, you can still desire it for its positive qualities. But don&#8217;t we sometimes want things because of their badness, not in spite of it? Isn&#8217;t there joy in doing something totally pointless, or even in breaking the rules? And is it really impossible, logically speaking, to want to be bad? Josh and Ray unravel our weird wants with Paul Bloom from the University of Toronto, author of The Sweet Spot: The Pleasures of Suffering and the Search for Meaning.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/gSZnrEYj2SA.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Philosophers from Aquinas to Anscombe have claimed that wanting something means seeing the good in it. Even if what you want is bad overall, like procrastinating on important work, you can still desire it for its positive qualities. But don&#8217;t we sometimes want things because of their badness, not in spite of it? Isn&#8217;t there joy in doing something totally pointless, or even in breaking the rules? And is it really impossible, logically speaking, to want to be bad? Josh and Ray unravel our weird wants with Paul Bloom from the University of Toronto, author of The Sweet Spot: The Pleasures of Suffering and the Search for Meaning.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/gSZnrEYj2SA.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Making a Better World</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/making-better-world/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 13 Aug 2023 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/making-better-world/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Some philosophers think that morality boils down to one idea: we should make the world better for everyone. But who counts in &#8220;everyone&#8221;—babies, animals, future people? How can we tell what makes the world better for others? And in an uncertain world, how can anyone gauge the effects of their actions? Josh and Ray try to save the world with acclaimed Princeton philosopher Peter Singer, author of Ethics in the Real World: 90 Essays on Things That Matter.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Some philosophers think that morality boils down to one idea: we should make the world better for everyone. But who counts in &#8220;everyone&#8221;—babies, animals, future people? How can we tell what makes the world better for others? And in an uncerta]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Some philosophers think that morality boils down to one idea: we should make the world better for everyone. But who counts in &#8220;everyone&#8221;—babies, animals, future people? How can we tell what makes the world better for others? And in an uncertain world, how can anyone gauge the effects of their actions? Josh and Ray try to save the world with acclaimed Princeton philosopher Peter Singer, author of Ethics in the Real World: 90 Essays on Things That Matter.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/680/making-better-world.mp3" length="49365995" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Some philosophers think that morality boils down to one idea: we should make the world better for everyone. But who counts in &#8220;everyone&#8221;—babies, animals, future people? How can we tell what makes the world better for others? And in an uncertain world, how can anyone gauge the effects of their actions? Josh and Ray try to save the world with acclaimed Princeton philosopher Peter Singer, author of Ethics in the Real World: 90 Essays on Things That Matter.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/AHtRNTHl2gg.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Some philosophers think that morality boils down to one idea: we should make the world better for everyone. But who counts in &#8220;everyone&#8221;—babies, animals, future people? How can we tell what makes the world better for others? And in an uncertain world, how can anyone gauge the effects of their actions? Josh and Ray try to save the world with acclaimed Princeton philosopher Peter Singer, author of Ethics in the Real World: 90 Essays on Things That Matter.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/AHtRNTHl2gg.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Hypatia of Alexandria</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/hypatia-alexandria/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 23 Jul 2023 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/hypatia-alexandria/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Hypatia of Alexandria, late antiquity public figure and scholar, made significant contributions to mathematics, philosophy, and astronomy. Her embrace of Neoplatonism was seen as such a threat to the political elite in Alexandria that she was murdered by a mob of Christians. So what made her ideas so dangerous and revolutionary for her time? As a woman in Ancient Egypt, how did she exert power over her own narrative? And should she really be considered a &#8220;martyr&#8221; for philosophy? Josh and Ray explore Hypatia&#8217;s life and thought with Edward Watts, Professor of History at UCSD and author of Hypatia: The Life and Legend of an Ancient Philosopher.
Part of our series Wise Women, supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Hypatia of Alexandria, late antiquity public figure and scholar, made significant contributions to mathematics, philosophy, and astronomy. Her embrace of Neoplatonism was seen as such a threat to the political elite in Alexandria that she was murdered by]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Hypatia of Alexandria, late antiquity public figure and scholar, made significant contributions to mathematics, philosophy, and astronomy. Her embrace of Neoplatonism was seen as such a threat to the political elite in Alexandria that she was murdered by a mob of Christians. So what made her ideas so dangerous and revolutionary for her time? As a woman in Ancient Egypt, how did she exert power over her own narrative? And should she really be considered a &#8220;martyr&#8221; for philosophy? Josh and Ray explore Hypatia&#8217;s life and thought with Edward Watts, Professor of History at UCSD and author of Hypatia: The Life and Legend of an Ancient Philosopher.
Part of our series Wise Women, supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/682/hypatia-alexandria.mp3" length="49453348" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Hypatia of Alexandria, late antiquity public figure and scholar, made significant contributions to mathematics, philosophy, and astronomy. Her embrace of Neoplatonism was seen as such a threat to the political elite in Alexandria that she was murdered by a mob of Christians. So what made her ideas so dangerous and revolutionary for her time? As a woman in Ancient Egypt, how did she exert power over her own narrative? And should she really be considered a &#8220;martyr&#8221; for philosophy? Josh and Ray explore Hypatia&#8217;s life and thought with Edward Watts, Professor of History at UCSD and author of Hypatia: The Life and Legend of an Ancient Philosopher.
Part of our series Wise Women, supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/l5OzTRzkQvE.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Hypatia of Alexandria, late antiquity public figure and scholar, made significant contributions to mathematics, philosophy, and astronomy. Her embrace of Neoplatonism was seen as such a threat to the political elite in Alexandria that she was murdered by a mob of Christians. So what made her ideas so dangerous and revolutionary for her time? As a woman in Ancient Egypt, how did she exert power over her own narrative? And should she really be considered a &#8220;martyr&#8221; for philosophy? Josh and Ray explore Hypatia&#8217;s life and thought with Edward Watts, Professor of History at UCSD and author of Hypatia: The Life and Legend of an Ancient Philosopher.
Part of our series Wise Women, supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/l5OzTRzkQvE.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Mexican Philosophy</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/mexican-philosophy/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 09 Jul 2023 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/mexican-philosophy/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[From early feminist Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz to existentialist Emilio Uranga, from Indigenous thought to theorists of aesthetic utopia, Mexican philosophy is full of fascinating figures with brilliant insights. What can we learn from them today about belief, desire, freedom, morality, and education? And do Mexican philosophers speak with one voice or in a complicated harmony, stretching across the centuries? Josh and Ray travel through space and time with Manuel Vargas from UC San Diego, author of Building Better Beings: A Theory of Moral Responsibility.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[From early feminist Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz to existentialist Emilio Uranga, from Indigenous thought to theorists of aesthetic utopia, Mexican philosophy is full of fascinating figures with brilliant insights. What can we learn from them today about be]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[From early feminist Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz to existentialist Emilio Uranga, from Indigenous thought to theorists of aesthetic utopia, Mexican philosophy is full of fascinating figures with brilliant insights. What can we learn from them today about belief, desire, freedom, morality, and education? And do Mexican philosophers speak with one voice or in a complicated harmony, stretching across the centuries? Josh and Ray travel through space and time with Manuel Vargas from UC San Diego, author of Building Better Beings: A Theory of Moral Responsibility.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/678/mexican-philosophy.mp3" length="48595278" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[From early feminist Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz to existentialist Emilio Uranga, from Indigenous thought to theorists of aesthetic utopia, Mexican philosophy is full of fascinating figures with brilliant insights. What can we learn from them today about belief, desire, freedom, morality, and education? And do Mexican philosophers speak with one voice or in a complicated harmony, stretching across the centuries? Josh and Ray travel through space and time with Manuel Vargas from UC San Diego, author of Building Better Beings: A Theory of Moral Responsibility.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/5cBF7KdPwvA.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[From early feminist Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz to existentialist Emilio Uranga, from Indigenous thought to theorists of aesthetic utopia, Mexican philosophy is full of fascinating figures with brilliant insights. What can we learn from them today about belief, desire, freedom, morality, and education? And do Mexican philosophers speak with one voice or in a complicated harmony, stretching across the centuries? Josh and Ray travel through space and time with Manuel Vargas from UC San Diego, author of Building Better Beings: A Theory of Moral Responsibility.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/5cBF7KdPwvA.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Summer Reading List 2023</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/summer-reading-list-2023/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 25 Jun 2023 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/summer-reading-list-2023/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What books should thoughtful people read this summer? Josh and Ray talk to the authors and editors of new and recent books as they compile their annual Summer Reading List:

Michael Schur, creator of TV&#8217;s The Good Place and author of How to Be Perfect: The Correct Answer to Every Moral Question
Lori Gruen, Professor of Philosophy at Wesleyan University and co-editor of The Good It Promises, The Harm It Does: Critical Essays on Effective Altruism
Gabriella Safran, Professor of Slavic Languages and Literatures at Stanford University and author of Recording Russia: Trying to Listen in the Nineteenth Century]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What books should thoughtful people read this summer? Josh and Ray talk to the authors and editors of new and recent books as they compile their annual Summer Reading List:

Michael Schur, creator of TV&#8217;s The Good Place and author of How to Be Perf]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What books should thoughtful people read this summer? Josh and Ray talk to the authors and editors of new and recent books as they compile their annual Summer Reading List:

Michael Schur, creator of TV&#8217;s The Good Place and author of How to Be Perfect: The Correct Answer to Every Moral Question
Lori Gruen, Professor of Philosophy at Wesleyan University and co-editor of The Good It Promises, The Harm It Does: Critical Essays on Effective Altruism
Gabriella Safran, Professor of Slavic Languages and Literatures at Stanford University and author of Recording Russia: Trying to Listen in the Nineteenth Century]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/675/summer-reading-list-2023.mp3" length="49939435" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What books should thoughtful people read this summer? Josh and Ray talk to the authors and editors of new and recent books as they compile their annual Summer Reading List:

Michael Schur, creator of TV&#8217;s The Good Place and author of How to Be Perfect: The Correct Answer to Every Moral Question
Lori Gruen, Professor of Philosophy at Wesleyan University and co-editor of The Good It Promises, The Harm It Does: Critical Essays on Effective Altruism
Gabriella Safran, Professor of Slavic Languages and Literatures at Stanford University and author of Recording Russia: Trying to Listen in the Nineteenth Century]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/ad_Wip429Y8.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What books should thoughtful people read this summer? Josh and Ray talk to the authors and editors of new and recent books as they compile their annual Summer Reading List:

Michael Schur, creator of TV&#8217;s The Good Place and author of How to Be Perfect: The Correct Answer to Every Moral Question
Lori Gruen, Professor of Philosophy at Wesleyan University and co-editor of The Good It Promises, The Harm It Does: Critical Essays on Effective Altruism
Gabriella Safran, Professor of Slavic Languages and Literatures at Stanford University and author of Recording Russia: Trying to Listen in the Nineteenth Century]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/ad_Wip429Y8.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>What Is Gender?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/what-gender/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 18 Jun 2023 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/what-gender/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Gender is a controversial topic these days, but people can&#8217;t seem to agree about what gender is. Is it an inner identity, a biological fact, or an oppressive system? Should we respect it or resist it? Should it even be a thing? Josh and guest-host Blakey Vermeule question gender with regular co-host Ray Briggs, co-author of What Even Is Gender?]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Gender is a controversial topic these days, but people can&#8217;t seem to agree about what gender is. Is it an inner identity, a biological fact, or an oppressive system? Should we respect it or resist it? Should it even be a thing? Josh and guest-host ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Gender is a controversial topic these days, but people can&#8217;t seem to agree about what gender is. Is it an inner identity, a biological fact, or an oppressive system? Should we respect it or resist it? Should it even be a thing? Josh and guest-host Blakey Vermeule question gender with regular co-host Ray Briggs, co-author of What Even Is Gender?]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/672/what-gender.mp3" length="48977293" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Gender is a controversial topic these days, but people can&#8217;t seem to agree about what gender is. Is it an inner identity, a biological fact, or an oppressive system? Should we respect it or resist it? Should it even be a thing? Josh and guest-host Blakey Vermeule question gender with regular co-host Ray Briggs, co-author of What Even Is Gender?]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/WxqfdXPX3yA.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Gender is a controversial topic these days, but people can&#8217;t seem to agree about what gender is. Is it an inner identity, a biological fact, or an oppressive system? Should we respect it or resist it? Should it even be a thing? Josh and guest-host Blakey Vermeule question gender with regular co-host Ray Briggs, co-author of What Even Is Gender?]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/WxqfdXPX3yA.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Can Art Save Us?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/can-art-save-us/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 28 May 2023 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/can-art-save-us/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The world is facing an unprecedented environmental crisis, and we urgently need good ways to address it. Courageous politicians would help, of course, as might scientific innovations. But how much of the problem is a failure of imagination? Could the arts help us see our way out of the problem? How can literature, painting, and movies redraw the landscape in our minds? Josh and Ray imagine a conversation with Harriet Hawkins, Professor of Human Geography and Co-Director of the Centre for GeoHumanities at Royal Holloway, University of London.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The world is facing an unprecedented environmental crisis, and we urgently need good ways to address it. Courageous politicians would help, of course, as might scientific innovations. But how much of the problem is a failure of imagination? Could the art]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The world is facing an unprecedented environmental crisis, and we urgently need good ways to address it. Courageous politicians would help, of course, as might scientific innovations. But how much of the problem is a failure of imagination? Could the arts help us see our way out of the problem? How can literature, painting, and movies redraw the landscape in our minds? Josh and Ray imagine a conversation with Harriet Hawkins, Professor of Human Geography and Co-Director of the Centre for GeoHumanities at Royal Holloway, University of London.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/670/can-art-save-us.mp3" length="49003624" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The world is facing an unprecedented environmental crisis, and we urgently need good ways to address it. Courageous politicians would help, of course, as might scientific innovations. But how much of the problem is a failure of imagination? Could the arts help us see our way out of the problem? How can literature, painting, and movies redraw the landscape in our minds? Josh and Ray imagine a conversation with Harriet Hawkins, Professor of Human Geography and Co-Director of the Centre for GeoHumanities at Royal Holloway, University of London.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/fk-gfzZSy5c-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The world is facing an unprecedented environmental crisis, and we urgently need good ways to address it. Courageous politicians would help, of course, as might scientific innovations. But how much of the problem is a failure of imagination? Could the arts help us see our way out of the problem? How can literature, painting, and movies redraw the landscape in our minds? Josh and Ray imagine a conversation with Harriet Hawkins, Professor of Human Geography and Co-Director of the Centre for GeoHumanities at Royal Holloway, University of London.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/fk-gfzZSy5c-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>True Contradictions</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/true-contradictions/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 21 May 2023 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/true-contradictions/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[If you want to tell the truth, you shouldn’t contradict yourself—that’s just common sense. A suspect who was home on the night of the crime can’t have been elsewhere, and whatever the weapon, we can rule out the hypothesis that it was both a candlestick and not a candlestick. But there are philosophers who claim we shouldn’t overgeneralize based on murder mysteries: some contradictions are true. Could a badly written law make the dastardly deed both legal and illegal? Do mathematical paradoxes create weird things that both do and don’t exist? If we embrace contradictions, will we still be able to tell the difference between truth and falsehood? Josh and Ray embrace contradiction with Graham Priest from the City University of New York, author of Doubt Truth to Be a Liar.
&#160;]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[If you want to tell the truth, you shouldn’t contradict yourself—that’s just common sense. A suspect who was home on the night of the crime can’t have been elsewhere, and whatever the weapon, we can rule out the hypothesis that it was both a candlestick ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[If you want to tell the truth, you shouldn’t contradict yourself—that’s just common sense. A suspect who was home on the night of the crime can’t have been elsewhere, and whatever the weapon, we can rule out the hypothesis that it was both a candlestick and not a candlestick. But there are philosophers who claim we shouldn’t overgeneralize based on murder mysteries: some contradictions are true. Could a badly written law make the dastardly deed both legal and illegal? Do mathematical paradoxes create weird things that both do and don’t exist? If we embrace contradictions, will we still be able to tell the difference between truth and falsehood? Josh and Ray embrace contradiction with Graham Priest from the City University of New York, author of Doubt Truth to Be a Liar.
&#160;]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/668/true-contradictions.mp3" length="48837694" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[If you want to tell the truth, you shouldn’t contradict yourself—that’s just common sense. A suspect who was home on the night of the crime can’t have been elsewhere, and whatever the weapon, we can rule out the hypothesis that it was both a candlestick and not a candlestick. But there are philosophers who claim we shouldn’t overgeneralize based on murder mysteries: some contradictions are true. Could a badly written law make the dastardly deed both legal and illegal? Do mathematical paradoxes create weird things that both do and don’t exist? If we embrace contradictions, will we still be able to tell the difference between truth and falsehood? Josh and Ray embrace contradiction with Graham Priest from the City University of New York, author of Doubt Truth to Be a Liar.
&#160;]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/UvGSNukN2A.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[If you want to tell the truth, you shouldn’t contradict yourself—that’s just common sense. A suspect who was home on the night of the crime can’t have been elsewhere, and whatever the weapon, we can rule out the hypothesis that it was both a candlestick and not a candlestick. But there are philosophers who claim we shouldn’t overgeneralize based on murder mysteries: some contradictions are true. Could a badly written law make the dastardly deed both legal and illegal? Do mathematical paradoxes create weird things that both do and don’t exist? If we embrace contradictions, will we still be able to tell the difference between truth and falsehood? Josh and Ray embrace contradiction with Graham Priest from the City University of New York, author of Doubt Truth to Be a Liar.
&#160;]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/UvGSNukN2A.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Power of Prediction</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/power-prediction/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 30 Apr 2023 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/power-prediction/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[You’re standing at the top of a mountain, surveying the vast landscape below. The information your senses take in flows to your brain, which processes it to create a representation of the scene. Or does it? What if instead of directly perceiving the world around us, the brain is more like a prediction machine that hallucinates a picture of the world? If that were the case, could we still rely on the so-called “evidence of our senses”? Would it be possible to avoid unpleasant sensory experiences, like hunger or pain, by simply changing our expectations? How can we harness the power of the predictive brain? Josh and and Ray predict a fascinating conversation with Andy Clark from the University of Sussex, author of The Experience Machine: How Our Minds Predict and Shape Reality.
&#160;]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[You’re standing at the top of a mountain, surveying the vast landscape below. The information your senses take in flows to your brain, which processes it to create a representation of the scene. Or does it? What if instead of directly perceiving the worl]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[You’re standing at the top of a mountain, surveying the vast landscape below. The information your senses take in flows to your brain, which processes it to create a representation of the scene. Or does it? What if instead of directly perceiving the world around us, the brain is more like a prediction machine that hallucinates a picture of the world? If that were the case, could we still rely on the so-called “evidence of our senses”? Would it be possible to avoid unpleasant sensory experiences, like hunger or pain, by simply changing our expectations? How can we harness the power of the predictive brain? Josh and and Ray predict a fascinating conversation with Andy Clark from the University of Sussex, author of The Experience Machine: How Our Minds Predict and Shape Reality.
&#160;]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/666/power-prediction.mp3" length="48698096" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[You’re standing at the top of a mountain, surveying the vast landscape below. The information your senses take in flows to your brain, which processes it to create a representation of the scene. Or does it? What if instead of directly perceiving the world around us, the brain is more like a prediction machine that hallucinates a picture of the world? If that were the case, could we still rely on the so-called “evidence of our senses”? Would it be possible to avoid unpleasant sensory experiences, like hunger or pain, by simply changing our expectations? How can we harness the power of the predictive brain? Josh and and Ray predict a fascinating conversation with Andy Clark from the University of Sussex, author of The Experience Machine: How Our Minds Predict and Shape Reality.
&#160;]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/DRLMOXkMEx0.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[You’re standing at the top of a mountain, surveying the vast landscape below. The information your senses take in flows to your brain, which processes it to create a representation of the scene. Or does it? What if instead of directly perceiving the world around us, the brain is more like a prediction machine that hallucinates a picture of the world? If that were the case, could we still rely on the so-called “evidence of our senses”? Would it be possible to avoid unpleasant sensory experiences, like hunger or pain, by simply changing our expectations? How can we harness the power of the predictive brain? Josh and and Ray predict a fascinating conversation with Andy Clark from the University of Sussex, author of The Experience Machine: How Our Minds Predict and Shape Reality.
&#160;]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/DRLMOXkMEx0.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Derek Parfit and Your Future Self</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/derek-parfit-and-your-future-self/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 16 Apr 2023 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/derek-parfit-and-your-future-self/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The works of Derek Parfit (1942-2017) have had a profound influence on how philosophers understand rational decision-making, ethics, and personal identity. At the heart of Parfit&#8217;s thinking are questions about how you should relate to your future self, and whether you should treat your future self any differently than other future people. So why does Parfit argue that it&#8217;s wrong to place a special value on your own survival? What would it take to value others in the way that you value yourself? And how might we harness Parfit&#8217;s insights to make the world a better place? Josh and Ray&#8217;s present selves welcome back Parfit&#8217;s former student David Edmonds, author of Parfit: A Philosopher and His Mission to Save Morality.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The works of Derek Parfit (1942-2017) have had a profound influence on how philosophers understand rational decision-making, ethics, and personal identity. At the heart of Parfit&#8217;s thinking are questions about how you should relate to your future s]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The works of Derek Parfit (1942-2017) have had a profound influence on how philosophers understand rational decision-making, ethics, and personal identity. At the heart of Parfit&#8217;s thinking are questions about how you should relate to your future self, and whether you should treat your future self any differently than other future people. So why does Parfit argue that it&#8217;s wrong to place a special value on your own survival? What would it take to value others in the way that you value yourself? And how might we harness Parfit&#8217;s insights to make the world a better place? Josh and Ray&#8217;s present selves welcome back Parfit&#8217;s former student David Edmonds, author of Parfit: A Philosopher and His Mission to Save Morality.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/664/derek-parfit-and-your-future-self.mp3" length="48649237" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The works of Derek Parfit (1942-2017) have had a profound influence on how philosophers understand rational decision-making, ethics, and personal identity. At the heart of Parfit&#8217;s thinking are questions about how you should relate to your future self, and whether you should treat your future self any differently than other future people. So why does Parfit argue that it&#8217;s wrong to place a special value on your own survival? What would it take to value others in the way that you value yourself? And how might we harness Parfit&#8217;s insights to make the world a better place? Josh and Ray&#8217;s present selves welcome back Parfit&#8217;s former student David Edmonds, author of Parfit: A Philosopher and His Mission to Save Morality.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/xXZ015Jzprs-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The works of Derek Parfit (1942-2017) have had a profound influence on how philosophers understand rational decision-making, ethics, and personal identity. At the heart of Parfit&#8217;s thinking are questions about how you should relate to your future self, and whether you should treat your future self any differently than other future people. So why does Parfit argue that it&#8217;s wrong to place a special value on your own survival? What would it take to value others in the way that you value yourself? And how might we harness Parfit&#8217;s insights to make the world a better place? Josh and Ray&#8217;s present selves welcome back Parfit&#8217;s former student David Edmonds, author of Parfit: A Philosopher and His Mission to Save Morality.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/xXZ015Jzprs-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Philosophy of Smell</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/philosophy-smell/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 26 Mar 2023 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/philosophy-smell/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[When philosophers think about human perception, they tend to focus on vision and turn their noses up at olfaction, the sense of smell. So what insights can we gain about perception, thought, and language by focusing on olfaction? How culturally variable is the ability to distinguish one scent from another? Do we need to learn certain concepts before we can detect certain odors, or can our noses pick up things we can’t yet name? And why do we have so many words to describe what we see, yet so few to describe what we smell? Josh and Ray sniff out the details with experimental psychologist and olfaction expert Asifa Majid from the University of Oxford, in an episode generously sponsored by the Stanford Symbolic Systems Program.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[When philosophers think about human perception, they tend to focus on vision and turn their noses up at olfaction, the sense of smell. So what insights can we gain about perception, thought, and language by focusing on olfaction? How culturally variable ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[When philosophers think about human perception, they tend to focus on vision and turn their noses up at olfaction, the sense of smell. So what insights can we gain about perception, thought, and language by focusing on olfaction? How culturally variable is the ability to distinguish one scent from another? Do we need to learn certain concepts before we can detect certain odors, or can our noses pick up things we can’t yet name? And why do we have so many words to describe what we see, yet so few to describe what we smell? Josh and Ray sniff out the details with experimental psychologist and olfaction expert Asifa Majid from the University of Oxford, in an episode generously sponsored by the Stanford Symbolic Systems Program.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/662/philosophy-smell.mp3" length="49109368" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[When philosophers think about human perception, they tend to focus on vision and turn their noses up at olfaction, the sense of smell. So what insights can we gain about perception, thought, and language by focusing on olfaction? How culturally variable is the ability to distinguish one scent from another? Do we need to learn certain concepts before we can detect certain odors, or can our noses pick up things we can’t yet name? And why do we have so many words to describe what we see, yet so few to describe what we smell? Josh and Ray sniff out the details with experimental psychologist and olfaction expert Asifa Majid from the University of Oxford, in an episode generously sponsored by the Stanford Symbolic Systems Program.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/y553J_iXsQA.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[When philosophers think about human perception, they tend to focus on vision and turn their noses up at olfaction, the sense of smell. So what insights can we gain about perception, thought, and language by focusing on olfaction? How culturally variable is the ability to distinguish one scent from another? Do we need to learn certain concepts before we can detect certain odors, or can our noses pick up things we can’t yet name? And why do we have so many words to describe what we see, yet so few to describe what we smell? Josh and Ray sniff out the details with experimental psychologist and olfaction expert Asifa Majid from the University of Oxford, in an episode generously sponsored by the Stanford Symbolic Systems Program.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/y553J_iXsQA.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The 2023 Dionysus Awards</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/2023-dionysus-awards/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 05 Mar 2023 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/2023-dionysus-awards/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What movies of the past year challenged your assumptions and made you think about things in new ways? Josh and guest co-host Jeremy Sabol present our annual Dionysus Awards for the most thought-provoking movies of 2022, including:

Meatiest Meditation on Mortality and Meaning (in the British Isles)
Coolest Contemplation of Complicated Comeuppances
The Combo Cup for Greatest Genrepalooza]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What movies of the past year challenged your assumptions and made you think about things in new ways? Josh and guest co-host Jeremy Sabol present our annual Dionysus Awards for the most thought-provoking movies of 2022, including:

Meatiest Meditation on]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What movies of the past year challenged your assumptions and made you think about things in new ways? Josh and guest co-host Jeremy Sabol present our annual Dionysus Awards for the most thought-provoking movies of 2022, including:

Meatiest Meditation on Mortality and Meaning (in the British Isles)
Coolest Contemplation of Complicated Comeuppances
The Combo Cup for Greatest Genrepalooza]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/660/2023-dionysus-awards.mp3" length="49919791" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What movies of the past year challenged your assumptions and made you think about things in new ways? Josh and guest co-host Jeremy Sabol present our annual Dionysus Awards for the most thought-provoking movies of 2022, including:

Meatiest Meditation on Mortality and Meaning (in the British Isles)
Coolest Contemplation of Complicated Comeuppances
The Combo Cup for Greatest Genrepalooza]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/rX0oe5LYp5w.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What movies of the past year challenged your assumptions and made you think about things in new ways? Josh and guest co-host Jeremy Sabol present our annual Dionysus Awards for the most thought-provoking movies of 2022, including:

Meatiest Meditation on Mortality and Meaning (in the British Isles)
Coolest Contemplation of Complicated Comeuppances
The Combo Cup for Greatest Genrepalooza]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/rX0oe5LYp5w.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Cancel Culture</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/cancel-culture/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 19 Feb 2023 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/cancel-culture/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Revoking support or a platform from someone who is perceived to have behaved badly has recently been dubbed “cancel culture.” Many complain that this pervasive practice promotes mob mentality and stifles free speech. But is &#8220;cancel culture&#8221; a real phenomenon, or has it become an overused and meaningless concept? Is publicly censuring others for something they&#8217;ve done or said itself a form of free speech? And is there a moral difference between “canceling” public figures and “canceling” ordinary folks who get caught on tape behaving badly? Josh and Ray provide a platform to Adrian Daub from Stanford University, author of The Cancel Culture Panic: How an American Obsession Went Global.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Revoking support or a platform from someone who is perceived to have behaved badly has recently been dubbed “cancel culture.” Many complain that this pervasive practice promotes mob mentality and stifles free speech. But is &#8220;cancel culture&#8221; a]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Revoking support or a platform from someone who is perceived to have behaved badly has recently been dubbed “cancel culture.” Many complain that this pervasive practice promotes mob mentality and stifles free speech. But is &#8220;cancel culture&#8221; a real phenomenon, or has it become an overused and meaningless concept? Is publicly censuring others for something they&#8217;ve done or said itself a form of free speech? And is there a moral difference between “canceling” public figures and “canceling” ordinary folks who get caught on tape behaving badly? Josh and Ray provide a platform to Adrian Daub from Stanford University, author of The Cancel Culture Panic: How an American Obsession Went Global.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/658/cancel-culture.mp3" length="48595278" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Revoking support or a platform from someone who is perceived to have behaved badly has recently been dubbed “cancel culture.” Many complain that this pervasive practice promotes mob mentality and stifles free speech. But is &#8220;cancel culture&#8221; a real phenomenon, or has it become an overused and meaningless concept? Is publicly censuring others for something they&#8217;ve done or said itself a form of free speech? And is there a moral difference between “canceling” public figures and “canceling” ordinary folks who get caught on tape behaving badly? Josh and Ray provide a platform to Adrian Daub from Stanford University, author of The Cancel Culture Panic: How an American Obsession Went Global.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/EJV3hn3FTeE.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Revoking support or a platform from someone who is perceived to have behaved badly has recently been dubbed “cancel culture.” Many complain that this pervasive practice promotes mob mentality and stifles free speech. But is &#8220;cancel culture&#8221; a real phenomenon, or has it become an overused and meaningless concept? Is publicly censuring others for something they&#8217;ve done or said itself a form of free speech? And is there a moral difference between “canceling” public figures and “canceling” ordinary folks who get caught on tape behaving badly? Josh and Ray provide a platform to Adrian Daub from Stanford University, author of The Cancel Culture Panic: How an American Obsession Went Global.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/EJV3hn3FTeE.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Why Trust Science?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/why-trust-science/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jan 2023 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/why-trust-science/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[According to a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, the number of Americans who trust in science is steadily declining. While politicization is partly to blame, another reason may be that the “truths” of science seem to shift endlessly. So why should we trust science? Is it still reliable, even if it doesn’t seem to settle on a single truth? And what can be done to increase the general public’s confidence in medicine, climate research, or statistics? Josh and Ray rely on Ann Thresher from Stanford University, co-author of The Tangle of Science: Reliability Beyond Method, Rigour, and Objectivity.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[According to a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, the number of Americans who trust in science is steadily declining. While politicization is partly to blame, another reason may be that the “truths” of science seem to shift endlessly. So]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[According to a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, the number of Americans who trust in science is steadily declining. While politicization is partly to blame, another reason may be that the “truths” of science seem to shift endlessly. So why should we trust science? Is it still reliable, even if it doesn’t seem to settle on a single truth? And what can be done to increase the general public’s confidence in medicine, climate research, or statistics? Josh and Ray rely on Ann Thresher from Stanford University, co-author of The Tangle of Science: Reliability Beyond Method, Rigour, and Objectivity.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/656/why-trust-science.mp3" length="46864509" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[According to a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, the number of Americans who trust in science is steadily declining. While politicization is partly to blame, another reason may be that the “truths” of science seem to shift endlessly. So why should we trust science? Is it still reliable, even if it doesn’t seem to settle on a single truth? And what can be done to increase the general public’s confidence in medicine, climate research, or statistics? Josh and Ray rely on Ann Thresher from Stanford University, co-author of The Tangle of Science: Reliability Beyond Method, Rigour, and Objectivity.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/49u9qvn_EM8.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[According to a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, the number of Americans who trust in science is steadily declining. While politicization is partly to blame, another reason may be that the “truths” of science seem to shift endlessly. So why should we trust science? Is it still reliable, even if it doesn’t seem to settle on a single truth? And what can be done to increase the general public’s confidence in medicine, climate research, or statistics? Josh and Ray rely on Ann Thresher from Stanford University, co-author of The Tangle of Science: Reliability Beyond Method, Rigour, and Objectivity.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/49u9qvn_EM8.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Examined Year: 2022</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/examined-year-2022/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 01 Jan 2023 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/examined-year-2022/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What happened over the last twelve months that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways?

The Year in Developed Nations at War with Tamsin Shaw from NYU, author of Nietzsche&#8217;s Political Skepticism
The Year in Supreme Court Controversy with Bernadette Meyler from the Stanford Law School, author of Theaters of Pardoning
The Year in Deep Space Photography with Nick Riggle from the University of San Diego, author of This Beauty: A Philosophy of Being Alive]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What happened over the last twelve months that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways?

The Year in Developed Nations at War with Tamsin Shaw from NYU, author of Nietzsche&#8217;s Political Skepticism
The Year in Supreme Co]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What happened over the last twelve months that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways?

The Year in Developed Nations at War with Tamsin Shaw from NYU, author of Nietzsche&#8217;s Political Skepticism
The Year in Supreme Court Controversy with Bernadette Meyler from the Stanford Law School, author of Theaters of Pardoning
The Year in Deep Space Photography with Nick Riggle from the University of San Diego, author of This Beauty: A Philosophy of Being Alive]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/654/examined-year-2022.mp3" length="49923552" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What happened over the last twelve months that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways?

The Year in Developed Nations at War with Tamsin Shaw from NYU, author of Nietzsche&#8217;s Political Skepticism
The Year in Supreme Court Controversy with Bernadette Meyler from the Stanford Law School, author of Theaters of Pardoning
The Year in Deep Space Photography with Nick Riggle from the University of San Diego, author of This Beauty: A Philosophy of Being Alive]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/u9Ei3vT5CgE.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What happened over the last twelve months that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways?

The Year in Developed Nations at War with Tamsin Shaw from NYU, author of Nietzsche&#8217;s Political Skepticism
The Year in Supreme Court Controversy with Bernadette Meyler from the Stanford Law School, author of Theaters of Pardoning
The Year in Deep Space Photography with Nick Riggle from the University of San Diego, author of This Beauty: A Philosophy of Being Alive]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/u9Ei3vT5CgE.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Thinking Like a Conspiracy Theorist</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/thinking-conspiracy-theorist/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 04 Dec 2022 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/thinking-conspiracy-theorist/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The moon landing was faked! JFK Jr. is still alive! Finland doesn’t exist! Conspiracy theories of all sorts have been gaining traction, thanks partly to the ease with which they spread online. But what makes someone more inclined to believe in vast conspiracies? Are marginalized groups who have been lied to by authorities more likely to be distrustful of official narratives? Or do common cognitive biases make all humans susceptible to this kind of thinking? And what can we do to combat the spread of conspiracy theorizing? Ray and guest-host Blakey Vermeule hatch a plot with Christopher French from the University of London, co-author of Anomalistic Psychology: Exploring Paranormal Belief and Experience.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The moon landing was faked! JFK Jr. is still alive! Finland doesn’t exist! Conspiracy theories of all sorts have been gaining traction, thanks partly to the ease with which they spread online. But what makes someone more inclined to believe in vast consp]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The moon landing was faked! JFK Jr. is still alive! Finland doesn’t exist! Conspiracy theories of all sorts have been gaining traction, thanks partly to the ease with which they spread online. But what makes someone more inclined to believe in vast conspiracies? Are marginalized groups who have been lied to by authorities more likely to be distrustful of official narratives? Or do common cognitive biases make all humans susceptible to this kind of thinking? And what can we do to combat the spread of conspiracy theorizing? Ray and guest-host Blakey Vermeule hatch a plot with Christopher French from the University of London, co-author of Anomalistic Psychology: Exploring Paranormal Belief and Experience.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/652/thinking-conspiracy-theorist.mp3" length="49292016" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The moon landing was faked! JFK Jr. is still alive! Finland doesn’t exist! Conspiracy theories of all sorts have been gaining traction, thanks partly to the ease with which they spread online. But what makes someone more inclined to believe in vast conspiracies? Are marginalized groups who have been lied to by authorities more likely to be distrustful of official narratives? Or do common cognitive biases make all humans susceptible to this kind of thinking? And what can we do to combat the spread of conspiracy theorizing? Ray and guest-host Blakey Vermeule hatch a plot with Christopher French from the University of London, co-author of Anomalistic Psychology: Exploring Paranormal Belief and Experience.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Idu79oe66mk-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The moon landing was faked! JFK Jr. is still alive! Finland doesn’t exist! Conspiracy theories of all sorts have been gaining traction, thanks partly to the ease with which they spread online. But what makes someone more inclined to believe in vast conspiracies? Are marginalized groups who have been lied to by authorities more likely to be distrustful of official narratives? Or do common cognitive biases make all humans susceptible to this kind of thinking? And what can we do to combat the spread of conspiracy theorizing? Ray and guest-host Blakey Vermeule hatch a plot with Christopher French from the University of London, co-author of Anomalistic Psychology: Exploring Paranormal Belief and Experience.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Idu79oe66mk-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>In Search of Proust&#8217;s Philosophy</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/search-prousts-philosophy/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/search-prousts-philosophy/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Marcel Proust’s In Search of Lost Time challenges us to think hard about what we can know, who we really are, why memory matters, and how we can find enchantment in a world without God. But some might wonder why we need a 3,000 page novel to do that. Are there things a novel can do that a philosophy book can’t? Does it take a great person to produce great art? And why read Proust in the twenty-first century? Ray and guest-host Blakey Vermeule find a spot on the guestlist for Josh and his new book, The World According to Proust.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Marcel Proust’s In Search of Lost Time challenges us to think hard about what we can know, who we really are, why memory matters, and how we can find enchantment in a world without God. But some might wonder why we need a 3,000 page novel to do that. Are]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Marcel Proust’s In Search of Lost Time challenges us to think hard about what we can know, who we really are, why memory matters, and how we can find enchantment in a world without God. But some might wonder why we need a 3,000 page novel to do that. Are there things a novel can do that a philosophy book can’t? Does it take a great person to produce great art? And why read Proust in the twenty-first century? Ray and guest-host Blakey Vermeule find a spot on the guestlist for Josh and his new book, The World According to Proust.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/650/search-prousts-philosophy.mp3" length="48945946" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Marcel Proust’s In Search of Lost Time challenges us to think hard about what we can know, who we really are, why memory matters, and how we can find enchantment in a world without God. But some might wonder why we need a 3,000 page novel to do that. Are there things a novel can do that a philosophy book can’t? Does it take a great person to produce great art? And why read Proust in the twenty-first century? Ray and guest-host Blakey Vermeule find a spot on the guestlist for Josh and his new book, The World According to Proust.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/B7nHcmMIYWY.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Marcel Proust’s In Search of Lost Time challenges us to think hard about what we can know, who we really are, why memory matters, and how we can find enchantment in a world without God. But some might wonder why we need a 3,000 page novel to do that. Are there things a novel can do that a philosophy book can’t? Does it take a great person to produce great art? And why read Proust in the twenty-first century? Ray and guest-host Blakey Vermeule find a spot on the guestlist for Josh and his new book, The World According to Proust.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/B7nHcmMIYWY.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Liberty and Justice for Who?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/liberty-and-justice-who/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 16 Oct 2022 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/liberty-and-justice-who/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Many democracies are founded on the ideals of 18th- and 19th-Century British Liberalism: the idea that human beings deserve the right to self-government because we are born free, equal, and capable of rationality. Yet Liberalism was used to justify colonialism, which deprived people around the world of the right to govern themselves. How could a political philosophy that claims to be pro-freedom be used to take freedom away from so many people? Was Liberalism misunderstood, or were its moral flaws built-in from the beginning? How can we design a political philosophy that liberates everyone, not just the citizens of a few wealthy and powerful nations? Josh and Ray talk liberally with Uday Singh Mehta from the CUNY Graduate Center, author of Liberalism and Empire: A Study in Nineteenth-Century British Liberal Thought, for an episode generously sponsored by the Stanford Global Studies program.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Many democracies are founded on the ideals of 18th- and 19th-Century British Liberalism: the idea that human beings deserve the right to self-government because we are born free, equal, and capable of rationality. Yet Liberalism was used to justify colon]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Many democracies are founded on the ideals of 18th- and 19th-Century British Liberalism: the idea that human beings deserve the right to self-government because we are born free, equal, and capable of rationality. Yet Liberalism was used to justify colonialism, which deprived people around the world of the right to govern themselves. How could a political philosophy that claims to be pro-freedom be used to take freedom away from so many people? Was Liberalism misunderstood, or were its moral flaws built-in from the beginning? How can we design a political philosophy that liberates everyone, not just the citizens of a few wealthy and powerful nations? Josh and Ray talk liberally with Uday Singh Mehta from the CUNY Graduate Center, author of Liberalism and Empire: A Study in Nineteenth-Century British Liberal Thought, for an episode generously sponsored by the Stanford Global Studies program.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/646/liberty-and-justice-who.mp3" length="48702693" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Many democracies are founded on the ideals of 18th- and 19th-Century British Liberalism: the idea that human beings deserve the right to self-government because we are born free, equal, and capable of rationality. Yet Liberalism was used to justify colonialism, which deprived people around the world of the right to govern themselves. How could a political philosophy that claims to be pro-freedom be used to take freedom away from so many people? Was Liberalism misunderstood, or were its moral flaws built-in from the beginning? How can we design a political philosophy that liberates everyone, not just the citizens of a few wealthy and powerful nations? Josh and Ray talk liberally with Uday Singh Mehta from the CUNY Graduate Center, author of Liberalism and Empire: A Study in Nineteenth-Century British Liberal Thought, for an episode generously sponsored by the Stanford Global Studies program.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/qsh3fWk9PEk-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Many democracies are founded on the ideals of 18th- and 19th-Century British Liberalism: the idea that human beings deserve the right to self-government because we are born free, equal, and capable of rationality. Yet Liberalism was used to justify colonialism, which deprived people around the world of the right to govern themselves. How could a political philosophy that claims to be pro-freedom be used to take freedom away from so many people? Was Liberalism misunderstood, or were its moral flaws built-in from the beginning? How can we design a political philosophy that liberates everyone, not just the citizens of a few wealthy and powerful nations? Josh and Ray talk liberally with Uday Singh Mehta from the CUNY Graduate Center, author of Liberalism and Empire: A Study in Nineteenth-Century British Liberal Thought, for an episode generously sponsored by the Stanford Global Studies program.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/qsh3fWk9PEk-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Climate Change and Collective Action</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/climate-change-and-collective-action/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 02 Oct 2022 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/climate-change-and-collective-action/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Catastrophic storms, floods, droughts, and fires are increasing in frequency all over the globe, and the polar ice caps are melting twice as fast as initially predicted. Despite this, we struggle to take meaningful action that could avert—or at least mitigate—the impending climate disaster. So why is it so hard for people to coordinate on doing the right thing, when the threat is so urgent? Is it a failure of human rationality, a lack of will, or something else? And how do we overcome the obstacles we face and take collective action that will make a real difference? Josh and Ray collect their thoughts with Kieran Setiya from MIT, author of Life Is Hard: How Philosophy Can Help Us Find Our Way.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Catastrophic storms, floods, droughts, and fires are increasing in frequency all over the globe, and the polar ice caps are melting twice as fast as initially predicted. Despite this, we struggle to take meaningful action that could avert—or at least mit]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Catastrophic storms, floods, droughts, and fires are increasing in frequency all over the globe, and the polar ice caps are melting twice as fast as initially predicted. Despite this, we struggle to take meaningful action that could avert—or at least mitigate—the impending climate disaster. So why is it so hard for people to coordinate on doing the right thing, when the threat is so urgent? Is it a failure of human rationality, a lack of will, or something else? And how do we overcome the obstacles we face and take collective action that will make a real difference? Josh and Ray collect their thoughts with Kieran Setiya from MIT, author of Life Is Hard: How Philosophy Can Help Us Find Our Way.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/644/climate-change-and-collective-action.mp3" length="98080809" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Catastrophic storms, floods, droughts, and fires are increasing in frequency all over the globe, and the polar ice caps are melting twice as fast as initially predicted. Despite this, we struggle to take meaningful action that could avert—or at least mitigate—the impending climate disaster. So why is it so hard for people to coordinate on doing the right thing, when the threat is so urgent? Is it a failure of human rationality, a lack of will, or something else? And how do we overcome the obstacles we face and take collective action that will make a real difference? Josh and Ray collect their thoughts with Kieran Setiya from MIT, author of Life Is Hard: How Philosophy Can Help Us Find Our Way.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/AMFcqdnyIQU-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Catastrophic storms, floods, droughts, and fires are increasing in frequency all over the globe, and the polar ice caps are melting twice as fast as initially predicted. Despite this, we struggle to take meaningful action that could avert—or at least mitigate—the impending climate disaster. So why is it so hard for people to coordinate on doing the right thing, when the threat is so urgent? Is it a failure of human rationality, a lack of will, or something else? And how do we overcome the obstacles we face and take collective action that will make a real difference? Josh and Ray collect their thoughts with Kieran Setiya from MIT, author of Life Is Hard: How Philosophy Can Help Us Find Our Way.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/AMFcqdnyIQU-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Who Owns Culture?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/who-owns-culture/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 18 Sep 2022 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/who-owns-culture/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Fashion designers, musicians, and Halloween costume wearers have been accused of engaging in cultural appropriation. In some cases, the alleged appropriator is quick to apologize; in others, they defend their actions as a way of appreciating a different culture. So why is cultural appropriation such a morally fraught issue? Is there a clear-cut way to tell whether we’re exploring or exploiting? And can we come up with principles that allow artists to be inspired while also allowing communities to hold on to what is theirs? Josh and Ray mix it up with Dominic Lopes from the University of British Columbia, author of Aesthetic Injustice: A Cosmopolitan Theory (forthcoming).]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Fashion designers, musicians, and Halloween costume wearers have been accused of engaging in cultural appropriation. In some cases, the alleged appropriator is quick to apologize; in others, they defend their actions as a way of appreciating a different ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Fashion designers, musicians, and Halloween costume wearers have been accused of engaging in cultural appropriation. In some cases, the alleged appropriator is quick to apologize; in others, they defend their actions as a way of appreciating a different culture. So why is cultural appropriation such a morally fraught issue? Is there a clear-cut way to tell whether we’re exploring or exploiting? And can we come up with principles that allow artists to be inspired while also allowing communities to hold on to what is theirs? Josh and Ray mix it up with Dominic Lopes from the University of British Columbia, author of Aesthetic Injustice: A Cosmopolitan Theory (forthcoming).]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/642/who-owns-culture.mp3" length="48905822" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Fashion designers, musicians, and Halloween costume wearers have been accused of engaging in cultural appropriation. In some cases, the alleged appropriator is quick to apologize; in others, they defend their actions as a way of appreciating a different culture. So why is cultural appropriation such a morally fraught issue? Is there a clear-cut way to tell whether we’re exploring or exploiting? And can we come up with principles that allow artists to be inspired while also allowing communities to hold on to what is theirs? Josh and Ray mix it up with Dominic Lopes from the University of British Columbia, author of Aesthetic Injustice: A Cosmopolitan Theory (forthcoming).]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/4bpTw4N3FmA.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Fashion designers, musicians, and Halloween costume wearers have been accused of engaging in cultural appropriation. In some cases, the alleged appropriator is quick to apologize; in others, they defend their actions as a way of appreciating a different culture. So why is cultural appropriation such a morally fraught issue? Is there a clear-cut way to tell whether we’re exploring or exploiting? And can we come up with principles that allow artists to be inspired while also allowing communities to hold on to what is theirs? Josh and Ray mix it up with Dominic Lopes from the University of British Columbia, author of Aesthetic Injustice: A Cosmopolitan Theory (forthcoming).]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/4bpTw4N3FmA.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Effective Altruism</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/effective-altruism/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 28 Aug 2022 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/effective-altruism/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Most people agree that it&#8217;s good to help others, but philosophers disagree about how much good we need to do, and for whom. Effective altruists claim that you have a moral obligation to do the most good you can—even when that means setting aside the needs of your nearest and dearest in order to help strangers. So what does morality demand of us? Are we justified in caring more about our own communities than faraway strangers? And is it ever okay to pursue a personal project when you could be helping others? Josh and Ray demand much of Theron Pummer from the University of St. Andrews, author of The Rules of Rescue: Cost, Distance, and Effective Altruism.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Most people agree that it&#8217;s good to help others, but philosophers disagree about how much good we need to do, and for whom. Effective altruists claim that you have a moral obligation to do the most good you can—even when that means setting aside th]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Most people agree that it&#8217;s good to help others, but philosophers disagree about how much good we need to do, and for whom. Effective altruists claim that you have a moral obligation to do the most good you can—even when that means setting aside the needs of your nearest and dearest in order to help strangers. So what does morality demand of us? Are we justified in caring more about our own communities than faraway strangers? And is it ever okay to pursue a personal project when you could be helping others? Josh and Ray demand much of Theron Pummer from the University of St. Andrews, author of The Rules of Rescue: Cost, Distance, and Effective Altruism.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/640/effective-altruism.mp3" length="49293688" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Most people agree that it&#8217;s good to help others, but philosophers disagree about how much good we need to do, and for whom. Effective altruists claim that you have a moral obligation to do the most good you can—even when that means setting aside the needs of your nearest and dearest in order to help strangers. So what does morality demand of us? Are we justified in caring more about our own communities than faraway strangers? And is it ever okay to pursue a personal project when you could be helping others? Josh and Ray demand much of Theron Pummer from the University of St. Andrews, author of The Rules of Rescue: Cost, Distance, and Effective Altruism.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/7XfP3PX-teo-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Most people agree that it&#8217;s good to help others, but philosophers disagree about how much good we need to do, and for whom. Effective altruists claim that you have a moral obligation to do the most good you can—even when that means setting aside the needs of your nearest and dearest in order to help strangers. So what does morality demand of us? Are we justified in caring more about our own communities than faraway strangers? And is it ever okay to pursue a personal project when you could be helping others? Josh and Ray demand much of Theron Pummer from the University of St. Andrews, author of The Rules of Rescue: Cost, Distance, and Effective Altruism.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/7XfP3PX-teo-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>What Is Political Inequality?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/what-political-inequality/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 14 Aug 2022 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/what-political-inequality/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[We all know our society is economically unequal: some people have more money and resources than others. But equality isn&#8217;t just a matter of who has which things. Political equality involves respect and participation in the political process—but those aren&#8217;t resources that can be divided up like pie. So what is political equality in the first place? How do we know when we&#8217;ve achieved it? And can we prevent politics from being an elite activity concentrated among the educated and wealthy? Josh and Ray push for equality with Margaret Levi, Director of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University and co-author of A Moral Political Economy: Present, Past, and Future.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[We all know our society is economically unequal: some people have more money and resources than others. But equality isn&#8217;t just a matter of who has which things. Political equality involves respect and participation in the political process—but tho]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[We all know our society is economically unequal: some people have more money and resources than others. But equality isn&#8217;t just a matter of who has which things. Political equality involves respect and participation in the political process—but those aren&#8217;t resources that can be divided up like pie. So what is political equality in the first place? How do we know when we&#8217;ve achieved it? And can we prevent politics from being an elite activity concentrated among the educated and wealthy? Josh and Ray push for equality with Margaret Levi, Director of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University and co-author of A Moral Political Economy: Present, Past, and Future.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/638/what-political-inequality.mp3" length="49182928" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[We all know our society is economically unequal: some people have more money and resources than others. But equality isn&#8217;t just a matter of who has which things. Political equality involves respect and participation in the political process—but those aren&#8217;t resources that can be divided up like pie. So what is political equality in the first place? How do we know when we&#8217;ve achieved it? And can we prevent politics from being an elite activity concentrated among the educated and wealthy? Josh and Ray push for equality with Margaret Levi, Director of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University and co-author of A Moral Political Economy: Present, Past, and Future.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/ZmrVrwND_4A.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[We all know our society is economically unequal: some people have more money and resources than others. But equality isn&#8217;t just a matter of who has which things. Political equality involves respect and participation in the political process—but those aren&#8217;t resources that can be divided up like pie. So what is political equality in the first place? How do we know when we&#8217;ve achieved it? And can we prevent politics from being an elite activity concentrated among the educated and wealthy? Josh and Ray push for equality with Margaret Levi, Director of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University and co-author of A Moral Political Economy: Present, Past, and Future.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/ZmrVrwND_4A.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Is Optimism Rational?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/optimism-rational/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 24 Jul 2022 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/optimism-rational/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[When the odds are against you, believing in yourself can be a source of strength—but it seems to require a cavalier disregard for the evidence. So is optimism a rational way to improve your life, or an irrational kind of wishful thinking? Will hope now just lead to disappointment later? Where should we set our expectations, and where should we teach our children to set theirs? Josh and Ray conquer their hopes and fears with Jennifer Morton from the University of Pennsylvania, author of Moving Up without Losing Your Way: The Ethical Costs of Upward Mobility.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[When the odds are against you, believing in yourself can be a source of strength—but it seems to require a cavalier disregard for the evidence. So is optimism a rational way to improve your life, or an irrational kind of wishful thinking? Will hope now j]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[When the odds are against you, believing in yourself can be a source of strength—but it seems to require a cavalier disregard for the evidence. So is optimism a rational way to improve your life, or an irrational kind of wishful thinking? Will hope now just lead to disappointment later? Where should we set our expectations, and where should we teach our children to set theirs? Josh and Ray conquer their hopes and fears with Jennifer Morton from the University of Pennsylvania, author of Moving Up without Losing Your Way: The Ethical Costs of Upward Mobility.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/636/optimism-rational.mp3" length="49228485" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[When the odds are against you, believing in yourself can be a source of strength—but it seems to require a cavalier disregard for the evidence. So is optimism a rational way to improve your life, or an irrational kind of wishful thinking? Will hope now just lead to disappointment later? Where should we set our expectations, and where should we teach our children to set theirs? Josh and Ray conquer their hopes and fears with Jennifer Morton from the University of Pennsylvania, author of Moving Up without Losing Your Way: The Ethical Costs of Upward Mobility.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Screenshot-2025-03-21-at-3.05.25 PM.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[When the odds are against you, believing in yourself can be a source of strength—but it seems to require a cavalier disregard for the evidence. So is optimism a rational way to improve your life, or an irrational kind of wishful thinking? Will hope now just lead to disappointment later? Where should we set our expectations, and where should we teach our children to set theirs? Josh and Ray conquer their hopes and fears with Jennifer Morton from the University of Pennsylvania, author of Moving Up without Losing Your Way: The Ethical Costs of Upward Mobility.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Screenshot-2025-03-21-at-3.05.25 PM.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Summer Reading List: Banned Books Edition</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/summer-reading-list-banned-books-edition/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jul 2022 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/summer-reading-list-banned-books-edition/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The American Library Association reports that last year 1,597 books were challenged or removed from libraries, schools, and universities, a record high number (compared to 273 books in 2020). Most of the challenged or removed books deal with themes relating to race or sexuality and gender, and challenges come from both the right and the left. What are the implications for your thought-provoking summer reading? Josh and Ray talk to Stanford English professor Paula Moya about attempts to remove Toni Morrison&#8217;s The Bluest Eye from schools; activist Chaz Stevens about his crusade to ban the Bible from Florida schools; and Jennifer Ruth &#38; Michael Bérubé about their new book, It&#8217;s Not Free Speech: Race, Democracy, and the Future of Academic Freedom.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The American Library Association reports that last year 1,597 books were challenged or removed from libraries, schools, and universities, a record high number (compared to 273 books in 2020). Most of the challenged or removed books deal with themes relat]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The American Library Association reports that last year 1,597 books were challenged or removed from libraries, schools, and universities, a record high number (compared to 273 books in 2020). Most of the challenged or removed books deal with themes relating to race or sexuality and gender, and challenges come from both the right and the left. What are the implications for your thought-provoking summer reading? Josh and Ray talk to Stanford English professor Paula Moya about attempts to remove Toni Morrison&#8217;s The Bluest Eye from schools; activist Chaz Stevens about his crusade to ban the Bible from Florida schools; and Jennifer Ruth &#38; Michael Bérubé about their new book, It&#8217;s Not Free Speech: Race, Democracy, and the Future of Academic Freedom.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/634/summer-reading-list-banned-books-edition.mp3" length="49905580" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The American Library Association reports that last year 1,597 books were challenged or removed from libraries, schools, and universities, a record high number (compared to 273 books in 2020). Most of the challenged or removed books deal with themes relating to race or sexuality and gender, and challenges come from both the right and the left. What are the implications for your thought-provoking summer reading? Josh and Ray talk to Stanford English professor Paula Moya about attempts to remove Toni Morrison&#8217;s The Bluest Eye from schools; activist Chaz Stevens about his crusade to ban the Bible from Florida schools; and Jennifer Ruth &#38; Michael Bérubé about their new book, It&#8217;s Not Free Speech: Race, Democracy, and the Future of Academic Freedom.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/M_y8EzJ68UY.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The American Library Association reports that last year 1,597 books were challenged or removed from libraries, schools, and universities, a record high number (compared to 273 books in 2020). Most of the challenged or removed books deal with themes relating to race or sexuality and gender, and challenges come from both the right and the left. What are the implications for your thought-provoking summer reading? Josh and Ray talk to Stanford English professor Paula Moya about attempts to remove Toni Morrison&#8217;s The Bluest Eye from schools; activist Chaz Stevens about his crusade to ban the Bible from Florida schools; and Jennifer Ruth &#38; Michael Bérubé about their new book, It&#8217;s Not Free Speech: Race, Democracy, and the Future of Academic Freedom.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/M_y8EzJ68UY.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Changing Face of Antisemitism</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/changing-face-antisemitism/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 19 Jun 2022 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/changing-face-antisemitism/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Antisemitism is an old problem with roots that reach back to medieval Europe. While earlier forms focused more on religious bigotry, antisemitism in the modern period became increasingly racialized and politicized. So what is the connection between older ideas about Jews and Judaism, and contemporary antisemitic tropes and stereotypes? How are conspiratorial fears about Jewish invisibility and global control related to the emergence of finance capitalism? And what can history teach us about how to confront antisemitism today? Josh and Ray ask historian Francesca Trivellato from the Institute for Advanced Study, editor of Jews in Early Modern Europe (forthcoming), in a program recorded live at the Stanford Humanities Center.
&#160;]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Antisemitism is an old problem with roots that reach back to medieval Europe. While earlier forms focused more on religious bigotry, antisemitism in the modern period became increasingly racialized and politicized. So what is the connection between older]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Antisemitism is an old problem with roots that reach back to medieval Europe. While earlier forms focused more on religious bigotry, antisemitism in the modern period became increasingly racialized and politicized. So what is the connection between older ideas about Jews and Judaism, and contemporary antisemitic tropes and stereotypes? How are conspiratorial fears about Jewish invisibility and global control related to the emergence of finance capitalism? And what can history teach us about how to confront antisemitism today? Josh and Ray ask historian Francesca Trivellato from the Institute for Advanced Study, editor of Jews in Early Modern Europe (forthcoming), in a program recorded live at the Stanford Humanities Center.
&#160;]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/632/changing-face-antisemitism.mp3" length="49319222" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Antisemitism is an old problem with roots that reach back to medieval Europe. While earlier forms focused more on religious bigotry, antisemitism in the modern period became increasingly racialized and politicized. So what is the connection between older ideas about Jews and Judaism, and contemporary antisemitic tropes and stereotypes? How are conspiratorial fears about Jewish invisibility and global control related to the emergence of finance capitalism? And what can history teach us about how to confront antisemitism today? Josh and Ray ask historian Francesca Trivellato from the Institute for Advanced Study, editor of Jews in Early Modern Europe (forthcoming), in a program recorded live at the Stanford Humanities Center.
&#160;]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/HetyxHO6z3Q.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Antisemitism is an old problem with roots that reach back to medieval Europe. While earlier forms focused more on religious bigotry, antisemitism in the modern period became increasingly racialized and politicized. So what is the connection between older ideas about Jews and Judaism, and contemporary antisemitic tropes and stereotypes? How are conspiratorial fears about Jewish invisibility and global control related to the emergence of finance capitalism? And what can history teach us about how to confront antisemitism today? Josh and Ray ask historian Francesca Trivellato from the Institute for Advanced Study, editor of Jews in Early Modern Europe (forthcoming), in a program recorded live at the Stanford Humanities Center.
&#160;]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/HetyxHO6z3Q.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Scandalous Truth about Memoir</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/scandalous-truth-about-memoir/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 29 May 2022 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/scandalous-truth-about-memoir/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[A memoir is a personal narrative written about a pivotal time in the author’s life. While the story is told from a particular perspective, the events recounted are supposed to be fact, not fiction. But what exactly counts as truth in memoir? Is the distinction between “literal truth” and “emotional truth” just a way of shirking responsibility for fabricating falsehoods? What other ethical responsibilities does the memoirist have—for example, when it comes to exposing other people’s secrets? And why should anyone read—or write—memoirs in the first place? Josh and Ray take a trip down memory lane with Helena de Bres from Wellesley College, author of Artful Truths: The Philosophy of Memoir.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[A memoir is a personal narrative written about a pivotal time in the author’s life. While the story is told from a particular perspective, the events recounted are supposed to be fact, not fiction. But what exactly counts as truth in memoir? Is the disti]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[A memoir is a personal narrative written about a pivotal time in the author’s life. While the story is told from a particular perspective, the events recounted are supposed to be fact, not fiction. But what exactly counts as truth in memoir? Is the distinction between “literal truth” and “emotional truth” just a way of shirking responsibility for fabricating falsehoods? What other ethical responsibilities does the memoirist have—for example, when it comes to exposing other people’s secrets? And why should anyone read—or write—memoirs in the first place? Josh and Ray take a trip down memory lane with Helena de Bres from Wellesley College, author of Artful Truths: The Philosophy of Memoir.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/630/scandalous-truth-about-memoir.mp3" length="48986906" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[A memoir is a personal narrative written about a pivotal time in the author’s life. While the story is told from a particular perspective, the events recounted are supposed to be fact, not fiction. But what exactly counts as truth in memoir? Is the distinction between “literal truth” and “emotional truth” just a way of shirking responsibility for fabricating falsehoods? What other ethical responsibilities does the memoirist have—for example, when it comes to exposing other people’s secrets? And why should anyone read—or write—memoirs in the first place? Josh and Ray take a trip down memory lane with Helena de Bres from Wellesley College, author of Artful Truths: The Philosophy of Memoir.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/SNAJPTlWvFc.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[A memoir is a personal narrative written about a pivotal time in the author’s life. While the story is told from a particular perspective, the events recounted are supposed to be fact, not fiction. But what exactly counts as truth in memoir? Is the distinction between “literal truth” and “emotional truth” just a way of shirking responsibility for fabricating falsehoods? What other ethical responsibilities does the memoirist have—for example, when it comes to exposing other people’s secrets? And why should anyone read—or write—memoirs in the first place? Josh and Ray take a trip down memory lane with Helena de Bres from Wellesley College, author of Artful Truths: The Philosophy of Memoir.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/SNAJPTlWvFc.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>What Is Ideology?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/what-ideology/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 08 May 2022 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/what-ideology/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Political polarization seems to be deepening, both in the U.S. and around the globe. Some believe that the rise of ideology is to blame for growing polarization. But can increased polarization really be attributed to ideology? What is exactly is ideology, and how is it different from dogma? Is ideology a kind of political or philosophical thinking? And how might our understanding of ideology affect how we practice politics? Josh and Ray ideate with Marius Ostrowski from the European University Institute, author of Ideology (Key Concepts).]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Political polarization seems to be deepening, both in the U.S. and around the globe. Some believe that the rise of ideology is to blame for growing polarization. But can increased polarization really be attributed to ideology? What is exactly is ideology]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Political polarization seems to be deepening, both in the U.S. and around the globe. Some believe that the rise of ideology is to blame for growing polarization. But can increased polarization really be attributed to ideology? What is exactly is ideology, and how is it different from dogma? Is ideology a kind of political or philosophical thinking? And how might our understanding of ideology affect how we practice politics? Josh and Ray ideate with Marius Ostrowski from the European University Institute, author of Ideology (Key Concepts).]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/628/what-ideology.mp3" length="48726935" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Political polarization seems to be deepening, both in the U.S. and around the globe. Some believe that the rise of ideology is to blame for growing polarization. But can increased polarization really be attributed to ideology? What is exactly is ideology, and how is it different from dogma? Is ideology a kind of political or philosophical thinking? And how might our understanding of ideology affect how we practice politics? Josh and Ray ideate with Marius Ostrowski from the European University Institute, author of Ideology (Key Concepts).]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/gccOND2mXQg.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Political polarization seems to be deepening, both in the U.S. and around the globe. Some believe that the rise of ideology is to blame for growing polarization. But can increased polarization really be attributed to ideology? What is exactly is ideology, and how is it different from dogma? Is ideology a kind of political or philosophical thinking? And how might our understanding of ideology affect how we practice politics? Josh and Ray ideate with Marius Ostrowski from the European University Institute, author of Ideology (Key Concepts).]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/gccOND2mXQg.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>What Would Kant Do?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/what-would-kant-do/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 17 Apr 2022 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/what-would-kant-do/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[German idealist and moral philosopher Immanuel Kant is probably best known for his &#8220;Categorical Imperative,&#8221; which says that you should act following moral rules you could rationally support as universal law. In other words, do only what you would have everyone else do. But are Kant&#8217;s rules really a good guide to action? Does he have anything to say about things people confront in everyday life, like friendship, manners, or gossip? Is Kant overly optimistic about our capacity to use reason and choose freely? Or was he right that rationality is the key to moral progress? Josh and Ray do right by Karen Stohr from Georgetown University, author of Choosing Freedom: A Kantian Guide to Life.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[German idealist and moral philosopher Immanuel Kant is probably best known for his &#8220;Categorical Imperative,&#8221; which says that you should act following moral rules you could rationally support as universal law. In other words, do only what you ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[German idealist and moral philosopher Immanuel Kant is probably best known for his &#8220;Categorical Imperative,&#8221; which says that you should act following moral rules you could rationally support as universal law. In other words, do only what you would have everyone else do. But are Kant&#8217;s rules really a good guide to action? Does he have anything to say about things people confront in everyday life, like friendship, manners, or gossip? Is Kant overly optimistic about our capacity to use reason and choose freely? Or was he right that rationality is the key to moral progress? Josh and Ray do right by Karen Stohr from Georgetown University, author of Choosing Freedom: A Kantian Guide to Life.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/626/what-would-kant-do.mp3" length="49240189" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[German idealist and moral philosopher Immanuel Kant is probably best known for his &#8220;Categorical Imperative,&#8221; which says that you should act following moral rules you could rationally support as universal law. In other words, do only what you would have everyone else do. But are Kant&#8217;s rules really a good guide to action? Does he have anything to say about things people confront in everyday life, like friendship, manners, or gossip? Is Kant overly optimistic about our capacity to use reason and choose freely? Or was he right that rationality is the key to moral progress? Josh and Ray do right by Karen Stohr from Georgetown University, author of Choosing Freedom: A Kantian Guide to Life.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/3NmprLta7ek.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[German idealist and moral philosopher Immanuel Kant is probably best known for his &#8220;Categorical Imperative,&#8221; which says that you should act following moral rules you could rationally support as universal law. In other words, do only what you would have everyone else do. But are Kant&#8217;s rules really a good guide to action? Does he have anything to say about things people confront in everyday life, like friendship, manners, or gossip? Is Kant overly optimistic about our capacity to use reason and choose freely? Or was he right that rationality is the key to moral progress? Josh and Ray do right by Karen Stohr from Georgetown University, author of Choosing Freedom: A Kantian Guide to Life.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/3NmprLta7ek.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Why Poetry Matters</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/why-poetry-matters/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 10 Apr 2022 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/why-poetry-matters/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Some people say they find poetry impenetrable. Yet readership is increasing: in a 2017 survey, the National Endowment for the Arts found that nearly 12% of adults in the US had read poetry in the last year. So what explains the enduring appeal of poetry as an art form? Are there any limits to who counts as a poet, or what counts as poetry? And what makes a poem good anyway? Josh and Ray wax lyrical with Nobel Prize-winning poet Louise Glück, author of American Originality: Essays on Poetry.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Some people say they find poetry impenetrable. Yet readership is increasing: in a 2017 survey, the National Endowment for the Arts found that nearly 12% of adults in the US had read poetry in the last year. So what explains the enduring appeal of poetry ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Some people say they find poetry impenetrable. Yet readership is increasing: in a 2017 survey, the National Endowment for the Arts found that nearly 12% of adults in the US had read poetry in the last year. So what explains the enduring appeal of poetry as an art form? Are there any limits to who counts as a poet, or what counts as poetry? And what makes a poem good anyway? Josh and Ray wax lyrical with Nobel Prize-winning poet Louise Glück, author of American Originality: Essays on Poetry.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/624/why-poetry-matters.mp3" length="48889103" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Some people say they find poetry impenetrable. Yet readership is increasing: in a 2017 survey, the National Endowment for the Arts found that nearly 12% of adults in the US had read poetry in the last year. So what explains the enduring appeal of poetry as an art form? Are there any limits to who counts as a poet, or what counts as poetry? And what makes a poem good anyway? Josh and Ray wax lyrical with Nobel Prize-winning poet Louise Glück, author of American Originality: Essays on Poetry.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/xl7we0dp4UM.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Some people say they find poetry impenetrable. Yet readership is increasing: in a 2017 survey, the National Endowment for the Arts found that nearly 12% of adults in the US had read poetry in the last year. So what explains the enduring appeal of poetry as an art form? Are there any limits to who counts as a poet, or what counts as poetry? And what makes a poem good anyway? Josh and Ray wax lyrical with Nobel Prize-winning poet Louise Glück, author of American Originality: Essays on Poetry.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/xl7we0dp4UM.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The 2022 Dionysus Awards</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/2022-dionysus-awards/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 20 Mar 2022 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/2022-dionysus-awards/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What recent movies artfully explored philosophical ideas and questions, or complicated political or ethical issues that previously seemed straightforward? Josh and guest co-host Jeremy Sabol present our annual Dionysus Awards for the most thought-provoking films of 2021, including:

Best Attempt to Redeem 80+ Years of Questionable Ethics
Best Film about Complicated Mothers Telling Uncomfortable Truths
Best Adapted Novel about Trauma, Marginalization, Self-Deception, and the Gap Between Appearance and Reality]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What recent movies artfully explored philosophical ideas and questions, or complicated political or ethical issues that previously seemed straightforward? Josh and guest co-host Jeremy Sabol present our annual Dionysus Awards for the most thought-provoki]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What recent movies artfully explored philosophical ideas and questions, or complicated political or ethical issues that previously seemed straightforward? Josh and guest co-host Jeremy Sabol present our annual Dionysus Awards for the most thought-provoking films of 2021, including:

Best Attempt to Redeem 80+ Years of Questionable Ethics
Best Film about Complicated Mothers Telling Uncomfortable Truths
Best Adapted Novel about Trauma, Marginalization, Self-Deception, and the Gap Between Appearance and Reality]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/622/2022-dionysus-awards.mp3" length="49957407" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What recent movies artfully explored philosophical ideas and questions, or complicated political or ethical issues that previously seemed straightforward? Josh and guest co-host Jeremy Sabol present our annual Dionysus Awards for the most thought-provoking films of 2021, including:

Best Attempt to Redeem 80+ Years of Questionable Ethics
Best Film about Complicated Mothers Telling Uncomfortable Truths
Best Adapted Novel about Trauma, Marginalization, Self-Deception, and the Gap Between Appearance and Reality]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/3vwYUSGAuZ8.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What recent movies artfully explored philosophical ideas and questions, or complicated political or ethical issues that previously seemed straightforward? Josh and guest co-host Jeremy Sabol present our annual Dionysus Awards for the most thought-provoking films of 2021, including:

Best Attempt to Redeem 80+ Years of Questionable Ethics
Best Film about Complicated Mothers Telling Uncomfortable Truths
Best Adapted Novel about Trauma, Marginalization, Self-Deception, and the Gap Between Appearance and Reality]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/3vwYUSGAuZ8.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>#MeToo: Retribution, Accountability, and Justice</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/metoo-retribution-accountability-and-justice/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 06 Mar 2022 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/metoo-retribution-accountability-and-justice/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The #MeToo movement exposed how pervasive sexual harassment and abuse are, and how rare it is for perpetrators to be held accountable. Although some recent high profile cases have resulted in convictions, more often punishment is meted out by public shaming. So why is it so difficult to hold sexual abusers legally responsible for their actions? Is social retribution a way to achieve some form of justice in lieu of criminal proceedings? And how do we strike the right balance between accountability for victims and due process for the accused? Josh and Ray tackle the issues with Janine Benedet from the UBC School of Law.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The #MeToo movement exposed how pervasive sexual harassment and abuse are, and how rare it is for perpetrators to be held accountable. Although some recent high profile cases have resulted in convictions, more often punishment is meted out by public sham]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The #MeToo movement exposed how pervasive sexual harassment and abuse are, and how rare it is for perpetrators to be held accountable. Although some recent high profile cases have resulted in convictions, more often punishment is meted out by public shaming. So why is it so difficult to hold sexual abusers legally responsible for their actions? Is social retribution a way to achieve some form of justice in lieu of criminal proceedings? And how do we strike the right balance between accountability for victims and due process for the accused? Josh and Ray tackle the issues with Janine Benedet from the UBC School of Law.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/597/metoo-retribution-accountability-and-justice.mp3" length="48737384" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The #MeToo movement exposed how pervasive sexual harassment and abuse are, and how rare it is for perpetrators to be held accountable. Although some recent high profile cases have resulted in convictions, more often punishment is meted out by public shaming. So why is it so difficult to hold sexual abusers legally responsible for their actions? Is social retribution a way to achieve some form of justice in lieu of criminal proceedings? And how do we strike the right balance between accountability for victims and due process for the accused? Josh and Ray tackle the issues with Janine Benedet from the UBC School of Law.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/38fGGk1iVtg.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The #MeToo movement exposed how pervasive sexual harassment and abuse are, and how rare it is for perpetrators to be held accountable. Although some recent high profile cases have resulted in convictions, more often punishment is meted out by public shaming. So why is it so difficult to hold sexual abusers legally responsible for their actions? Is social retribution a way to achieve some form of justice in lieu of criminal proceedings? And how do we strike the right balance between accountability for victims and due process for the accused? Josh and Ray tackle the issues with Janine Benedet from the UBC School of Law.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/38fGGk1iVtg.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Righteous Rage</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/righteous-rage/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 06 Feb 2022 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/righteous-rage/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Stoic philosopher Seneca wrote that anger is a form of madness. Other philosophers share this suspicion, viewing anger as a destructive emotion that leads to cruel and vengeful acts. But don&#8217;t certain kinds of injustice, like the murders of Black and Brown people in the US, deserve our rage? What&#8217;s the difference between righteous indignation and a destructive urge for revenge? And how can activists channel their anger toward political good? Josh and Ray keep their cool with Myisha Cherry from UC Riverside, author of The Case for Rage: Why Anger is Essential to Anti-racist Struggle.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Stoic philosopher Seneca wrote that anger is a form of madness. Other philosophers share this suspicion, viewing anger as a destructive emotion that leads to cruel and vengeful acts. But don&#8217;t certain kinds of injustice, like the murders of Black a]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Stoic philosopher Seneca wrote that anger is a form of madness. Other philosophers share this suspicion, viewing anger as a destructive emotion that leads to cruel and vengeful acts. But don&#8217;t certain kinds of injustice, like the murders of Black and Brown people in the US, deserve our rage? What&#8217;s the difference between righteous indignation and a destructive urge for revenge? And how can activists channel their anger toward political good? Josh and Ray keep their cool with Myisha Cherry from UC Riverside, author of The Case for Rage: Why Anger is Essential to Anti-racist Struggle.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/618/righteous-rage.mp3" length="49211768" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Stoic philosopher Seneca wrote that anger is a form of madness. Other philosophers share this suspicion, viewing anger as a destructive emotion that leads to cruel and vengeful acts. But don&#8217;t certain kinds of injustice, like the murders of Black and Brown people in the US, deserve our rage? What&#8217;s the difference between righteous indignation and a destructive urge for revenge? And how can activists channel their anger toward political good? Josh and Ray keep their cool with Myisha Cherry from UC Riverside, author of The Case for Rage: Why Anger is Essential to Anti-racist Struggle.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/u80iFoX8z5E.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Stoic philosopher Seneca wrote that anger is a form of madness. Other philosophers share this suspicion, viewing anger as a destructive emotion that leads to cruel and vengeful acts. But don&#8217;t certain kinds of injustice, like the murders of Black and Brown people in the US, deserve our rage? What&#8217;s the difference between righteous indignation and a destructive urge for revenge? And how can activists channel their anger toward political good? Josh and Ray keep their cool with Myisha Cherry from UC Riverside, author of The Case for Rage: Why Anger is Essential to Anti-racist Struggle.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/u80iFoX8z5E.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Marcus Aurelius</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/marcus-aurelius/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 30 Jan 2022 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/marcus-aurelius/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Marcus Aurelius was a 2nd century Roman emperor and Stoic philosopher. He is most famous for his Meditations, which was written as a private guide to himself on how to live a life where virtue is the only good and vice the only evil. So how do we figure out how to live a truly Stoic life? What’s the relationship between the wellbeing of an individual and the interest of the larger community? And what can we learn from Marcus about developing mental resilience when confronted with fear, suffering, or pain? Josh and Ray stay calm with Rachana Kamtekar from Cornell University, author of Plato&#8217;s Moral Psychology: Intellectualism, the Divided Soul, and the Desire for Good.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Marcus Aurelius was a 2nd century Roman emperor and Stoic philosopher. He is most famous for his Meditations, which was written as a private guide to himself on how to live a life where virtue is the only good and vice the only evil. So how do we figure ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Marcus Aurelius was a 2nd century Roman emperor and Stoic philosopher. He is most famous for his Meditations, which was written as a private guide to himself on how to live a life where virtue is the only good and vice the only evil. So how do we figure out how to live a truly Stoic life? What’s the relationship between the wellbeing of an individual and the interest of the larger community? And what can we learn from Marcus about developing mental resilience when confronted with fear, suffering, or pain? Josh and Ray stay calm with Rachana Kamtekar from Cornell University, author of Plato&#8217;s Moral Psychology: Intellectualism, the Divided Soul, and the Desire for Good.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/620/marcus-aurelius.mp3" length="48492460" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Marcus Aurelius was a 2nd century Roman emperor and Stoic philosopher. He is most famous for his Meditations, which was written as a private guide to himself on how to live a life where virtue is the only good and vice the only evil. So how do we figure out how to live a truly Stoic life? What’s the relationship between the wellbeing of an individual and the interest of the larger community? And what can we learn from Marcus about developing mental resilience when confronted with fear, suffering, or pain? Josh and Ray stay calm with Rachana Kamtekar from Cornell University, author of Plato&#8217;s Moral Psychology: Intellectualism, the Divided Soul, and the Desire for Good.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/rjP5zpZw5j0.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Marcus Aurelius was a 2nd century Roman emperor and Stoic philosopher. He is most famous for his Meditations, which was written as a private guide to himself on how to live a life where virtue is the only good and vice the only evil. So how do we figure out how to live a truly Stoic life? What’s the relationship between the wellbeing of an individual and the interest of the larger community? And what can we learn from Marcus about developing mental resilience when confronted with fear, suffering, or pain? Josh and Ray stay calm with Rachana Kamtekar from Cornell University, author of Plato&#8217;s Moral Psychology: Intellectualism, the Divided Soul, and the Desire for Good.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/rjP5zpZw5j0.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Could Robots Be Persons?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/could-robots-be-persons/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 09 Jan 2022 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/could-robots-be-persons/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[As we approach the advent of autonomous robots, we must decide how we will determine culpability for their actions. Some propose creating a new legal category of “electronic personhood” for any sufficiently advanced robot that can learn and make decisions by itself. But do we really want to assign artificial intelligence legal—or moral—rights and responsibilities? Would it be ethical to produce and sell something with the status of a person in the first place? Does designing machines that look and act like humans lead us to misplace our empathy? Or should we be kind to robots lest we become unkind to our fellow human beings? Josh and Ray do the robot with Joanna Bryson, Professor of Ethics and Technology at the Hertie School of Governance, and author of &#8220;The Artificial Intelligence of the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: An Introductory Overview for Law and Regulation.&#8221;
Part of our series The Human and the Machine.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[As we approach the advent of autonomous robots, we must decide how we will determine culpability for their actions. Some propose creating a new legal category of “electronic personhood” for any sufficiently advanced robot that can learn and make decision]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[As we approach the advent of autonomous robots, we must decide how we will determine culpability for their actions. Some propose creating a new legal category of “electronic personhood” for any sufficiently advanced robot that can learn and make decisions by itself. But do we really want to assign artificial intelligence legal—or moral—rights and responsibilities? Would it be ethical to produce and sell something with the status of a person in the first place? Does designing machines that look and act like humans lead us to misplace our empathy? Or should we be kind to robots lest we become unkind to our fellow human beings? Josh and Ray do the robot with Joanna Bryson, Professor of Ethics and Technology at the Hertie School of Governance, and author of &#8220;The Artificial Intelligence of the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: An Introductory Overview for Law and Regulation.&#8221;
Part of our series The Human and the Machine.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/608/could-robots-be-persons.mp3" length="52160470" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[As we approach the advent of autonomous robots, we must decide how we will determine culpability for their actions. Some propose creating a new legal category of “electronic personhood” for any sufficiently advanced robot that can learn and make decisions by itself. But do we really want to assign artificial intelligence legal—or moral—rights and responsibilities? Would it be ethical to produce and sell something with the status of a person in the first place? Does designing machines that look and act like humans lead us to misplace our empathy? Or should we be kind to robots lest we become unkind to our fellow human beings? Josh and Ray do the robot with Joanna Bryson, Professor of Ethics and Technology at the Hertie School of Governance, and author of &#8220;The Artificial Intelligence of the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: An Introductory Overview for Law and Regulation.&#8221;
Part of our series The Human and the Machine.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/SNAqOiTRVrs.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[As we approach the advent of autonomous robots, we must decide how we will determine culpability for their actions. Some propose creating a new legal category of “electronic personhood” for any sufficiently advanced robot that can learn and make decisions by itself. But do we really want to assign artificial intelligence legal—or moral—rights and responsibilities? Would it be ethical to produce and sell something with the status of a person in the first place? Does designing machines that look and act like humans lead us to misplace our empathy? Or should we be kind to robots lest we become unkind to our fellow human beings? Josh and Ray do the robot with Joanna Bryson, Professor of Ethics and Technology at the Hertie School of Governance, and author of &#8220;The Artificial Intelligence of the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: An Introductory Overview for Law and Regulation.&#8221;
Part of our series The Human and the Machine.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/SNAqOiTRVrs.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Examined Year: 2021</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/examined-year-2021/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 26 Dec 2021 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/examined-year-2021/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What happened over the past 12 months that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways?

The Year in Political Insurrection with former co-host and current Stanford Dean Debra Satz
The Year in Space Tourism with Brian Green from Santa Clara University, author of Space Ethics
The Year in the Post-Pandemic Workplace with Quill Kukla from Georgetown University, author of City Living: How Urban Spaces and Urban Dwellers Make One Another

&#8230;because the un-examined year is not worth reviewing!]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What happened over the past 12 months that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways?

The Year in Political Insurrection with former co-host and current Stanford Dean Debra Satz
The Year in Space Tourism with Brian Green from]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What happened over the past 12 months that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways?

The Year in Political Insurrection with former co-host and current Stanford Dean Debra Satz
The Year in Space Tourism with Brian Green from Santa Clara University, author of Space Ethics
The Year in the Post-Pandemic Workplace with Quill Kukla from Georgetown University, author of City Living: How Urban Spaces and Urban Dwellers Make One Another

&#8230;because the un-examined year is not worth reviewing!]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/616/examined-year-2021.mp3" length="100937142" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What happened over the past 12 months that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways?

The Year in Political Insurrection with former co-host and current Stanford Dean Debra Satz
The Year in Space Tourism with Brian Green from Santa Clara University, author of Space Ethics
The Year in the Post-Pandemic Workplace with Quill Kukla from Georgetown University, author of City Living: How Urban Spaces and Urban Dwellers Make One Another

&#8230;because the un-examined year is not worth reviewing!]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Wf0qJ7bS8GI.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What happened over the past 12 months that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways?

The Year in Political Insurrection with former co-host and current Stanford Dean Debra Satz
The Year in Space Tourism with Brian Green from Santa Clara University, author of Space Ethics
The Year in the Post-Pandemic Workplace with Quill Kukla from Georgetown University, author of City Living: How Urban Spaces and Urban Dwellers Make One Another

&#8230;because the un-examined year is not worth reviewing!]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Wf0qJ7bS8GI.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>What Can Virtual Reality (Actually) Do?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/what-can-virtual-reality-actually-do/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Dec 2021 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/what-can-virtual-reality-actually-do/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[VR transports users into all kinds of different realities, some modeled on the real world, others completely invented. Though still in its infancy, the technology has become so sophisticated, it can trick the brain into treating the virtual experience as real and unmediated. So what is the most prudent way to employ this cutting edge technology going forward? Could VR help solve real world problems, like implicit bias or the climate crisis? And as the technology becomes more widely available, are there potential dangers we ought to be seriously thinking about? Josh and Ray strap on their goggles with Jeremy Bailenson, Director of the Virtual Human Interaction Lab at Stanford, and author of Experience on Demand: What Virtual Reality Is, How It Works, and What It Can Do.
Part of our series The Human and the Machine.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[VR transports users into all kinds of different realities, some modeled on the real world, others completely invented. Though still in its infancy, the technology has become so sophisticated, it can trick the brain into treating the virtual experience as]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[VR transports users into all kinds of different realities, some modeled on the real world, others completely invented. Though still in its infancy, the technology has become so sophisticated, it can trick the brain into treating the virtual experience as real and unmediated. So what is the most prudent way to employ this cutting edge technology going forward? Could VR help solve real world problems, like implicit bias or the climate crisis? And as the technology becomes more widely available, are there potential dangers we ought to be seriously thinking about? Josh and Ray strap on their goggles with Jeremy Bailenson, Director of the Virtual Human Interaction Lab at Stanford, and author of Experience on Demand: What Virtual Reality Is, How It Works, and What It Can Do.
Part of our series The Human and the Machine.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/606/what-can-virtual-reality-actually-do.mp3" length="49054197" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[VR transports users into all kinds of different realities, some modeled on the real world, others completely invented. Though still in its infancy, the technology has become so sophisticated, it can trick the brain into treating the virtual experience as real and unmediated. So what is the most prudent way to employ this cutting edge technology going forward? Could VR help solve real world problems, like implicit bias or the climate crisis? And as the technology becomes more widely available, are there potential dangers we ought to be seriously thinking about? Josh and Ray strap on their goggles with Jeremy Bailenson, Director of the Virtual Human Interaction Lab at Stanford, and author of Experience on Demand: What Virtual Reality Is, How It Works, and What It Can Do.
Part of our series The Human and the Machine.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/7fZfry7DRG8.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[VR transports users into all kinds of different realities, some modeled on the real world, others completely invented. Though still in its infancy, the technology has become so sophisticated, it can trick the brain into treating the virtual experience as real and unmediated. So what is the most prudent way to employ this cutting edge technology going forward? Could VR help solve real world problems, like implicit bias or the climate crisis? And as the technology becomes more widely available, are there potential dangers we ought to be seriously thinking about? Josh and Ray strap on their goggles with Jeremy Bailenson, Director of the Virtual Human Interaction Lab at Stanford, and author of Experience on Demand: What Virtual Reality Is, How It Works, and What It Can Do.
Part of our series The Human and the Machine.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/7fZfry7DRG8.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Should All Ages Be Equal?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/should-all-ages-be-equal/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 28 Nov 2021 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/should-all-ages-be-equal/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Age determines a lot about your position in society—what activities you can do, what benefits you can access, and what rights and responsibilities you have. While it seems appropriate to treat people at different stages of life differently, we also consider certain kinds of unequal treatment unjust. So when should we treat people of different ages differently? And when does it become ageism or age discrimination? When does a disadvantage for an age group turn into injustice against a generation? Josh and Ray act their age with Juliana Bidadanure from Stanford University, author of Justice Across Ages: Treating Young and Old as Equals.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Age determines a lot about your position in society—what activities you can do, what benefits you can access, and what rights and responsibilities you have. While it seems appropriate to treat people at different stages of life differently, we also consi]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Age determines a lot about your position in society—what activities you can do, what benefits you can access, and what rights and responsibilities you have. While it seems appropriate to treat people at different stages of life differently, we also consider certain kinds of unequal treatment unjust. So when should we treat people of different ages differently? And when does it become ageism or age discrimination? When does a disadvantage for an age group turn into injustice against a generation? Josh and Ray act their age with Juliana Bidadanure from Stanford University, author of Justice Across Ages: Treating Young and Old as Equals.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/614/should-all-ages-be-equal.mp3" length="48531330" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Age determines a lot about your position in society—what activities you can do, what benefits you can access, and what rights and responsibilities you have. While it seems appropriate to treat people at different stages of life differently, we also consider certain kinds of unequal treatment unjust. So when should we treat people of different ages differently? And when does it become ageism or age discrimination? When does a disadvantage for an age group turn into injustice against a generation? Josh and Ray act their age with Juliana Bidadanure from Stanford University, author of Justice Across Ages: Treating Young and Old as Equals.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/vK-Qqx7WUsE.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Age determines a lot about your position in society—what activities you can do, what benefits you can access, and what rights and responsibilities you have. While it seems appropriate to treat people at different stages of life differently, we also consider certain kinds of unequal treatment unjust. So when should we treat people of different ages differently? And when does it become ageism or age discrimination? When does a disadvantage for an age group turn into injustice against a generation? Josh and Ray act their age with Juliana Bidadanure from Stanford University, author of Justice Across Ages: Treating Young and Old as Equals.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/vK-Qqx7WUsE.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Social Lives of Robots</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/social-lives-robots/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 14 Nov 2021 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/social-lives-robots/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Machines might surpass humans in terms of computational intelligence, but when it comes to social intelligence, they’re not very sophisticated. They have difficulty reading subtle cues—like body language, eye gaze, or facial expression—that we pick up on automatically. As robots integrate more and more into human life, how will they figure out the codes for appropriate behavior in different contexts? Can social intelligence be learned via an algorithm? And how do we design socially smart robots to be of special assistance to children, older adults, and people with disabilities? Josh and Ray read the room with Elaine Short from Tufts University, co-author of more than 20 papers on human-robot interaction, including &#8220;No fair!! An interaction with a cheating robot.&#8221;
Part of our series The Human and the Machine.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Machines might surpass humans in terms of computational intelligence, but when it comes to social intelligence, they’re not very sophisticated. They have difficulty reading subtle cues—like body language, eye gaze, or facial expression—that we pick up on]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Machines might surpass humans in terms of computational intelligence, but when it comes to social intelligence, they’re not very sophisticated. They have difficulty reading subtle cues—like body language, eye gaze, or facial expression—that we pick up on automatically. As robots integrate more and more into human life, how will they figure out the codes for appropriate behavior in different contexts? Can social intelligence be learned via an algorithm? And how do we design socially smart robots to be of special assistance to children, older adults, and people with disabilities? Josh and Ray read the room with Elaine Short from Tufts University, co-author of more than 20 papers on human-robot interaction, including &#8220;No fair!! An interaction with a cheating robot.&#8221;
Part of our series The Human and the Machine.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/604/social-lives-robots.mp3" length="48790721" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Machines might surpass humans in terms of computational intelligence, but when it comes to social intelligence, they’re not very sophisticated. They have difficulty reading subtle cues—like body language, eye gaze, or facial expression—that we pick up on automatically. As robots integrate more and more into human life, how will they figure out the codes for appropriate behavior in different contexts? Can social intelligence be learned via an algorithm? And how do we design socially smart robots to be of special assistance to children, older adults, and people with disabilities? Josh and Ray read the room with Elaine Short from Tufts University, co-author of more than 20 papers on human-robot interaction, including &#8220;No fair!! An interaction with a cheating robot.&#8221;
Part of our series The Human and the Machine.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/sU7BTEHDnmw.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Machines might surpass humans in terms of computational intelligence, but when it comes to social intelligence, they’re not very sophisticated. They have difficulty reading subtle cues—like body language, eye gaze, or facial expression—that we pick up on automatically. As robots integrate more and more into human life, how will they figure out the codes for appropriate behavior in different contexts? Can social intelligence be learned via an algorithm? And how do we design socially smart robots to be of special assistance to children, older adults, and people with disabilities? Josh and Ray read the room with Elaine Short from Tufts University, co-author of more than 20 papers on human-robot interaction, including &#8220;No fair!! An interaction with a cheating robot.&#8221;
Part of our series The Human and the Machine.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/sU7BTEHDnmw.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Frege and the Language of Reason</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/frege-and-language-reason/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 07 Nov 2021 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/frege-and-language-reason/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[At the end of the 19th Century, the German philosopher Gottlob Frege invented a new language, based on mathematics, designed to help people reason more logically. His ideas have had a lasting impact on philosophy, math, computer science, and the study of artificial intelligence. And many of the questions that influenced his thinking are still hotly debated today: How much does language influence the thoughts you can think? Could there be a way of speaking that taps into deep philosophical insights about the nature of reality? What&#8217;s the relationship between math and logic? Josh and Ray try to make sense of Frege with host emeritus John Perry, author of Frege&#8217;s Detour: An Essay on Meaning, Reference, and Truth.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[At the end of the 19th Century, the German philosopher Gottlob Frege invented a new language, based on mathematics, designed to help people reason more logically. His ideas have had a lasting impact on philosophy, math, computer science, and the study of]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[At the end of the 19th Century, the German philosopher Gottlob Frege invented a new language, based on mathematics, designed to help people reason more logically. His ideas have had a lasting impact on philosophy, math, computer science, and the study of artificial intelligence. And many of the questions that influenced his thinking are still hotly debated today: How much does language influence the thoughts you can think? Could there be a way of speaking that taps into deep philosophical insights about the nature of reality? What&#8217;s the relationship between math and logic? Josh and Ray try to make sense of Frege with host emeritus John Perry, author of Frege&#8217;s Detour: An Essay on Meaning, Reference, and Truth.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/612/frege-and-language-reason.mp3" length="48124912" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[At the end of the 19th Century, the German philosopher Gottlob Frege invented a new language, based on mathematics, designed to help people reason more logically. His ideas have had a lasting impact on philosophy, math, computer science, and the study of artificial intelligence. And many of the questions that influenced his thinking are still hotly debated today: How much does language influence the thoughts you can think? Could there be a way of speaking that taps into deep philosophical insights about the nature of reality? What&#8217;s the relationship between math and logic? Josh and Ray try to make sense of Frege with host emeritus John Perry, author of Frege&#8217;s Detour: An Essay on Meaning, Reference, and Truth.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/R1hn0gWKxQk-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[At the end of the 19th Century, the German philosopher Gottlob Frege invented a new language, based on mathematics, designed to help people reason more logically. His ideas have had a lasting impact on philosophy, math, computer science, and the study of artificial intelligence. And many of the questions that influenced his thinking are still hotly debated today: How much does language influence the thoughts you can think? Could there be a way of speaking that taps into deep philosophical insights about the nature of reality? What&#8217;s the relationship between math and logic? Josh and Ray try to make sense of Frege with host emeritus John Perry, author of Frege&#8217;s Detour: An Essay on Meaning, Reference, and Truth.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/R1hn0gWKxQk-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Akan Philosophy and Personhood</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/akan-philosophy/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 24 Oct 2021 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/akan-philosophy/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The Akan people of West Africa have developed a system of metaphysics, epistemology, and moral philosophy with a special focus on personhood. For the Akan, their conception of a person is not just a matter of theoretical interest—it has far reaching practical implications for their social institutions and communal practices. So what exactly is the Akan notion of personhood, and how is it rooted in Akan traditional culture? How does the Akan emphasis on the social nature of personhood promote trust, cooperation, and a sense of responsibility to the community? And can this communal perspective help restore cultural identity in a postcolonial Africa? Josh and Ray get personal with Ajume Wingo from the University of Colorado Boulder, author of Veil Politics in Liberal Democratic States.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The Akan people of West Africa have developed a system of metaphysics, epistemology, and moral philosophy with a special focus on personhood. For the Akan, their conception of a person is not just a matter of theoretical interest—it has far reaching prac]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The Akan people of West Africa have developed a system of metaphysics, epistemology, and moral philosophy with a special focus on personhood. For the Akan, their conception of a person is not just a matter of theoretical interest—it has far reaching practical implications for their social institutions and communal practices. So what exactly is the Akan notion of personhood, and how is it rooted in Akan traditional culture? How does the Akan emphasis on the social nature of personhood promote trust, cooperation, and a sense of responsibility to the community? And can this communal perspective help restore cultural identity in a postcolonial Africa? Josh and Ray get personal with Ajume Wingo from the University of Colorado Boulder, author of Veil Politics in Liberal Democratic States.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/610/akan-philosophy.mp3" length="49098919" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The Akan people of West Africa have developed a system of metaphysics, epistemology, and moral philosophy with a special focus on personhood. For the Akan, their conception of a person is not just a matter of theoretical interest—it has far reaching practical implications for their social institutions and communal practices. So what exactly is the Akan notion of personhood, and how is it rooted in Akan traditional culture? How does the Akan emphasis on the social nature of personhood promote trust, cooperation, and a sense of responsibility to the community? And can this communal perspective help restore cultural identity in a postcolonial Africa? Josh and Ray get personal with Ajume Wingo from the University of Colorado Boulder, author of Veil Politics in Liberal Democratic States.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/v-qQAGQEjcI.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The Akan people of West Africa have developed a system of metaphysics, epistemology, and moral philosophy with a special focus on personhood. For the Akan, their conception of a person is not just a matter of theoretical interest—it has far reaching practical implications for their social institutions and communal practices. So what exactly is the Akan notion of personhood, and how is it rooted in Akan traditional culture? How does the Akan emphasis on the social nature of personhood promote trust, cooperation, and a sense of responsibility to the community? And can this communal perspective help restore cultural identity in a postcolonial Africa? Josh and Ray get personal with Ajume Wingo from the University of Colorado Boulder, author of Veil Politics in Liberal Democratic States.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/v-qQAGQEjcI.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Mysterious Timelessness of Math</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/mysterious-timelessness-math/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 10 Oct 2021 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/mysterious-timelessness-math/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Math is a really useful subject—at least, that&#8217;s what your parents and teachers told you. But math also leads to scenarios, like Zeno&#8217;s paradoxes, that seem to inspire skepticism. So why do we believe in math and rely on it to build bridges and spaceships? How can anyone discover the secrets of the universe by simply scribbling numbers on a piece of paper? Is math some kind of magic, or does it have a more ordinary explanation? And could math be culturally relative, or are its concepts timeless and universal? Josh and Ray add things up with Arezoo Islami from SF State University.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Math is a really useful subject—at least, that&#8217;s what your parents and teachers told you. But math also leads to scenarios, like Zeno&#8217;s paradoxes, that seem to inspire skepticism. So why do we believe in math and rely on it to build bridges a]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Math is a really useful subject—at least, that&#8217;s what your parents and teachers told you. But math also leads to scenarios, like Zeno&#8217;s paradoxes, that seem to inspire skepticism. So why do we believe in math and rely on it to build bridges and spaceships? How can anyone discover the secrets of the universe by simply scribbling numbers on a piece of paper? Is math some kind of magic, or does it have a more ordinary explanation? And could math be culturally relative, or are its concepts timeless and universal? Josh and Ray add things up with Arezoo Islami from SF State University.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/602/mysterious-timelessness-math.mp3" length="49110042" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Math is a really useful subject—at least, that&#8217;s what your parents and teachers told you. But math also leads to scenarios, like Zeno&#8217;s paradoxes, that seem to inspire skepticism. So why do we believe in math and rely on it to build bridges and spaceships? How can anyone discover the secrets of the universe by simply scribbling numbers on a piece of paper? Is math some kind of magic, or does it have a more ordinary explanation? And could math be culturally relative, or are its concepts timeless and universal? Josh and Ray add things up with Arezoo Islami from SF State University.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/iEX31Q2OB-A.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Math is a really useful subject—at least, that&#8217;s what your parents and teachers told you. But math also leads to scenarios, like Zeno&#8217;s paradoxes, that seem to inspire skepticism. So why do we believe in math and rely on it to build bridges and spaceships? How can anyone discover the secrets of the universe by simply scribbling numbers on a piece of paper? Is math some kind of magic, or does it have a more ordinary explanation? And could math be culturally relative, or are its concepts timeless and universal? Josh and Ray add things up with Arezoo Islami from SF State University.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/iEX31Q2OB-A.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Ethics of Awesomeness</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/ethics-awesomeness/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 29 Aug 2021 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/ethics-awesomeness/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The word “awesome” once meant inspiring extreme fear or dread. Nowadays it’s mostly used as a general purpose exclamation of approval. So when we describe a person as awesome, are we saying that they exemplify some general form of excellence? Or are awesome people those who break specific social norms to generate moments of creative expression and social connection? Would the world be a better place if we all aimed to be more awesome and less sucky? Josh and Ray stand in awe of Nick Riggle from the University of San Diego, author of On Being Awesome: A Unified Theory of How Not to Suck.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The word “awesome” once meant inspiring extreme fear or dread. Nowadays it’s mostly used as a general purpose exclamation of approval. So when we describe a person as awesome, are we saying that they exemplify some general form of excellence? Or are awes]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The word “awesome” once meant inspiring extreme fear or dread. Nowadays it’s mostly used as a general purpose exclamation of approval. So when we describe a person as awesome, are we saying that they exemplify some general form of excellence? Or are awesome people those who break specific social norms to generate moments of creative expression and social connection? Would the world be a better place if we all aimed to be more awesome and less sucky? Josh and Ray stand in awe of Nick Riggle from the University of San Diego, author of On Being Awesome: A Unified Theory of How Not to Suck.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/595/ethics-awesomeness.mp3" length="49430778" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The word “awesome” once meant inspiring extreme fear or dread. Nowadays it’s mostly used as a general purpose exclamation of approval. So when we describe a person as awesome, are we saying that they exemplify some general form of excellence? Or are awesome people those who break specific social norms to generate moments of creative expression and social connection? Would the world be a better place if we all aimed to be more awesome and less sucky? Josh and Ray stand in awe of Nick Riggle from the University of San Diego, author of On Being Awesome: A Unified Theory of How Not to Suck.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/M44zkscGZHw-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The word “awesome” once meant inspiring extreme fear or dread. Nowadays it’s mostly used as a general purpose exclamation of approval. So when we describe a person as awesome, are we saying that they exemplify some general form of excellence? Or are awesome people those who break specific social norms to generate moments of creative expression and social connection? Would the world be a better place if we all aimed to be more awesome and less sucky? Josh and Ray stand in awe of Nick Riggle from the University of San Diego, author of On Being Awesome: A Unified Theory of How Not to Suck.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/M44zkscGZHw-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Microaggressions</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/microaggressions/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 15 Aug 2021 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/microaggressions/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Microaggressions are small comments or questions that may be insulting or hurtful to another person because of their race, gender, sexuality, and so on. Some people consider microaggressions to be a phantom symptom of political correctness and a further sign that society has become “soft,” while others see them as a problematic way of normalizing bigotry. So how do microagressions compare to other types of moral harms? Do they add up to structural oppression, and if so, how are we to assign individual culpability? Josh and Ray engage calmly with Lauren Freeman from the University of Louisville, co-editor of Microaggressions and Philosophy.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Microaggressions are small comments or questions that may be insulting or hurtful to another person because of their race, gender, sexuality, and so on. Some people consider microaggressions to be a phantom symptom of political correctness and a further ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Microaggressions are small comments or questions that may be insulting or hurtful to another person because of their race, gender, sexuality, and so on. Some people consider microaggressions to be a phantom symptom of political correctness and a further sign that society has become “soft,” while others see them as a problematic way of normalizing bigotry. So how do microagressions compare to other types of moral harms? Do they add up to structural oppression, and if so, how are we to assign individual culpability? Josh and Ray engage calmly with Lauren Freeman from the University of Louisville, co-editor of Microaggressions and Philosophy.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/593/microaggressions.mp3" length="49613844" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Microaggressions are small comments or questions that may be insulting or hurtful to another person because of their race, gender, sexuality, and so on. Some people consider microaggressions to be a phantom symptom of political correctness and a further sign that society has become “soft,” while others see them as a problematic way of normalizing bigotry. So how do microagressions compare to other types of moral harms? Do they add up to structural oppression, and if so, how are we to assign individual culpability? Josh and Ray engage calmly with Lauren Freeman from the University of Louisville, co-editor of Microaggressions and Philosophy.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/AmTLQ2QAS3Q-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Microaggressions are small comments or questions that may be insulting or hurtful to another person because of their race, gender, sexuality, and so on. Some people consider microaggressions to be a phantom symptom of political correctness and a further sign that society has become “soft,” while others see them as a problematic way of normalizing bigotry. So how do microagressions compare to other types of moral harms? Do they add up to structural oppression, and if so, how are we to assign individual culpability? Josh and Ray engage calmly with Lauren Freeman from the University of Louisville, co-editor of Microaggressions and Philosophy.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/AmTLQ2QAS3Q-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Referring to the World: Ken&#8217;s Final Work</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/referring-world-kens-final-work/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 25 Jul 2021 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/referring-world-kens-final-work/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[On December 2, 2019, Ken Taylor announced that he finally had “an almost complete draft” of a book he had been writing for years. “I think I&#8217;ll pour a glass of wine to mark the occasion, before plunging back into the work that is still to be done,” he wrote. Tragically and unexpectedly, he died later that same day. Thanks to the hard work and dedication of some colleagues, his book, Referring to the World: An Opinionated Introduction to the Theory of Reference, has just been published. In this special episode, Josh and Ray discuss Ken’s ideas about reference with USC philosopher Robin Jeshion, who helped bring the book to fruition.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[On December 2, 2019, Ken Taylor announced that he finally had “an almost complete draft” of a book he had been writing for years. “I think I&#8217;ll pour a glass of wine to mark the occasion, before plunging back into the work that is still to be done,”]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[On December 2, 2019, Ken Taylor announced that he finally had “an almost complete draft” of a book he had been writing for years. “I think I&#8217;ll pour a glass of wine to mark the occasion, before plunging back into the work that is still to be done,” he wrote. Tragically and unexpectedly, he died later that same day. Thanks to the hard work and dedication of some colleagues, his book, Referring to the World: An Opinionated Introduction to the Theory of Reference, has just been published. In this special episode, Josh and Ray discuss Ken’s ideas about reference with USC philosopher Robin Jeshion, who helped bring the book to fruition.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/591/referring-world-kens-final-work.mp3" length="48808437" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[On December 2, 2019, Ken Taylor announced that he finally had “an almost complete draft” of a book he had been writing for years. “I think I&#8217;ll pour a glass of wine to mark the occasion, before plunging back into the work that is still to be done,” he wrote. Tragically and unexpectedly, he died later that same day. Thanks to the hard work and dedication of some colleagues, his book, Referring to the World: An Opinionated Introduction to the Theory of Reference, has just been published. In this special episode, Josh and Ray discuss Ken’s ideas about reference with USC philosopher Robin Jeshion, who helped bring the book to fruition.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/evw7YVlUVtI.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[On December 2, 2019, Ken Taylor announced that he finally had “an almost complete draft” of a book he had been writing for years. “I think I&#8217;ll pour a glass of wine to mark the occasion, before plunging back into the work that is still to be done,” he wrote. Tragically and unexpectedly, he died later that same day. Thanks to the hard work and dedication of some colleagues, his book, Referring to the World: An Opinionated Introduction to the Theory of Reference, has just been published. In this special episode, Josh and Ray discuss Ken’s ideas about reference with USC philosopher Robin Jeshion, who helped bring the book to fruition.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/evw7YVlUVtI.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Your Brain on Literature</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/your-brain-literature/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jul 2021 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/your-brain-literature/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Cognitive science has revolutionized our understanding of the brain and how it functions. Researchers have even used fMRI to detect differences in the way people engage with literature. But can contemporary science really teach us anything about how novels, poems, and movies work? Do new understandings of the unconscious help us appreciate the brilliant magic tricks that writers pull off? And could a better picture of mental imagery inspire novelists to write differently? Josh and Ray pick the brain of Stanford neuroscientist David Eagleman, author of Livewired: The Inside Story of the Ever-Changing Brain.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Cognitive science has revolutionized our understanding of the brain and how it functions. Researchers have even used fMRI to detect differences in the way people engage with literature. But can contemporary science really teach us anything about how nove]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Cognitive science has revolutionized our understanding of the brain and how it functions. Researchers have even used fMRI to detect differences in the way people engage with literature. But can contemporary science really teach us anything about how novels, poems, and movies work? Do new understandings of the unconscious help us appreciate the brilliant magic tricks that writers pull off? And could a better picture of mental imagery inspire novelists to write differently? Josh and Ray pick the brain of Stanford neuroscientist David Eagleman, author of Livewired: The Inside Story of the Ever-Changing Brain.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/589/your-brain-literature.mp3" length="48887849" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Cognitive science has revolutionized our understanding of the brain and how it functions. Researchers have even used fMRI to detect differences in the way people engage with literature. But can contemporary science really teach us anything about how novels, poems, and movies work? Do new understandings of the unconscious help us appreciate the brilliant magic tricks that writers pull off? And could a better picture of mental imagery inspire novelists to write differently? Josh and Ray pick the brain of Stanford neuroscientist David Eagleman, author of Livewired: The Inside Story of the Ever-Changing Brain.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/wxSvYbLz7rs-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Cognitive science has revolutionized our understanding of the brain and how it functions. Researchers have even used fMRI to detect differences in the way people engage with literature. But can contemporary science really teach us anything about how novels, poems, and movies work? Do new understandings of the unconscious help us appreciate the brilliant magic tricks that writers pull off? And could a better picture of mental imagery inspire novelists to write differently? Josh and Ray pick the brain of Stanford neuroscientist David Eagleman, author of Livewired: The Inside Story of the Ever-Changing Brain.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/wxSvYbLz7rs-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Summer Reading List 2021</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/summer-reading-list-2021/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jun 2021 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/summer-reading-list-2021/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[As some parts of our lives return to a kind of normal, Josh and Ray ask authors and philosophers about what&#8217;s been on their summer reading lists.

Cory Doctorow on &#8220;Making Hay,&#8221; his short story in Make Shift: Dispatches from the Post-Pandemic Future
Helen De Cruz from Saint Louis University, co-editor of Philosophy Through Science Fiction Stories: Exploring the Boundaries of the Possible

Plus a post-pandemic update from Stanford English colleague Michaela Bronstein and her thoughts on Richard Wright&#8217;s newly-published The Man Who Lived Underground.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[As some parts of our lives return to a kind of normal, Josh and Ray ask authors and philosophers about what&#8217;s been on their summer reading lists.

Cory Doctorow on &#8220;Making Hay,&#8221; his short story in Make Shift: Dispatches from the Post-Pa]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[As some parts of our lives return to a kind of normal, Josh and Ray ask authors and philosophers about what&#8217;s been on their summer reading lists.

Cory Doctorow on &#8220;Making Hay,&#8221; his short story in Make Shift: Dispatches from the Post-Pandemic Future
Helen De Cruz from Saint Louis University, co-editor of Philosophy Through Science Fiction Stories: Exploring the Boundaries of the Possible

Plus a post-pandemic update from Stanford English colleague Michaela Bronstein and her thoughts on Richard Wright&#8217;s newly-published The Man Who Lived Underground.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/587/summer-reading-list-2021.mp3" length="49917283" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[As some parts of our lives return to a kind of normal, Josh and Ray ask authors and philosophers about what&#8217;s been on their summer reading lists.

Cory Doctorow on &#8220;Making Hay,&#8221; his short story in Make Shift: Dispatches from the Post-Pandemic Future
Helen De Cruz from Saint Louis University, co-editor of Philosophy Through Science Fiction Stories: Exploring the Boundaries of the Possible

Plus a post-pandemic update from Stanford English colleague Michaela Bronstein and her thoughts on Richard Wright&#8217;s newly-published The Man Who Lived Underground.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/9jQ6eo43CZQ.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[As some parts of our lives return to a kind of normal, Josh and Ray ask authors and philosophers about what&#8217;s been on their summer reading lists.

Cory Doctorow on &#8220;Making Hay,&#8221; his short story in Make Shift: Dispatches from the Post-Pandemic Future
Helen De Cruz from Saint Louis University, co-editor of Philosophy Through Science Fiction Stories: Exploring the Boundaries of the Possible

Plus a post-pandemic update from Stanford English colleague Michaela Bronstein and her thoughts on Richard Wright&#8217;s newly-published The Man Who Lived Underground.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/9jQ6eo43CZQ.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Nonduality and the Oneness of Being</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/nonduality-and-oneness-being/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jun 2021 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/nonduality-and-oneness-being/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Some branches of Hindu philosophy propose that reality is nondual in nature. Such schools of thought—called advaita schools, from a Sanskrit word meaning “not two”—see the material world either as an aspect of ultimate reality (“Brahman”) or as a mere illusion. So how do we make sense of the appearance of variety in a metaphysics of oneness? Is there room for individual selves within advaita philosophy? What can be known? And what possible sources of knowledge are there in a nondual epistemology? Josh and Ray unite with Elisa Freschi from the University of Toronto, author of Duty, Language, and Exegesis in Prābhākara Mīmāṃsā.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Some branches of Hindu philosophy propose that reality is nondual in nature. Such schools of thought—called advaita schools, from a Sanskrit word meaning “not two”—see the material world either as an aspect of ultimate reality (“Brahman”) or as a mere il]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Some branches of Hindu philosophy propose that reality is nondual in nature. Such schools of thought—called advaita schools, from a Sanskrit word meaning “not two”—see the material world either as an aspect of ultimate reality (“Brahman”) or as a mere illusion. So how do we make sense of the appearance of variety in a metaphysics of oneness? Is there room for individual selves within advaita philosophy? What can be known? And what possible sources of knowledge are there in a nondual epistemology? Josh and Ray unite with Elisa Freschi from the University of Toronto, author of Duty, Language, and Exegesis in Prābhākara Mīmāṃsā.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/585/nonduality-and-oneness-being.mp3" length="49411970" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Some branches of Hindu philosophy propose that reality is nondual in nature. Such schools of thought—called advaita schools, from a Sanskrit word meaning “not two”—see the material world either as an aspect of ultimate reality (“Brahman”) or as a mere illusion. So how do we make sense of the appearance of variety in a metaphysics of oneness? Is there room for individual selves within advaita philosophy? What can be known? And what possible sources of knowledge are there in a nondual epistemology? Josh and Ray unite with Elisa Freschi from the University of Toronto, author of Duty, Language, and Exegesis in Prābhākara Mīmāṃsā.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/p92eZX-G_6k.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Some branches of Hindu philosophy propose that reality is nondual in nature. Such schools of thought—called advaita schools, from a Sanskrit word meaning “not two”—see the material world either as an aspect of ultimate reality (“Brahman”) or as a mere illusion. So how do we make sense of the appearance of variety in a metaphysics of oneness? Is there room for individual selves within advaita philosophy? What can be known? And what possible sources of knowledge are there in a nondual epistemology? Josh and Ray unite with Elisa Freschi from the University of Toronto, author of Duty, Language, and Exegesis in Prābhākara Mīmāṃsā.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/p92eZX-G_6k.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Lives and Ideas of the Vienna Circle</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/vienna-circle/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 23 May 2021 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/vienna-circle/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The Vienna Circle was a group of early twentieth-century philosophers, mathematicians, logicians, and scientists, best known for developing the theory of scientific knowledge called logical positivism. Although positivism as a project has been largely abandoned, the group&#8217;s ideas continue to have profound influence on contemporary philosophy of science. So what philosophical theories were proposed by the Vienna Circle? How might the socio-political circumstances of their time have shaped their radical ideas? And how did their ideas aim to shape politics? Josh and Ray ask David Edmonds from the University of Oxford, author of The Murder of Professor Schlick: The Rise and Fall of the Vienna Circle.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The Vienna Circle was a group of early twentieth-century philosophers, mathematicians, logicians, and scientists, best known for developing the theory of scientific knowledge called logical positivism. Although positivism as a project has been largely ab]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The Vienna Circle was a group of early twentieth-century philosophers, mathematicians, logicians, and scientists, best known for developing the theory of scientific knowledge called logical positivism. Although positivism as a project has been largely abandoned, the group&#8217;s ideas continue to have profound influence on contemporary philosophy of science. So what philosophical theories were proposed by the Vienna Circle? How might the socio-political circumstances of their time have shaped their radical ideas? And how did their ideas aim to shape politics? Josh and Ray ask David Edmonds from the University of Oxford, author of The Murder of Professor Schlick: The Rise and Fall of the Vienna Circle.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/583/vienna-circle.mp3" length="48793809" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The Vienna Circle was a group of early twentieth-century philosophers, mathematicians, logicians, and scientists, best known for developing the theory of scientific knowledge called logical positivism. Although positivism as a project has been largely abandoned, the group&#8217;s ideas continue to have profound influence on contemporary philosophy of science. So what philosophical theories were proposed by the Vienna Circle? How might the socio-political circumstances of their time have shaped their radical ideas? And how did their ideas aim to shape politics? Josh and Ray ask David Edmonds from the University of Oxford, author of The Murder of Professor Schlick: The Rise and Fall of the Vienna Circle.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/1WgZVOFH4Pw.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The Vienna Circle was a group of early twentieth-century philosophers, mathematicians, logicians, and scientists, best known for developing the theory of scientific knowledge called logical positivism. Although positivism as a project has been largely abandoned, the group&#8217;s ideas continue to have profound influence on contemporary philosophy of science. So what philosophical theories were proposed by the Vienna Circle? How might the socio-political circumstances of their time have shaped their radical ideas? And how did their ideas aim to shape politics? Josh and Ray ask David Edmonds from the University of Oxford, author of The Murder of Professor Schlick: The Rise and Fall of the Vienna Circle.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/1WgZVOFH4Pw.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Disinformation and the Future of Democracy</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/disinformation-and-future-democracy/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 09 May 2021 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/disinformation-and-future-democracy/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The 2020 election and startling events that followed show that the US is as polarized as ever. Not only is there fundamental disagreement over values and goals, but people can’t seem to agree on the most basic, easily verifiable facts, like who actually won. With so many seemingly living in an alternative reality, how do we continue the business of democracy together? Should we adopt paternalistic policies towards fellow citizens who are so profoundly divorced from truth? And does our current plight suggest that the project of liberal democracy is failing? Ray and guest co-host (emeritus) John Perry stay informed about their guest, attorney and political analyst Dean Johnson, co-host of KALW&#8217;s Your Legal Rights.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The 2020 election and startling events that followed show that the US is as polarized as ever. Not only is there fundamental disagreement over values and goals, but people can’t seem to agree on the most basic, easily verifiable facts, like who actually ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The 2020 election and startling events that followed show that the US is as polarized as ever. Not only is there fundamental disagreement over values and goals, but people can’t seem to agree on the most basic, easily verifiable facts, like who actually won. With so many seemingly living in an alternative reality, how do we continue the business of democracy together? Should we adopt paternalistic policies towards fellow citizens who are so profoundly divorced from truth? And does our current plight suggest that the project of liberal democracy is failing? Ray and guest co-host (emeritus) John Perry stay informed about their guest, attorney and political analyst Dean Johnson, co-host of KALW&#8217;s Your Legal Rights.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/579/disinformation-and-future-democracy.mp3" length="48826827" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The 2020 election and startling events that followed show that the US is as polarized as ever. Not only is there fundamental disagreement over values and goals, but people can’t seem to agree on the most basic, easily verifiable facts, like who actually won. With so many seemingly living in an alternative reality, how do we continue the business of democracy together? Should we adopt paternalistic policies towards fellow citizens who are so profoundly divorced from truth? And does our current plight suggest that the project of liberal democracy is failing? Ray and guest co-host (emeritus) John Perry stay informed about their guest, attorney and political analyst Dean Johnson, co-host of KALW&#8217;s Your Legal Rights.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/hpieIBj0omE-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The 2020 election and startling events that followed show that the US is as polarized as ever. Not only is there fundamental disagreement over values and goals, but people can’t seem to agree on the most basic, easily verifiable facts, like who actually won. With so many seemingly living in an alternative reality, how do we continue the business of democracy together? Should we adopt paternalistic policies towards fellow citizens who are so profoundly divorced from truth? And does our current plight suggest that the project of liberal democracy is failing? Ray and guest co-host (emeritus) John Perry stay informed about their guest, attorney and political analyst Dean Johnson, co-host of KALW&#8217;s Your Legal Rights.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/hpieIBj0omE-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Montaigne and the Art of the Essay</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/montaigne-and-art-essay/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 25 Apr 2021 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/montaigne-and-art-essay/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[French thinker Michel de Montaigne invented a whole new genre in which to do philosophy: the essay. But in his use of that form, Montaigne repeatedly digresses and contradicts himself. So why did he think the essay was a good medium for philosophy? What impact did Montaigne’s invention have on his own philosophical work, and on the centuries of thought that followed? Are there particular forms of writing that help us live a more philosophical life? The philosophers live their best life with Cécile Alduy from Stanford University, author of The Politics of Love: Poetics and Genesis of the &#8220;Amours&#8221; in Renaissance France (1549-1560).]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[French thinker Michel de Montaigne invented a whole new genre in which to do philosophy: the essay. But in his use of that form, Montaigne repeatedly digresses and contradicts himself. So why did he think the essay was a good medium for philosophy? What ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[French thinker Michel de Montaigne invented a whole new genre in which to do philosophy: the essay. But in his use of that form, Montaigne repeatedly digresses and contradicts himself. So why did he think the essay was a good medium for philosophy? What impact did Montaigne’s invention have on his own philosophical work, and on the centuries of thought that followed? Are there particular forms of writing that help us live a more philosophical life? The philosophers live their best life with Cécile Alduy from Stanford University, author of The Politics of Love: Poetics and Genesis of the &#8220;Amours&#8221; in Renaissance France (1549-1560).]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/581/montaigne-and-art-essay.mp3" length="48852323" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[French thinker Michel de Montaigne invented a whole new genre in which to do philosophy: the essay. But in his use of that form, Montaigne repeatedly digresses and contradicts himself. So why did he think the essay was a good medium for philosophy? What impact did Montaigne’s invention have on his own philosophical work, and on the centuries of thought that followed? Are there particular forms of writing that help us live a more philosophical life? The philosophers live their best life with Cécile Alduy from Stanford University, author of The Politics of Love: Poetics and Genesis of the &#8220;Amours&#8221; in Renaissance France (1549-1560).]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/eGjQWbymHCo.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[French thinker Michel de Montaigne invented a whole new genre in which to do philosophy: the essay. But in his use of that form, Montaigne repeatedly digresses and contradicts himself. So why did he think the essay was a good medium for philosophy? What impact did Montaigne’s invention have on his own philosophical work, and on the centuries of thought that followed? Are there particular forms of writing that help us live a more philosophical life? The philosophers live their best life with Cécile Alduy from Stanford University, author of The Politics of Love: Poetics and Genesis of the &#8220;Amours&#8221; in Renaissance France (1549-1560).]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/eGjQWbymHCo.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The 2021 Dionysus Awards</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/2021-dionysus-awards/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 11 Apr 2021 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/2021-dionysus-awards/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[After a year in which &#8220;entertainment&#8221; took on a whole new meaning, what were the movies that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Josh and guest co-host Jeremy Sabol talk to philosophers and listeners as they present our eighth annual Dionysus Awards for the most thoughtful films of the past year, including:

Best Film Painting a World Without Men
Best Picture That Packs All of American History Into One Room
Trippiest Investigation of Identity (That Probably Should Have Ended Sooner)]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[After a year in which &#8220;entertainment&#8221; took on a whole new meaning, what were the movies that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Josh and guest co-host Jeremy Sabol talk to philosophers and listeners as they]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[After a year in which &#8220;entertainment&#8221; took on a whole new meaning, what were the movies that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Josh and guest co-host Jeremy Sabol talk to philosophers and listeners as they present our eighth annual Dionysus Awards for the most thoughtful films of the past year, including:

Best Film Painting a World Without Men
Best Picture That Packs All of American History Into One Room
Trippiest Investigation of Identity (That Probably Should Have Ended Sooner)]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/571/2021-dionysus-awards.mp3" length="49925224" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[After a year in which &#8220;entertainment&#8221; took on a whole new meaning, what were the movies that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Josh and guest co-host Jeremy Sabol talk to philosophers and listeners as they present our eighth annual Dionysus Awards for the most thoughtful films of the past year, including:

Best Film Painting a World Without Men
Best Picture That Packs All of American History Into One Room
Trippiest Investigation of Identity (That Probably Should Have Ended Sooner)]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/KnVXUZzNNCo.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[After a year in which &#8220;entertainment&#8221; took on a whole new meaning, what were the movies that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Josh and guest co-host Jeremy Sabol talk to philosophers and listeners as they present our eighth annual Dionysus Awards for the most thoughtful films of the past year, including:

Best Film Painting a World Without Men
Best Picture That Packs All of American History Into One Room
Trippiest Investigation of Identity (That Probably Should Have Ended Sooner)]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/KnVXUZzNNCo.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>What Is Masculinity?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/what-masculinity/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2021 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/what-masculinity/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Strong, in control, and stoic—these are traits of the ideal masculine man. Men who fail to conform to this ideal are often penalized, particularly if they are men of color, queer men, working-class men, or men with disabilities. So how do we create different visions of masculinity that make room for all kinds of men? Should we abandon the idea of masculinity altogether, or would that be throwing out the baby with the bathwater? Which models of masculinity will bring us closer to gender justice in the 21st century? The philosophers man their mics with Robin Dembroff from Yale University, author of Real Men on Top: How Patriarchy Weaponizes Gender (forthcoming).]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Strong, in control, and stoic—these are traits of the ideal masculine man. Men who fail to conform to this ideal are often penalized, particularly if they are men of color, queer men, working-class men, or men with disabilities. So how do we create diffe]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Strong, in control, and stoic—these are traits of the ideal masculine man. Men who fail to conform to this ideal are often penalized, particularly if they are men of color, queer men, working-class men, or men with disabilities. So how do we create different visions of masculinity that make room for all kinds of men? Should we abandon the idea of masculinity altogether, or would that be throwing out the baby with the bathwater? Which models of masculinity will bring us closer to gender justice in the 21st century? The philosophers man their mics with Robin Dembroff from Yale University, author of Real Men on Top: How Patriarchy Weaponizes Gender (forthcoming).]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/576/what-masculinity.mp3" length="48741146" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Strong, in control, and stoic—these are traits of the ideal masculine man. Men who fail to conform to this ideal are often penalized, particularly if they are men of color, queer men, working-class men, or men with disabilities. So how do we create different visions of masculinity that make room for all kinds of men? Should we abandon the idea of masculinity altogether, or would that be throwing out the baby with the bathwater? Which models of masculinity will bring us closer to gender justice in the 21st century? The philosophers man their mics with Robin Dembroff from Yale University, author of Real Men on Top: How Patriarchy Weaponizes Gender (forthcoming).]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/1326459940-833affb1b4964b2330a35951e23a7244059a0aa3c76c9be92fcfa7afde9be9b8-d.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Strong, in control, and stoic—these are traits of the ideal masculine man. Men who fail to conform to this ideal are often penalized, particularly if they are men of color, queer men, working-class men, or men with disabilities. So how do we create different visions of masculinity that make room for all kinds of men? Should we abandon the idea of masculinity altogether, or would that be throwing out the baby with the bathwater? Which models of masculinity will bring us closer to gender justice in the 21st century? The philosophers man their mics with Robin Dembroff from Yale University, author of Real Men on Top: How Patriarchy Weaponizes Gender (forthcoming).]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/1326459940-833affb1b4964b2330a35951e23a7244059a0aa3c76c9be92fcfa7afde9be9b8-d.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>What Has Replaced Freud?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/what-has-replaced-freud/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 28 Feb 2021 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/what-has-replaced-freud/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Although the concept that we can have thoughts and desires hidden from consciousness can be traced back to antiquity, it was Freud who truly popularized it in the twentieth century. Now Freud’s theory of the unconscious mind has mostly been abandoned for being unscientific and lacking in empirical evidence. So what has replaced it? Are newer theories that reference “automatic systems” or “implicit attitudes” any more scientific than Freud’s? And why is so much research about the unconscious mind being conducted in business schools? Josh and Ray are quite conscious of their guest, Blakey Vermeule from Stanford University, author of &#8220;The New Unconscious: A Literary Guided Tour.&#8221;]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Although the concept that we can have thoughts and desires hidden from consciousness can be traced back to antiquity, it was Freud who truly popularized it in the twentieth century. Now Freud’s theory of the unconscious mind has mostly been abandoned for]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Although the concept that we can have thoughts and desires hidden from consciousness can be traced back to antiquity, it was Freud who truly popularized it in the twentieth century. Now Freud’s theory of the unconscious mind has mostly been abandoned for being unscientific and lacking in empirical evidence. So what has replaced it? Are newer theories that reference “automatic systems” or “implicit attitudes” any more scientific than Freud’s? And why is so much research about the unconscious mind being conducted in business schools? Josh and Ray are quite conscious of their guest, Blakey Vermeule from Stanford University, author of &#8220;The New Unconscious: A Literary Guided Tour.&#8221;]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/566/what-has-replaced-freud.mp3" length="48721920" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Although the concept that we can have thoughts and desires hidden from consciousness can be traced back to antiquity, it was Freud who truly popularized it in the twentieth century. Now Freud’s theory of the unconscious mind has mostly been abandoned for being unscientific and lacking in empirical evidence. So what has replaced it? Are newer theories that reference “automatic systems” or “implicit attitudes” any more scientific than Freud’s? And why is so much research about the unconscious mind being conducted in business schools? Josh and Ray are quite conscious of their guest, Blakey Vermeule from Stanford University, author of &#8220;The New Unconscious: A Literary Guided Tour.&#8221;]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/a3oGmtUL0fw.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Although the concept that we can have thoughts and desires hidden from consciousness can be traced back to antiquity, it was Freud who truly popularized it in the twentieth century. Now Freud’s theory of the unconscious mind has mostly been abandoned for being unscientific and lacking in empirical evidence. So what has replaced it? Are newer theories that reference “automatic systems” or “implicit attitudes” any more scientific than Freud’s? And why is so much research about the unconscious mind being conducted in business schools? Josh and Ray are quite conscious of their guest, Blakey Vermeule from Stanford University, author of &#8220;The New Unconscious: A Literary Guided Tour.&#8221;]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/a3oGmtUL0fw.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Rhetoric of Big Tech</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/rhetoric-big-tech/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 31 Jan 2021 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/rhetoric-big-tech/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Big tech is known for its &#8220;disruption&#8221; of established industries and changing fundamental aspects of our lives from shopping and delivery to communication and transit. While many welcome these changes, there are also worries about privacy, fairness, and deregulation. So how do tech companies think about what it is they are doing and what justifies it? Who are their philosophical sources, and do they use them responsibly? What role does New Age thinking, Ayn Rand, Martin Heidegger, and even Samuel Beckett play in shaping the rhetoric of big tech? Josh and Ray debug the code with Adrian Daub from Stanford University, author of What Tech Calls Thinking: An Inquiry into the Intellectual Bedrock of Silicon Valley.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Big tech is known for its &#8220;disruption&#8221; of established industries and changing fundamental aspects of our lives from shopping and delivery to communication and transit. While many welcome these changes, there are also worries about privacy, fa]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Big tech is known for its &#8220;disruption&#8221; of established industries and changing fundamental aspects of our lives from shopping and delivery to communication and transit. While many welcome these changes, there are also worries about privacy, fairness, and deregulation. So how do tech companies think about what it is they are doing and what justifies it? Who are their philosophical sources, and do they use them responsibly? What role does New Age thinking, Ayn Rand, Martin Heidegger, and even Samuel Beckett play in shaping the rhetoric of big tech? Josh and Ray debug the code with Adrian Daub from Stanford University, author of What Tech Calls Thinking: An Inquiry into the Intellectual Bedrock of Silicon Valley.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/564/rhetoric-big-tech.mp3" length="48970605" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Big tech is known for its &#8220;disruption&#8221; of established industries and changing fundamental aspects of our lives from shopping and delivery to communication and transit. While many welcome these changes, there are also worries about privacy, fairness, and deregulation. So how do tech companies think about what it is they are doing and what justifies it? Who are their philosophical sources, and do they use them responsibly? What role does New Age thinking, Ayn Rand, Martin Heidegger, and even Samuel Beckett play in shaping the rhetoric of big tech? Josh and Ray debug the code with Adrian Daub from Stanford University, author of What Tech Calls Thinking: An Inquiry into the Intellectual Bedrock of Silicon Valley.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/cpJePtJSUBw.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Big tech is known for its &#8220;disruption&#8221; of established industries and changing fundamental aspects of our lives from shopping and delivery to communication and transit. While many welcome these changes, there are also worries about privacy, fairness, and deregulation. So how do tech companies think about what it is they are doing and what justifies it? Who are their philosophical sources, and do they use them responsibly? What role does New Age thinking, Ayn Rand, Martin Heidegger, and even Samuel Beckett play in shaping the rhetoric of big tech? Josh and Ray debug the code with Adrian Daub from Stanford University, author of What Tech Calls Thinking: An Inquiry into the Intellectual Bedrock of Silicon Valley.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/cpJePtJSUBw.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Democracy By Numbers</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/democracy-numbers/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 17 Jan 2021 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/democracy-numbers/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The United States prides itself on being “the world’s greatest democracy,” which adheres to the principle, “one person, one vote.” Despite this, its elections are often highly contentious—presidents can be elected after losing the popular vote, there is widespread gerrymandering and voter purging, and not everyone has equal representation in the Senate. So what can we do to make elections in the US more fair? And how do we decide what counts as fair in the first place? Is there some test or algorithm we can use to determine equal representation? Josh and Ray watch the polls with Moon Duchin from Tufts University, co-editor of Political Geometry: Rethinking Redistricting in the US with Math, Law, and Everything In Between.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The United States prides itself on being “the world’s greatest democracy,” which adheres to the principle, “one person, one vote.” Despite this, its elections are often highly contentious—presidents can be elected after losing the popular vote, there is ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The United States prides itself on being “the world’s greatest democracy,” which adheres to the principle, “one person, one vote.” Despite this, its elections are often highly contentious—presidents can be elected after losing the popular vote, there is widespread gerrymandering and voter purging, and not everyone has equal representation in the Senate. So what can we do to make elections in the US more fair? And how do we decide what counts as fair in the first place? Is there some test or algorithm we can use to determine equal representation? Josh and Ray watch the polls with Moon Duchin from Tufts University, co-editor of Political Geometry: Rethinking Redistricting in the US with Math, Law, and Everything In Between.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/562/democracy-numbers.mp3" length="48815960" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The United States prides itself on being “the world’s greatest democracy,” which adheres to the principle, “one person, one vote.” Despite this, its elections are often highly contentious—presidents can be elected after losing the popular vote, there is widespread gerrymandering and voter purging, and not everyone has equal representation in the Senate. So what can we do to make elections in the US more fair? And how do we decide what counts as fair in the first place? Is there some test or algorithm we can use to determine equal representation? Josh and Ray watch the polls with Moon Duchin from Tufts University, co-editor of Political Geometry: Rethinking Redistricting in the US with Math, Law, and Everything In Between.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/kuHc845XMaY.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The United States prides itself on being “the world’s greatest democracy,” which adheres to the principle, “one person, one vote.” Despite this, its elections are often highly contentious—presidents can be elected after losing the popular vote, there is widespread gerrymandering and voter purging, and not everyone has equal representation in the Senate. So what can we do to make elections in the US more fair? And how do we decide what counts as fair in the first place? Is there some test or algorithm we can use to determine equal representation? Josh and Ray watch the polls with Moon Duchin from Tufts University, co-editor of Political Geometry: Rethinking Redistricting in the US with Math, Law, and Everything In Between.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/kuHc845XMaY.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Examined Year: 2020</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/examined-year-2020/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 27 Dec 2020 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/examined-year-2020/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The Year in Pandemic Ethics with Karen Stohr from Georgetown University, Senior Research Scholar at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics and author of a coronavirus ethics column for The Washingtonian magazine.
The Year in Misinformation and Conspiracy Theories with Tamsin Shaw from New York University, author of Nietzsche’s Political Skepticism.
The Year in Virtual Learning and Communication with Iris Berent from Northeastern University, author of The Blind Storyteller: How We Reason about Human Nature.

Plus poetry from this year&#8217;s recipient of the Nobel Prize for Literature, Louise Glück (read by Director of Research Laura Maguire).]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The Year in Pandemic Ethics with Karen Stohr from Georgetown University, Senior Research Scholar at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics and author of a coronavirus ethics column for The Washingtonian magazine.
The Year in Misinformation and Conspiracy Theori]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The Year in Pandemic Ethics with Karen Stohr from Georgetown University, Senior Research Scholar at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics and author of a coronavirus ethics column for The Washingtonian magazine.
The Year in Misinformation and Conspiracy Theories with Tamsin Shaw from New York University, author of Nietzsche’s Political Skepticism.
The Year in Virtual Learning and Communication with Iris Berent from Northeastern University, author of The Blind Storyteller: How We Reason about Human Nature.

Plus poetry from this year&#8217;s recipient of the Nobel Prize for Literature, Louise Glück (read by Director of Research Laura Maguire).]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/560/examined-year-2020.mp3" length="50653727" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The Year in Pandemic Ethics with Karen Stohr from Georgetown University, Senior Research Scholar at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics and author of a coronavirus ethics column for The Washingtonian magazine.
The Year in Misinformation and Conspiracy Theories with Tamsin Shaw from New York University, author of Nietzsche’s Political Skepticism.
The Year in Virtual Learning and Communication with Iris Berent from Northeastern University, author of The Blind Storyteller: How We Reason about Human Nature.

Plus poetry from this year&#8217;s recipient of the Nobel Prize for Literature, Louise Glück (read by Director of Research Laura Maguire).]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/t2kD2zlt-ZI.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The Year in Pandemic Ethics with Karen Stohr from Georgetown University, Senior Research Scholar at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics and author of a coronavirus ethics column for The Washingtonian magazine.
The Year in Misinformation and Conspiracy Theories with Tamsin Shaw from New York University, author of Nietzsche’s Political Skepticism.
The Year in Virtual Learning and Communication with Iris Berent from Northeastern University, author of The Blind Storyteller: How We Reason about Human Nature.

Plus poetry from this year&#8217;s recipient of the Nobel Prize for Literature, Louise Glück (read by Director of Research Laura Maguire).]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/t2kD2zlt-ZI.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Minds and Matter</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/minds-and-matter/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 13 Dec 2020 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/minds-and-matter/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Everything that seems to have a mind also has a body made of flesh and blood. But if we look at the diversity of animals found in the world, we find a huge variety of species that perceive and interact with the world in very different ways. Is there something all these species have in common? Are neurons and ganglia required, or can evolution generate consciousness in different ways? What can the study of evolutionary biology tell us about the nature of the mind? Josh and Ray sail away with Peter Godfrey-Smith from the University of Sydney, author of Metazoa: Animal Life and the Birth of the Mind.
&#160;]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Everything that seems to have a mind also has a body made of flesh and blood. But if we look at the diversity of animals found in the world, we find a huge variety of species that perceive and interact with the world in very different ways. Is there some]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Everything that seems to have a mind also has a body made of flesh and blood. But if we look at the diversity of animals found in the world, we find a huge variety of species that perceive and interact with the world in very different ways. Is there something all these species have in common? Are neurons and ganglia required, or can evolution generate consciousness in different ways? What can the study of evolutionary biology tell us about the nature of the mind? Josh and Ray sail away with Peter Godfrey-Smith from the University of Sydney, author of Metazoa: Animal Life and the Birth of the Mind.
&#160;]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/556/minds-and-matter.mp3" length="48328620" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Everything that seems to have a mind also has a body made of flesh and blood. But if we look at the diversity of animals found in the world, we find a huge variety of species that perceive and interact with the world in very different ways. Is there something all these species have in common? Are neurons and ganglia required, or can evolution generate consciousness in different ways? What can the study of evolutionary biology tell us about the nature of the mind? Josh and Ray sail away with Peter Godfrey-Smith from the University of Sydney, author of Metazoa: Animal Life and the Birth of the Mind.
&#160;]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/86Adegh3G8Q.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Everything that seems to have a mind also has a body made of flesh and blood. But if we look at the diversity of animals found in the world, we find a huge variety of species that perceive and interact with the world in very different ways. Is there something all these species have in common? Are neurons and ganglia required, or can evolution generate consciousness in different ways? What can the study of evolutionary biology tell us about the nature of the mind? Josh and Ray sail away with Peter Godfrey-Smith from the University of Sydney, author of Metazoa: Animal Life and the Birth of the Mind.
&#160;]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/86Adegh3G8Q.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Arts For All?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/arts-all/</link>
	<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2020 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/arts-all/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[When we think of “real” art, we often think of expensive, highbrow pieces that are displayed in museums and galleries, and critiqued by the elite. In fact, people commonly lament that they don’t know enough about art to truly understand or appreciate the works that they encounter. So should art aim to be accessible to everyone? Or is it ever okay to sacrifice accessibility for other competing aims that art can pursue? Do artists have a duty to make their work more available or accessible in other ways? Josh and Ray paint their masterpiece with Catharine Abell from the University of Oxford, author of Fiction: A Philosophical Analysis.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[When we think of “real” art, we often think of expensive, highbrow pieces that are displayed in museums and galleries, and critiqued by the elite. In fact, people commonly lament that they don’t know enough about art to truly understand or appreciate the]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[When we think of “real” art, we often think of expensive, highbrow pieces that are displayed in museums and galleries, and critiqued by the elite. In fact, people commonly lament that they don’t know enough about art to truly understand or appreciate the works that they encounter. So should art aim to be accessible to everyone? Or is it ever okay to sacrifice accessibility for other competing aims that art can pursue? Do artists have a duty to make their work more available or accessible in other ways? Josh and Ray paint their masterpiece with Catharine Abell from the University of Oxford, author of Fiction: A Philosophical Analysis.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/558/arts-all.mp3" length="48363729" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[When we think of “real” art, we often think of expensive, highbrow pieces that are displayed in museums and galleries, and critiqued by the elite. In fact, people commonly lament that they don’t know enough about art to truly understand or appreciate the works that they encounter. So should art aim to be accessible to everyone? Or is it ever okay to sacrifice accessibility for other competing aims that art can pursue? Do artists have a duty to make their work more available or accessible in other ways? Josh and Ray paint their masterpiece with Catharine Abell from the University of Oxford, author of Fiction: A Philosophical Analysis.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/4gG_HGsmSas.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[When we think of “real” art, we often think of expensive, highbrow pieces that are displayed in museums and galleries, and critiqued by the elite. In fact, people commonly lament that they don’t know enough about art to truly understand or appreciate the works that they encounter. So should art aim to be accessible to everyone? Or is it ever okay to sacrifice accessibility for other competing aims that art can pursue? Do artists have a duty to make their work more available or accessible in other ways? Josh and Ray paint their masterpiece with Catharine Abell from the University of Oxford, author of Fiction: A Philosophical Analysis.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/4gG_HGsmSas.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Are We All to Blame?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/are-we-all-blame/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 15 Nov 2020 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/are-we-all-blame/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[It’s easy to identify the pressing issues facing our world today, but it’s much more difficult to assign responsibility for them. Often the blame is placed on collectives — on entire governments, nations, and societies. But does the responsibility truly all fall to them? How can we identify precisely whose fault it is, for example, that we are experiencing climate change, or that hate crimes occur, or that there is a gender wage gap? Or do we as individuals hold a certain amount of responsibility for such pervasive, systemic issues? Josh and Ray point no fingers with Marion Smiley from Brandeis University, author of Moral Responsibility and the Boundaries of Community.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[It’s easy to identify the pressing issues facing our world today, but it’s much more difficult to assign responsibility for them. Often the blame is placed on collectives — on entire governments, nations, and societies. But does the responsibility truly ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[It’s easy to identify the pressing issues facing our world today, but it’s much more difficult to assign responsibility for them. Often the blame is placed on collectives — on entire governments, nations, and societies. But does the responsibility truly all fall to them? How can we identify precisely whose fault it is, for example, that we are experiencing climate change, or that hate crimes occur, or that there is a gender wage gap? Or do we as individuals hold a certain amount of responsibility for such pervasive, systemic issues? Josh and Ray point no fingers with Marion Smiley from Brandeis University, author of Moral Responsibility and the Boundaries of Community.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/553/are-we-all-blame.mp3" length="49115219" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[It’s easy to identify the pressing issues facing our world today, but it’s much more difficult to assign responsibility for them. Often the blame is placed on collectives — on entire governments, nations, and societies. But does the responsibility truly all fall to them? How can we identify precisely whose fault it is, for example, that we are experiencing climate change, or that hate crimes occur, or that there is a gender wage gap? Or do we as individuals hold a certain amount of responsibility for such pervasive, systemic issues? Josh and Ray point no fingers with Marion Smiley from Brandeis University, author of Moral Responsibility and the Boundaries of Community.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/8ieDqq4mXoQ.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[It’s easy to identify the pressing issues facing our world today, but it’s much more difficult to assign responsibility for them. Often the blame is placed on collectives — on entire governments, nations, and societies. But does the responsibility truly all fall to them? How can we identify precisely whose fault it is, for example, that we are experiencing climate change, or that hate crimes occur, or that there is a gender wage gap? Or do we as individuals hold a certain amount of responsibility for such pervasive, systemic issues? Josh and Ray point no fingers with Marion Smiley from Brandeis University, author of Moral Responsibility and the Boundaries of Community.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/8ieDqq4mXoQ.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>What&#8217;s In a Game?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/whats-game/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 25 Oct 2020 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/whats-game/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Games have been an integral part of human society since the earliest civilizations. They are played around the world by people at every rank and station, at every stage of life, from childhood to old age. Why do we love games so much? Are they just a pleasant way of whiling away some empty hours or escaping the daily grind? Or do we play games to form social bonds and build important life skills? Are there some games we should never play? And what exactly makes something a “game” in the first place? Josh and Ray team up with Thi Nguyen from the University of Utah, author of Games: Agency as Art.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Games have been an integral part of human society since the earliest civilizations. They are played around the world by people at every rank and station, at every stage of life, from childhood to old age. Why do we love games so much? Are they just a ple]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Games have been an integral part of human society since the earliest civilizations. They are played around the world by people at every rank and station, at every stage of life, from childhood to old age. Why do we love games so much? Are they just a pleasant way of whiling away some empty hours or escaping the daily grind? Or do we play games to form social bonds and build important life skills? Are there some games we should never play? And what exactly makes something a “game” in the first place? Josh and Ray team up with Thi Nguyen from the University of Utah, author of Games: Agency as Art.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/550/whats-game.mp3" length="48936333" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Games have been an integral part of human society since the earliest civilizations. They are played around the world by people at every rank and station, at every stage of life, from childhood to old age. Why do we love games so much? Are they just a pleasant way of whiling away some empty hours or escaping the daily grind? Or do we play games to form social bonds and build important life skills? Are there some games we should never play? And what exactly makes something a “game” in the first place? Josh and Ray team up with Thi Nguyen from the University of Utah, author of Games: Agency as Art.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/NtP-8oOjf_o.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Games have been an integral part of human society since the earliest civilizations. They are played around the world by people at every rank and station, at every stage of life, from childhood to old age. Why do we love games so much? Are they just a pleasant way of whiling away some empty hours or escaping the daily grind? Or do we play games to form social bonds and build important life skills? Are there some games we should never play? And what exactly makes something a “game” in the first place? Josh and Ray team up with Thi Nguyen from the University of Utah, author of Games: Agency as Art.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/NtP-8oOjf_o.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Why We Hate</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/why-we-hate/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 18 Oct 2020 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/why-we-hate/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The Southern Poverty Law Center reports that the number of hate groups operating in the U.S. has risen to a record high. There has also been a corresponding increase in hate crime violence. So where does all this hate come from? Do we hate others because we feel a deeper sense of alienation or fear towards them? Is hating always the wrong response, or is there an appropriate kind of hate? Can we love and hate at the same time? And what&#8217;s the difference between hate and other reactive attitudes like anger, disgust, and contempt? Josh and Ray shake off the haters with Berit Brogaard from the University of Miami, author of Hatred: Understanding Our Most Dangerous Emotion.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The Southern Poverty Law Center reports that the number of hate groups operating in the U.S. has risen to a record high. There has also been a corresponding increase in hate crime violence. So where does all this hate come from? Do we hate others because]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The Southern Poverty Law Center reports that the number of hate groups operating in the U.S. has risen to a record high. There has also been a corresponding increase in hate crime violence. So where does all this hate come from? Do we hate others because we feel a deeper sense of alienation or fear towards them? Is hating always the wrong response, or is there an appropriate kind of hate? Can we love and hate at the same time? And what&#8217;s the difference between hate and other reactive attitudes like anger, disgust, and contempt? Josh and Ray shake off the haters with Berit Brogaard from the University of Miami, author of Hatred: Understanding Our Most Dangerous Emotion.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/547/why-we-hate.mp3" length="49045420" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The Southern Poverty Law Center reports that the number of hate groups operating in the U.S. has risen to a record high. There has also been a corresponding increase in hate crime violence. So where does all this hate come from? Do we hate others because we feel a deeper sense of alienation or fear towards them? Is hating always the wrong response, or is there an appropriate kind of hate? Can we love and hate at the same time? And what&#8217;s the difference between hate and other reactive attitudes like anger, disgust, and contempt? Josh and Ray shake off the haters with Berit Brogaard from the University of Miami, author of Hatred: Understanding Our Most Dangerous Emotion.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/3kfBgjw3W2c-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The Southern Poverty Law Center reports that the number of hate groups operating in the U.S. has risen to a record high. There has also been a corresponding increase in hate crime violence. So where does all this hate come from? Do we hate others because we feel a deeper sense of alienation or fear towards them? Is hating always the wrong response, or is there an appropriate kind of hate? Can we love and hate at the same time? And what&#8217;s the difference between hate and other reactive attitudes like anger, disgust, and contempt? Josh and Ray shake off the haters with Berit Brogaard from the University of Miami, author of Hatred: Understanding Our Most Dangerous Emotion.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/3kfBgjw3W2c-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Science and Skepticism</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/science-and-skepticism/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 04 Oct 2020 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/science-and-skepticism/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[In recent decades, we’ve witnessed intense cultural wars waged on scientifically established phenomena, such as climate change and the benefit of vaccines. Of course, we might agree that some degree of skepticism about the world around us is good—it would be impractical and even dangerous for us to blindly accept everything we are told as fact. But is skepticism always healthy? Or is there a point at which one’s skepticism regarding a given phenomenon becomes unwarranted or even detrimental form of denialism? And if there does exist such a point, how do we know when we’ve crossed it? Josh and Ray won&#8217;t deny their discussion with Michael Shermer, author of Giving the Devil his Due: Reflections of a Scientific Humanist.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[In recent decades, we’ve witnessed intense cultural wars waged on scientifically established phenomena, such as climate change and the benefit of vaccines. Of course, we might agree that some degree of skepticism about the world around us is good—it woul]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[In recent decades, we’ve witnessed intense cultural wars waged on scientifically established phenomena, such as climate change and the benefit of vaccines. Of course, we might agree that some degree of skepticism about the world around us is good—it would be impractical and even dangerous for us to blindly accept everything we are told as fact. But is skepticism always healthy? Or is there a point at which one’s skepticism regarding a given phenomenon becomes unwarranted or even detrimental form of denialism? And if there does exist such a point, how do we know when we’ve crossed it? Josh and Ray won&#8217;t deny their discussion with Michael Shermer, author of Giving the Devil his Due: Reflections of a Scientific Humanist.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/545/science-and-skepticism.mp3" length="48935915" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[In recent decades, we’ve witnessed intense cultural wars waged on scientifically established phenomena, such as climate change and the benefit of vaccines. Of course, we might agree that some degree of skepticism about the world around us is good—it would be impractical and even dangerous for us to blindly accept everything we are told as fact. But is skepticism always healthy? Or is there a point at which one’s skepticism regarding a given phenomenon becomes unwarranted or even detrimental form of denialism? And if there does exist such a point, how do we know when we’ve crossed it? Josh and Ray won&#8217;t deny their discussion with Michael Shermer, author of Giving the Devil his Due: Reflections of a Scientific Humanist.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/haM13oKbevo.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[In recent decades, we’ve witnessed intense cultural wars waged on scientifically established phenomena, such as climate change and the benefit of vaccines. Of course, we might agree that some degree of skepticism about the world around us is good—it would be impractical and even dangerous for us to blindly accept everything we are told as fact. But is skepticism always healthy? Or is there a point at which one’s skepticism regarding a given phenomenon becomes unwarranted or even detrimental form of denialism? And if there does exist such a point, how do we know when we’ve crossed it? Josh and Ray won&#8217;t deny their discussion with Michael Shermer, author of Giving the Devil his Due: Reflections of a Scientific Humanist.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/haM13oKbevo.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Citizenship and Justice</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/citizenship-and-justice/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 13 Sep 2020 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/citizenship-and-justice/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Securing citizenship to a developed country could guarantee people enormous privileges and opportunities. Some condemn those who try illegally to reap the benefits that come with such citizenship. But are our ways of determining who gets to enter borders arbitrary and unfair? Should we grant border access to people born in a nation’s territories, or also on people whose parents were citizens? Or should we favor the highly skilled who can contribute the most to the nation? What is the most just way to determine citizenship? Josh and Ray cross the border with Arash Abizadeh from McGill University, author of Hobbes and the Two Faces of Ethics.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Securing citizenship to a developed country could guarantee people enormous privileges and opportunities. Some condemn those who try illegally to reap the benefits that come with such citizenship. But are our ways of determining who gets to enter borders]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Securing citizenship to a developed country could guarantee people enormous privileges and opportunities. Some condemn those who try illegally to reap the benefits that come with such citizenship. But are our ways of determining who gets to enter borders arbitrary and unfair? Should we grant border access to people born in a nation’s territories, or also on people whose parents were citizens? Or should we favor the highly skilled who can contribute the most to the nation? What is the most just way to determine citizenship? Josh and Ray cross the border with Arash Abizadeh from McGill University, author of Hobbes and the Two Faces of Ethics.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/543/citizenship-and-justice.mp3" length="49026194" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Securing citizenship to a developed country could guarantee people enormous privileges and opportunities. Some condemn those who try illegally to reap the benefits that come with such citizenship. But are our ways of determining who gets to enter borders arbitrary and unfair? Should we grant border access to people born in a nation’s territories, or also on people whose parents were citizens? Or should we favor the highly skilled who can contribute the most to the nation? What is the most just way to determine citizenship? Josh and Ray cross the border with Arash Abizadeh from McGill University, author of Hobbes and the Two Faces of Ethics.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/55MFeaPTC00.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Securing citizenship to a developed country could guarantee people enormous privileges and opportunities. Some condemn those who try illegally to reap the benefits that come with such citizenship. But are our ways of determining who gets to enter borders arbitrary and unfair? Should we grant border access to people born in a nation’s territories, or also on people whose parents were citizens? Or should we favor the highly skilled who can contribute the most to the nation? What is the most just way to determine citizenship? Josh and Ray cross the border with Arash Abizadeh from McGill University, author of Hobbes and the Two Faces of Ethics.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/55MFeaPTC00.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Merits of Meritocracy</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/merits-meritocracy/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 30 Aug 2020 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/merits-meritocracy/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[For centuries, the promise of the “American Dream” has been that as long as someone buckles down and works hard, she can achieve her goals. In other words, we’ve perpetuated the meritocratic notion that the more effort one puts in and the more ability one possesses, the more success one can attain. But is this really the case? Given the historical and societal disadvantages that certain groups of people face, it may appear that a strict meritocracy could not—and should not—exist. So is a true meritocracy ever attainable? And if it really did exist and were in place, would it be fair? Josh and Ray level the playing field with Jo Littler from the City University of London, author of Against Meritocracy: Culture, Power and Myths of Mobility.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[For centuries, the promise of the “American Dream” has been that as long as someone buckles down and works hard, she can achieve her goals. In other words, we’ve perpetuated the meritocratic notion that the more effort one puts in and the more ability on]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[For centuries, the promise of the “American Dream” has been that as long as someone buckles down and works hard, she can achieve her goals. In other words, we’ve perpetuated the meritocratic notion that the more effort one puts in and the more ability one possesses, the more success one can attain. But is this really the case? Given the historical and societal disadvantages that certain groups of people face, it may appear that a strict meritocracy could not—and should not—exist. So is a true meritocracy ever attainable? And if it really did exist and were in place, would it be fair? Josh and Ray level the playing field with Jo Littler from the City University of London, author of Against Meritocracy: Culture, Power and Myths of Mobility.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/540/merits-meritocracy.mp3" length="49185436" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[For centuries, the promise of the “American Dream” has been that as long as someone buckles down and works hard, she can achieve her goals. In other words, we’ve perpetuated the meritocratic notion that the more effort one puts in and the more ability one possesses, the more success one can attain. But is this really the case? Given the historical and societal disadvantages that certain groups of people face, it may appear that a strict meritocracy could not—and should not—exist. So is a true meritocracy ever attainable? And if it really did exist and were in place, would it be fair? Josh and Ray level the playing field with Jo Littler from the City University of London, author of Against Meritocracy: Culture, Power and Myths of Mobility.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/ikThdtTu_Nk.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[For centuries, the promise of the “American Dream” has been that as long as someone buckles down and works hard, she can achieve her goals. In other words, we’ve perpetuated the meritocratic notion that the more effort one puts in and the more ability one possesses, the more success one can attain. But is this really the case? Given the historical and societal disadvantages that certain groups of people face, it may appear that a strict meritocracy could not—and should not—exist. So is a true meritocracy ever attainable? And if it really did exist and were in place, would it be fair? Josh and Ray level the playing field with Jo Littler from the City University of London, author of Against Meritocracy: Culture, Power and Myths of Mobility.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/ikThdtTu_Nk.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Can Streets Discriminate?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/can-streets-discriminate/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 09 Aug 2020 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/can-streets-discriminate/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[City streets play an important role in our everyday lives. We commute to work, walk our dogs, meet our friends, and stage protests on city streets. In theory, streets are open for anyone to physically access. But do streets, by their design, actually discriminate against certain people? If so, who has less access to city streets? Is the design of our cities a political matter? Can we even talk about cities as being just or unjust by design? Or are they simply inconvenient, or poorly designed, for some? Josh and Ray hit the streets with Shane Epting, Co-Director of the Philosophy of the City research group at the Missouri University of Science and Technology.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[City streets play an important role in our everyday lives. We commute to work, walk our dogs, meet our friends, and stage protests on city streets. In theory, streets are open for anyone to physically access. But do streets, by their design, actually dis]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[City streets play an important role in our everyday lives. We commute to work, walk our dogs, meet our friends, and stage protests on city streets. In theory, streets are open for anyone to physically access. But do streets, by their design, actually discriminate against certain people? If so, who has less access to city streets? Is the design of our cities a political matter? Can we even talk about cities as being just or unjust by design? Or are they simply inconvenient, or poorly designed, for some? Josh and Ray hit the streets with Shane Epting, Co-Director of the Philosophy of the City research group at the Missouri University of Science and Technology.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/536/can-streets-discriminate.mp3" length="48744907" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[City streets play an important role in our everyday lives. We commute to work, walk our dogs, meet our friends, and stage protests on city streets. In theory, streets are open for anyone to physically access. But do streets, by their design, actually discriminate against certain people? If so, who has less access to city streets? Is the design of our cities a political matter? Can we even talk about cities as being just or unjust by design? Or are they simply inconvenient, or poorly designed, for some? Josh and Ray hit the streets with Shane Epting, Co-Director of the Philosophy of the City research group at the Missouri University of Science and Technology.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/3BGte1y1G3Q.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[City streets play an important role in our everyday lives. We commute to work, walk our dogs, meet our friends, and stage protests on city streets. In theory, streets are open for anyone to physically access. But do streets, by their design, actually discriminate against certain people? If so, who has less access to city streets? Is the design of our cities a political matter? Can we even talk about cities as being just or unjust by design? Or are they simply inconvenient, or poorly designed, for some? Josh and Ray hit the streets with Shane Epting, Co-Director of the Philosophy of the City research group at the Missouri University of Science and Technology.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/3BGte1y1G3Q.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Ethical Jerk</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/ethical-jerk/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 26 Jul 2020 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/ethical-jerk/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Ethics philosophers are more ethical than the average person — right? Well, maybe not. Studies show that philosophy professors are just as biased as the rest of us, and no more generous in their charitable giving. So does that mean they’re not any more ethical too? What’s the point of doing moral philosophy if it’s not to make ourselves more ethical? How can we make ourselves better people? Or are we doomed to moral mediocrity, despite our best efforts to the contrary? Josh and Ray play nice with Eric Schwitzgebel from UC Riverside, author of A Theory of Jerks and Other Philosophical Oddities.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Ethics philosophers are more ethical than the average person — right? Well, maybe not. Studies show that philosophy professors are just as biased as the rest of us, and no more generous in their charitable giving. So does that mean they’re not any more e]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Ethics philosophers are more ethical than the average person — right? Well, maybe not. Studies show that philosophy professors are just as biased as the rest of us, and no more generous in their charitable giving. So does that mean they’re not any more ethical too? What’s the point of doing moral philosophy if it’s not to make ourselves more ethical? How can we make ourselves better people? Or are we doomed to moral mediocrity, despite our best efforts to the contrary? Josh and Ray play nice with Eric Schwitzgebel from UC Riverside, author of A Theory of Jerks and Other Philosophical Oddities.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/538/ethical-jerk.mp3" length="49087634" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Ethics philosophers are more ethical than the average person — right? Well, maybe not. Studies show that philosophy professors are just as biased as the rest of us, and no more generous in their charitable giving. So does that mean they’re not any more ethical too? What’s the point of doing moral philosophy if it’s not to make ourselves more ethical? How can we make ourselves better people? Or are we doomed to moral mediocrity, despite our best efforts to the contrary? Josh and Ray play nice with Eric Schwitzgebel from UC Riverside, author of A Theory of Jerks and Other Philosophical Oddities.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/eUHIUUQ1plY-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Ethics philosophers are more ethical than the average person — right? Well, maybe not. Studies show that philosophy professors are just as biased as the rest of us, and no more generous in their charitable giving. So does that mean they’re not any more ethical too? What’s the point of doing moral philosophy if it’s not to make ourselves more ethical? How can we make ourselves better people? Or are we doomed to moral mediocrity, despite our best efforts to the contrary? Josh and Ray play nice with Eric Schwitzgebel from UC Riverside, author of A Theory of Jerks and Other Philosophical Oddities.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/eUHIUUQ1plY-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Walter Benjamin and the Re-Enchanted World</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/walter-benjamin-and-re-enchanted-world/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2020 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/walter-benjamin-and-re-enchanted-world/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Walter Benjamin was a German Jewish critical theorist, essayist, and philosopher who died tragically during the Second World War. His thoughts about modernity, history, art, disenchantment, and re-enchantment are still discussed today. So who was Benjamin, and what is his intellectual legacy? Why did he believe that Enlightenment values, such as rationality and modernization, brought about disenchantment in the world? Did he think there was a way to find re-enchantment without abandoning these values? And what would he have had to say about social media and its power to distract? The hosts have an enchanting time with Margaret Cohen from Stanford University, author of Profane Illumination: Walter Benjamin and the Paris of Surrealist Revolution.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Walter Benjamin was a German Jewish critical theorist, essayist, and philosopher who died tragically during the Second World War. His thoughts about modernity, history, art, disenchantment, and re-enchantment are still discussed today. So who was Benjami]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Walter Benjamin was a German Jewish critical theorist, essayist, and philosopher who died tragically during the Second World War. His thoughts about modernity, history, art, disenchantment, and re-enchantment are still discussed today. So who was Benjamin, and what is his intellectual legacy? Why did he believe that Enlightenment values, such as rationality and modernization, brought about disenchantment in the world? Did he think there was a way to find re-enchantment without abandoning these values? And what would he have had to say about social media and its power to distract? The hosts have an enchanting time with Margaret Cohen from Stanford University, author of Profane Illumination: Walter Benjamin and the Paris of Surrealist Revolution.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/534/walter-benjamin-and-re-enchanted-world.mp3" length="48953469" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Walter Benjamin was a German Jewish critical theorist, essayist, and philosopher who died tragically during the Second World War. His thoughts about modernity, history, art, disenchantment, and re-enchantment are still discussed today. So who was Benjamin, and what is his intellectual legacy? Why did he believe that Enlightenment values, such as rationality and modernization, brought about disenchantment in the world? Did he think there was a way to find re-enchantment without abandoning these values? And what would he have had to say about social media and its power to distract? The hosts have an enchanting time with Margaret Cohen from Stanford University, author of Profane Illumination: Walter Benjamin and the Paris of Surrealist Revolution.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/ykPZ21DEkTI.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Walter Benjamin was a German Jewish critical theorist, essayist, and philosopher who died tragically during the Second World War. His thoughts about modernity, history, art, disenchantment, and re-enchantment are still discussed today. So who was Benjamin, and what is his intellectual legacy? Why did he believe that Enlightenment values, such as rationality and modernization, brought about disenchantment in the world? Did he think there was a way to find re-enchantment without abandoning these values? And what would he have had to say about social media and its power to distract? The hosts have an enchanting time with Margaret Cohen from Stanford University, author of Profane Illumination: Walter Benjamin and the Paris of Surrealist Revolution.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/ykPZ21DEkTI.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Pet Ethics</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/pet-ethics/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2020 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/pet-ethics/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Many of us, even the staunchest animal activists, usually take it for granted that keeping a pet is morally acceptable. But regardless of how well we treat our animal “companions,” by keeping pets we are declaring ownership and paternal authority over other living creatures, and confining them to our homes. Is there any good moral justification for the keeping of pets? What makes some, if any, animals suitable as pets but not others? Do we have a special obligation to animal companions that does not extend to other animals? The Philosophers fetch Gary Varner from Texas A&#38;M University, author of Personhood, Ethics, and Animal Cognition.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Many of us, even the staunchest animal activists, usually take it for granted that keeping a pet is morally acceptable. But regardless of how well we treat our animal “companions,” by keeping pets we are declaring ownership and paternal authority over ot]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Many of us, even the staunchest animal activists, usually take it for granted that keeping a pet is morally acceptable. But regardless of how well we treat our animal “companions,” by keeping pets we are declaring ownership and paternal authority over other living creatures, and confining them to our homes. Is there any good moral justification for the keeping of pets? What makes some, if any, animals suitable as pets but not others? Do we have a special obligation to animal companions that does not extend to other animals? The Philosophers fetch Gary Varner from Texas A&#38;M University, author of Personhood, Ethics, and Animal Cognition.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/523/pet-ethics.mp3" length="48924630" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Many of us, even the staunchest animal activists, usually take it for granted that keeping a pet is morally acceptable. But regardless of how well we treat our animal “companions,” by keeping pets we are declaring ownership and paternal authority over other living creatures, and confining them to our homes. Is there any good moral justification for the keeping of pets? What makes some, if any, animals suitable as pets but not others? Do we have a special obligation to animal companions that does not extend to other animals? The Philosophers fetch Gary Varner from Texas A&#38;M University, author of Personhood, Ethics, and Animal Cognition.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/VVJZ5ZL3DYA.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Many of us, even the staunchest animal activists, usually take it for granted that keeping a pet is morally acceptable. But regardless of how well we treat our animal “companions,” by keeping pets we are declaring ownership and paternal authority over other living creatures, and confining them to our homes. Is there any good moral justification for the keeping of pets? What makes some, if any, animals suitable as pets but not others? Do we have a special obligation to animal companions that does not extend to other animals? The Philosophers fetch Gary Varner from Texas A&#38;M University, author of Personhood, Ethics, and Animal Cognition.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/VVJZ5ZL3DYA.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Time for Summer Reading</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/time-summer-reading/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 14 Jun 2020 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/time-summer-reading/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[When John and Ken began shopping around their idea for a philosophy-on-the-radio show nearly 20 years ago, many believed it would never work, let alone stay on the air. Nearly two decades later, the program that questions everything (except your intelligence) has hit 500 episodes—just in time for current co-hosts Josh and Ray to spend our annual summer reading special thinking about time and books about time.

Physicist Carlo Rovelli, author of The Order of Time
Political scientist Elizabeth Cohen, author of The Political Value of Time
Poet and essayist Jane Hirshfield, author of Ledger
Philosopher Jorah Dannenberg on Ted Chiang&#8217;s Story of Your Life.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[When John and Ken began shopping around their idea for a philosophy-on-the-radio show nearly 20 years ago, many believed it would never work, let alone stay on the air. Nearly two decades later, the program that questions everything (except your intellig]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[When John and Ken began shopping around their idea for a philosophy-on-the-radio show nearly 20 years ago, many believed it would never work, let alone stay on the air. Nearly two decades later, the program that questions everything (except your intelligence) has hit 500 episodes—just in time for current co-hosts Josh and Ray to spend our annual summer reading special thinking about time and books about time.

Physicist Carlo Rovelli, author of The Order of Time
Political scientist Elizabeth Cohen, author of The Political Value of Time
Poet and essayist Jane Hirshfield, author of Ledger
Philosopher Jorah Dannenberg on Ted Chiang&#8217;s Story of Your Life.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/525/time-summer-reading.mp3" length="49918119" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[When John and Ken began shopping around their idea for a philosophy-on-the-radio show nearly 20 years ago, many believed it would never work, let alone stay on the air. Nearly two decades later, the program that questions everything (except your intelligence) has hit 500 episodes—just in time for current co-hosts Josh and Ray to spend our annual summer reading special thinking about time and books about time.

Physicist Carlo Rovelli, author of The Order of Time
Political scientist Elizabeth Cohen, author of The Political Value of Time
Poet and essayist Jane Hirshfield, author of Ledger
Philosopher Jorah Dannenberg on Ted Chiang&#8217;s Story of Your Life.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/HHy0GosCBtg.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[When John and Ken began shopping around their idea for a philosophy-on-the-radio show nearly 20 years ago, many believed it would never work, let alone stay on the air. Nearly two decades later, the program that questions everything (except your intelligence) has hit 500 episodes—just in time for current co-hosts Josh and Ray to spend our annual summer reading special thinking about time and books about time.

Physicist Carlo Rovelli, author of The Order of Time
Political scientist Elizabeth Cohen, author of The Political Value of Time
Poet and essayist Jane Hirshfield, author of Ledger
Philosopher Jorah Dannenberg on Ted Chiang&#8217;s Story of Your Life.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/HHy0GosCBtg.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Covid Conundrums and Moral Dilemmas</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/covid-conundrums-and-moral-dilemmas/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 31 May 2020 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/covid-conundrums-and-moral-dilemmas/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[In just months the world changed radically, and we have all had to adjust our lifestyles to stop the spread of Covid-19. Those working on the frontlines are taking on great personal risk while the rest of us are required to socially distance. But even if you follow all the guidelines, you may still face moral dilemmas. Is it ethical to order non-essential goods online, putting low wage workers at risk for your own comfort? What should you do if your roommates refuse to follow the rules, putting your health in danger? And if social distancing means thousands will die alone of non-Covid related diseases, has it gone too far? Josh and Ray put your Covid-related conundrums to Karen Stohr from the Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown University, author of Minding the Gap: Moral Ideals and Moral Improvement.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[In just months the world changed radically, and we have all had to adjust our lifestyles to stop the spread of Covid-19. Those working on the frontlines are taking on great personal risk while the rest of us are required to socially distance. But even if]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[In just months the world changed radically, and we have all had to adjust our lifestyles to stop the spread of Covid-19. Those working on the frontlines are taking on great personal risk while the rest of us are required to socially distance. But even if you follow all the guidelines, you may still face moral dilemmas. Is it ethical to order non-essential goods online, putting low wage workers at risk for your own comfort? What should you do if your roommates refuse to follow the rules, putting your health in danger? And if social distancing means thousands will die alone of non-Covid related diseases, has it gone too far? Josh and Ray put your Covid-related conundrums to Karen Stohr from the Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown University, author of Minding the Gap: Moral Ideals and Moral Improvement.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/528/covid-conundrums-and-moral-dilemmas.mp3" length="48993175" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[In just months the world changed radically, and we have all had to adjust our lifestyles to stop the spread of Covid-19. Those working on the frontlines are taking on great personal risk while the rest of us are required to socially distance. But even if you follow all the guidelines, you may still face moral dilemmas. Is it ethical to order non-essential goods online, putting low wage workers at risk for your own comfort? What should you do if your roommates refuse to follow the rules, putting your health in danger? And if social distancing means thousands will die alone of non-Covid related diseases, has it gone too far? Josh and Ray put your Covid-related conundrums to Karen Stohr from the Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown University, author of Minding the Gap: Moral Ideals and Moral Improvement.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/DJI633k6RwA.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[In just months the world changed radically, and we have all had to adjust our lifestyles to stop the spread of Covid-19. Those working on the frontlines are taking on great personal risk while the rest of us are required to socially distance. But even if you follow all the guidelines, you may still face moral dilemmas. Is it ethical to order non-essential goods online, putting low wage workers at risk for your own comfort? What should you do if your roommates refuse to follow the rules, putting your health in danger? And if social distancing means thousands will die alone of non-Covid related diseases, has it gone too far? Josh and Ray put your Covid-related conundrums to Karen Stohr from the Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown University, author of Minding the Gap: Moral Ideals and Moral Improvement.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/DJI633k6RwA.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Comforting Conversations, pt.2</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/comforting-conversations-pt2/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 24 May 2020 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/comforting-conversations-pt2/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[In troubling, uncertain times, the arts and humanities are more important than ever. Engaging with works of literature can provide both much needed insight into our current struggles and a sense of perspective in a crisis. In what ways do novels or plays help us come to terms with human suffering? Can fictional narratives about past pandemics shed light on our current situation? And how can storytelling or music help bring us together in isolation? Josh and Ray converse with a range of Stanford faculty members about how philosophy, music, drama, and literature can provide comfort, connection, and a sense of community.

Ge Wang on making music across great distances
Laura Wittman on Alessandro Manzoni&#8217;s The Betrothed
Harry Elam on August Wilson&#8217;s Joe Turner&#8217;s Come and Gone
Antonia Peacocke on the surprising philosophy of meditation]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[In troubling, uncertain times, the arts and humanities are more important than ever. Engaging with works of literature can provide both much needed insight into our current struggles and a sense of perspective in a crisis. In what ways do novels or plays]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[In troubling, uncertain times, the arts and humanities are more important than ever. Engaging with works of literature can provide both much needed insight into our current struggles and a sense of perspective in a crisis. In what ways do novels or plays help us come to terms with human suffering? Can fictional narratives about past pandemics shed light on our current situation? And how can storytelling or music help bring us together in isolation? Josh and Ray converse with a range of Stanford faculty members about how philosophy, music, drama, and literature can provide comfort, connection, and a sense of community.

Ge Wang on making music across great distances
Laura Wittman on Alessandro Manzoni&#8217;s The Betrothed
Harry Elam on August Wilson&#8217;s Joe Turner&#8217;s Come and Gone
Antonia Peacocke on the surprising philosophy of meditation]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/532/comforting-conversations-pt2.mp3" length="49911013" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[In troubling, uncertain times, the arts and humanities are more important than ever. Engaging with works of literature can provide both much needed insight into our current struggles and a sense of perspective in a crisis. In what ways do novels or plays help us come to terms with human suffering? Can fictional narratives about past pandemics shed light on our current situation? And how can storytelling or music help bring us together in isolation? Josh and Ray converse with a range of Stanford faculty members about how philosophy, music, drama, and literature can provide comfort, connection, and a sense of community.

Ge Wang on making music across great distances
Laura Wittman on Alessandro Manzoni&#8217;s The Betrothed
Harry Elam on August Wilson&#8217;s Joe Turner&#8217;s Come and Gone
Antonia Peacocke on the surprising philosophy of meditation]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/yiqNKrz-fj0.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[In troubling, uncertain times, the arts and humanities are more important than ever. Engaging with works of literature can provide both much needed insight into our current struggles and a sense of perspective in a crisis. In what ways do novels or plays help us come to terms with human suffering? Can fictional narratives about past pandemics shed light on our current situation? And how can storytelling or music help bring us together in isolation? Josh and Ray converse with a range of Stanford faculty members about how philosophy, music, drama, and literature can provide comfort, connection, and a sense of community.

Ge Wang on making music across great distances
Laura Wittman on Alessandro Manzoni&#8217;s The Betrothed
Harry Elam on August Wilson&#8217;s Joe Turner&#8217;s Come and Gone
Antonia Peacocke on the surprising philosophy of meditation]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/yiqNKrz-fj0.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Comforting Conversations, pt.1</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/comforting-conversations-pt1/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 17 May 2020 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/comforting-conversations-pt1/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[In troubling, uncertain times, the arts and humanities are more important than ever. Engaging with works of literature can provide both much needed insight into our current struggles and a sense of perspective in a crisis. In what ways do novels or plays help us come to terms with human suffering? Can fictional narratives about past pandemics shed light on our current situation? And how can storytelling or music help bring us together in isolation? Josh and Ray converse with a range of Stanford faculty members about how philosophy, music, drama, and literature can provide comfort, connection, and a sense of community.

Lanier Anderson on Albert Camus&#8217; The Plague
Michaela Bronstein on narrative and fiction as imaginative tools
Ato Quayson on the social value of oral storytelling]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[In troubling, uncertain times, the arts and humanities are more important than ever. Engaging with works of literature can provide both much needed insight into our current struggles and a sense of perspective in a crisis. In what ways do novels or plays]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[In troubling, uncertain times, the arts and humanities are more important than ever. Engaging with works of literature can provide both much needed insight into our current struggles and a sense of perspective in a crisis. In what ways do novels or plays help us come to terms with human suffering? Can fictional narratives about past pandemics shed light on our current situation? And how can storytelling or music help bring us together in isolation? Josh and Ray converse with a range of Stanford faculty members about how philosophy, music, drama, and literature can provide comfort, connection, and a sense of community.

Lanier Anderson on Albert Camus&#8217; The Plague
Michaela Bronstein on narrative and fiction as imaginative tools
Ato Quayson on the social value of oral storytelling]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/530/comforting-conversations-pt1.mp3" length="49917701" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[In troubling, uncertain times, the arts and humanities are more important than ever. Engaging with works of literature can provide both much needed insight into our current struggles and a sense of perspective in a crisis. In what ways do novels or plays help us come to terms with human suffering? Can fictional narratives about past pandemics shed light on our current situation? And how can storytelling or music help bring us together in isolation? Josh and Ray converse with a range of Stanford faculty members about how philosophy, music, drama, and literature can provide comfort, connection, and a sense of community.

Lanier Anderson on Albert Camus&#8217; The Plague
Michaela Bronstein on narrative and fiction as imaginative tools
Ato Quayson on the social value of oral storytelling]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/SqWHmFwTinA.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[In troubling, uncertain times, the arts and humanities are more important than ever. Engaging with works of literature can provide both much needed insight into our current struggles and a sense of perspective in a crisis. In what ways do novels or plays help us come to terms with human suffering? Can fictional narratives about past pandemics shed light on our current situation? And how can storytelling or music help bring us together in isolation? Josh and Ray converse with a range of Stanford faculty members about how philosophy, music, drama, and literature can provide comfort, connection, and a sense of community.

Lanier Anderson on Albert Camus&#8217; The Plague
Michaela Bronstein on narrative and fiction as imaginative tools
Ato Quayson on the social value of oral storytelling]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/SqWHmFwTinA.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>(Why) Money Matters</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/why-money-matters/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2020 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/why-money-matters/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Money, they say, does not buy happiness; but having none can make life extraordinarily hard. Whether we have a little or a lot, we are all familiar with how much money matters in our daily lives. But what exactly is money? Is it a commodity that evolved spontaneously from systems of barter? Or is it purely an invention of government, used as a means to pay off tax liability? What difference would the answer make to things like job creation, inflation, and government spending? And how do modern inventions like cryptocurrency fit into a theory of money? Josh and Ray run up the bill with Graham Hubbs from the University of Idaho, editor of Pragmatism, Law, and Language.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Money, they say, does not buy happiness; but having none can make life extraordinarily hard. Whether we have a little or a lot, we are all familiar with how much money matters in our daily lives. But what exactly is money? Is it a commodity that evolved ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Money, they say, does not buy happiness; but having none can make life extraordinarily hard. Whether we have a little or a lot, we are all familiar with how much money matters in our daily lives. But what exactly is money? Is it a commodity that evolved spontaneously from systems of barter? Or is it purely an invention of government, used as a means to pay off tax liability? What difference would the answer make to things like job creation, inflation, and government spending? And how do modern inventions like cryptocurrency fit into a theory of money? Josh and Ray run up the bill with Graham Hubbs from the University of Idaho, editor of Pragmatism, Law, and Language.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/521/why-money-matters.mp3" length="49627219" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Money, they say, does not buy happiness; but having none can make life extraordinarily hard. Whether we have a little or a lot, we are all familiar with how much money matters in our daily lives. But what exactly is money? Is it a commodity that evolved spontaneously from systems of barter? Or is it purely an invention of government, used as a means to pay off tax liability? What difference would the answer make to things like job creation, inflation, and government spending? And how do modern inventions like cryptocurrency fit into a theory of money? Josh and Ray run up the bill with Graham Hubbs from the University of Idaho, editor of Pragmatism, Law, and Language.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Screenshot-2025-03-21-at-3.13.26 PM.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Money, they say, does not buy happiness; but having none can make life extraordinarily hard. Whether we have a little or a lot, we are all familiar with how much money matters in our daily lives. But what exactly is money? Is it a commodity that evolved spontaneously from systems of barter? Or is it purely an invention of government, used as a means to pay off tax liability? What difference would the answer make to things like job creation, inflation, and government spending? And how do modern inventions like cryptocurrency fit into a theory of money? Josh and Ray run up the bill with Graham Hubbs from the University of Idaho, editor of Pragmatism, Law, and Language.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Screenshot-2025-03-21-at-3.13.26 PM.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Philosophy and the Superhero</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/philosophy-and-superhero/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Apr 2020 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/philosophy-and-superhero/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Philosophy is replete with thought experiments featuring characters like Descartes’ “Evil Genius” and Davidson’s “Swampman.” Some of the scenarios philosophers conjure up seem like they could’ve been plucked from a superhero comic. Or is it the other way around? Why do philosophy and superhero comics employ such similar thought experiments? Is there something about the comic book—a medium that is both visual and lexical—that particularly lends itself to philosophical thinking? And what would a philosophy of the superhero look like? The philosophers save the world with Nathaniel Goldberg from Washington and Lee University, co-author of Superhero Thought Experiments: Comic Book Philosophy.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Philosophy is replete with thought experiments featuring characters like Descartes’ “Evil Genius” and Davidson’s “Swampman.” Some of the scenarios philosophers conjure up seem like they could’ve been plucked from a superhero comic. Or is it the other way]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Philosophy is replete with thought experiments featuring characters like Descartes’ “Evil Genius” and Davidson’s “Swampman.” Some of the scenarios philosophers conjure up seem like they could’ve been plucked from a superhero comic. Or is it the other way around? Why do philosophy and superhero comics employ such similar thought experiments? Is there something about the comic book—a medium that is both visual and lexical—that particularly lends itself to philosophical thinking? And what would a philosophy of the superhero look like? The philosophers save the world with Nathaniel Goldberg from Washington and Lee University, co-author of Superhero Thought Experiments: Comic Book Philosophy.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/519/philosophy-and-superhero.mp3" length="47981296" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Philosophy is replete with thought experiments featuring characters like Descartes’ “Evil Genius” and Davidson’s “Swampman.” Some of the scenarios philosophers conjure up seem like they could’ve been plucked from a superhero comic. Or is it the other way around? Why do philosophy and superhero comics employ such similar thought experiments? Is there something about the comic book—a medium that is both visual and lexical—that particularly lends itself to philosophical thinking? And what would a philosophy of the superhero look like? The philosophers save the world with Nathaniel Goldberg from Washington and Lee University, co-author of Superhero Thought Experiments: Comic Book Philosophy.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/sbmPDoA41yY.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Philosophy is replete with thought experiments featuring characters like Descartes’ “Evil Genius” and Davidson’s “Swampman.” Some of the scenarios philosophers conjure up seem like they could’ve been plucked from a superhero comic. Or is it the other way around? Why do philosophy and superhero comics employ such similar thought experiments? Is there something about the comic book—a medium that is both visual and lexical—that particularly lends itself to philosophical thinking? And what would a philosophy of the superhero look like? The philosophers save the world with Nathaniel Goldberg from Washington and Lee University, co-author of Superhero Thought Experiments: Comic Book Philosophy.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/sbmPDoA41yY.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The 2020 Dionysus Awards</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/2020-dionysus-awards/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 15 Mar 2020 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/2020-dionysus-awards/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What movies of the past year challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Josh and guest co-host Jeremy Sabol talk to philosophers and listeners as they present their seventh (mostly) annual Dionysus Awards for the most thoughtful films of the past year.
• Most Stimulating and Stressful Vision of today&#8217;s America
• Most Morally Enthralling and/or Desensitizing Film
• Dopest Doctored Documentary]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What movies of the past year challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Josh and guest co-host Jeremy Sabol talk to philosophers and listeners as they present their seventh (mostly) annual Dionysus Awards for the most thoughtf]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What movies of the past year challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Josh and guest co-host Jeremy Sabol talk to philosophers and listeners as they present their seventh (mostly) annual Dionysus Awards for the most thoughtful films of the past year.
• Most Stimulating and Stressful Vision of today&#8217;s America
• Most Morally Enthralling and/or Desensitizing Film
• Dopest Doctored Documentary]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/517/2020-dionysus-awards.mp3" length="50072764" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What movies of the past year challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Josh and guest co-host Jeremy Sabol talk to philosophers and listeners as they present their seventh (mostly) annual Dionysus Awards for the most thoughtful films of the past year.
• Most Stimulating and Stressful Vision of today&#8217;s America
• Most Morally Enthralling and/or Desensitizing Film
• Dopest Doctored Documentary]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/ygisPn0D53o.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What movies of the past year challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Josh and guest co-host Jeremy Sabol talk to philosophers and listeners as they present their seventh (mostly) annual Dionysus Awards for the most thoughtful films of the past year.
• Most Stimulating and Stressful Vision of today&#8217;s America
• Most Morally Enthralling and/or Desensitizing Film
• Dopest Doctored Documentary]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/ygisPn0D53o.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Is the Self an Illusion?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/self-illusion/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 23 Feb 2020 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/self-illusion/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Most of us think it’s obvious that we have a self, but famously, both Buddhism and British philosopher David Hume are skeptical that such a thing exists. What in the world could it mean to deny that the self exists? Could ‘the self’ just refer to a series of perceptions and feelings we have over time? If so, then whose perceptions and feelings are they? Is there any way Buddhism could have influenced Hume’s thinking on the illusory nature of the self? Josh and John question theirselves with Alison Gopnik from UC Berkeley, author of The Philosophical Baby and &#8220;How David Hume Helped Me Solve My Midlife Crisis.&#8221;]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Most of us think it’s obvious that we have a self, but famously, both Buddhism and British philosopher David Hume are skeptical that such a thing exists. What in the world could it mean to deny that the self exists? Could ‘the self’ just refer to a serie]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Most of us think it’s obvious that we have a self, but famously, both Buddhism and British philosopher David Hume are skeptical that such a thing exists. What in the world could it mean to deny that the self exists? Could ‘the self’ just refer to a series of perceptions and feelings we have over time? If so, then whose perceptions and feelings are they? Is there any way Buddhism could have influenced Hume’s thinking on the illusory nature of the self? Josh and John question theirselves with Alison Gopnik from UC Berkeley, author of The Philosophical Baby and &#8220;How David Hume Helped Me Solve My Midlife Crisis.&#8221;]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/515/self-illusion.mp3" length="48979800" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Most of us think it’s obvious that we have a self, but famously, both Buddhism and British philosopher David Hume are skeptical that such a thing exists. What in the world could it mean to deny that the self exists? Could ‘the self’ just refer to a series of perceptions and feelings we have over time? If so, then whose perceptions and feelings are they? Is there any way Buddhism could have influenced Hume’s thinking on the illusory nature of the self? Josh and John question theirselves with Alison Gopnik from UC Berkeley, author of The Philosophical Baby and &#8220;How David Hume Helped Me Solve My Midlife Crisis.&#8221;]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/o0bsB44vLsE.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Most of us think it’s obvious that we have a self, but famously, both Buddhism and British philosopher David Hume are skeptical that such a thing exists. What in the world could it mean to deny that the self exists? Could ‘the self’ just refer to a series of perceptions and feelings we have over time? If so, then whose perceptions and feelings are they? Is there any way Buddhism could have influenced Hume’s thinking on the illusory nature of the self? Josh and John question theirselves with Alison Gopnik from UC Berkeley, author of The Philosophical Baby and &#8220;How David Hume Helped Me Solve My Midlife Crisis.&#8221;]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/o0bsB44vLsE.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Death of the Sentence</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/death-sentence/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 26 Jan 2020 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/death-sentence/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[A child’s first sentence is a pivotal moment in her development when she is recognized as now capable of communicating complete thoughts. But in the 21st century, thoughts have become increasingly mediated by technology, and language more careless and informal as a result. Are texts, emails, tweets, and emojis responsible for the decline of the formal, grammatical sentence? Are our writing standards getting worse, or are they simply changing with the times? And what effect—good or bad—will new communicative styles have on participation in the democratic polity? The philosophers share complete thoughts with Jan Mieszkowski from Reed College, author of Crises of the Sentence.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[A child’s first sentence is a pivotal moment in her development when she is recognized as now capable of communicating complete thoughts. But in the 21st century, thoughts have become increasingly mediated by technology, and language more careless and in]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[A child’s first sentence is a pivotal moment in her development when she is recognized as now capable of communicating complete thoughts. But in the 21st century, thoughts have become increasingly mediated by technology, and language more careless and informal as a result. Are texts, emails, tweets, and emojis responsible for the decline of the formal, grammatical sentence? Are our writing standards getting worse, or are they simply changing with the times? And what effect—good or bad—will new communicative styles have on participation in the democratic polity? The philosophers share complete thoughts with Jan Mieszkowski from Reed College, author of Crises of the Sentence.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/511/death-sentence.mp3" length="47702099" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[A child’s first sentence is a pivotal moment in her development when she is recognized as now capable of communicating complete thoughts. But in the 21st century, thoughts have become increasingly mediated by technology, and language more careless and informal as a result. Are texts, emails, tweets, and emojis responsible for the decline of the formal, grammatical sentence? Are our writing standards getting worse, or are they simply changing with the times? And what effect—good or bad—will new communicative styles have on participation in the democratic polity? The philosophers share complete thoughts with Jan Mieszkowski from Reed College, author of Crises of the Sentence.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/z37283PZQmk.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[A child’s first sentence is a pivotal moment in her development when she is recognized as now capable of communicating complete thoughts. But in the 21st century, thoughts have become increasingly mediated by technology, and language more careless and informal as a result. Are texts, emails, tweets, and emojis responsible for the decline of the formal, grammatical sentence? Are our writing standards getting worse, or are they simply changing with the times? And what effect—good or bad—will new communicative styles have on participation in the democratic polity? The philosophers share complete thoughts with Jan Mieszkowski from Reed College, author of Crises of the Sentence.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/z37283PZQmk.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Comedy and the Culture Wars</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/comedy-and-culture-wars/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jan 2020 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/comedy-and-culture-wars/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Comedy can often give offense, especially when it concerns such sensitive topics as race, gender, and sexuality. Should comedy like that be shunned, boycotted, even banned? Can it be enjoyed without danger? Or could it even, at its best, be the road to a better society? Could it somehow help us all to live together, and to come to terms with intractable social issues we’ll never fully put behind us? The Philosophers have a laugh with Jeff Israel from Williams College, author of Living with Hate in American Politics and Religion: How Popular Culture Can Defuse Intractable Differences.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Comedy can often give offense, especially when it concerns such sensitive topics as race, gender, and sexuality. Should comedy like that be shunned, boycotted, even banned? Can it be enjoyed without danger? Or could it even, at its best, be the road to a]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Comedy can often give offense, especially when it concerns such sensitive topics as race, gender, and sexuality. Should comedy like that be shunned, boycotted, even banned? Can it be enjoyed without danger? Or could it even, at its best, be the road to a better society? Could it somehow help us all to live together, and to come to terms with intractable social issues we’ll never fully put behind us? The Philosophers have a laugh with Jeff Israel from Williams College, author of Living with Hate in American Politics and Religion: How Popular Culture Can Defuse Intractable Differences.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/505/comedy-and-culture-wars.mp3" length="47578383" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Comedy can often give offense, especially when it concerns such sensitive topics as race, gender, and sexuality. Should comedy like that be shunned, boycotted, even banned? Can it be enjoyed without danger? Or could it even, at its best, be the road to a better society? Could it somehow help us all to live together, and to come to terms with intractable social issues we’ll never fully put behind us? The Philosophers have a laugh with Jeff Israel from Williams College, author of Living with Hate in American Politics and Religion: How Popular Culture Can Defuse Intractable Differences.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/wm4CvlFtZyM-3.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Comedy can often give offense, especially when it concerns such sensitive topics as race, gender, and sexuality. Should comedy like that be shunned, boycotted, even banned? Can it be enjoyed without danger? Or could it even, at its best, be the road to a better society? Could it somehow help us all to live together, and to come to terms with intractable social issues we’ll never fully put behind us? The Philosophers have a laugh with Jeff Israel from Williams College, author of Living with Hate in American Politics and Religion: How Popular Culture Can Defuse Intractable Differences.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/wm4CvlFtZyM-3.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Ken Taylor Tribute</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/ken-taylor-tribute/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 29 Dec 2019 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/ken-taylor-tribute/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The Philosophy Talk team is deeply saddened by Ken Taylor&#8217;s untimely passing this month. Ken was the show&#8217;s co-founder, longtime co-host, chief cheerleader, and guiding light. In this special episode, co-hosts Josh Landy and Debra Satz, along with host emeritus and co-creator John Perry, remember their colleague and friend. They also hear from past guests, former students, and others touched by Ken&#8217;s life and work.
If you&#8217;re inclined to take a deep dive into Ken&#8217;s personal background and life as a philosopher, then we think you&#8217;ll thoroughly enjoy this extensive interview and his Stanford obituary. We&#8217;re also touched and honored that Ken&#8217;s family has requested that donations in his memory be made to Philosophy Talk.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The Philosophy Talk team is deeply saddened by Ken Taylor&#8217;s untimely passing this month. Ken was the show&#8217;s co-founder, longtime co-host, chief cheerleader, and guiding light. In this special episode, co-hosts Josh Landy and Debra Satz, along]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The Philosophy Talk team is deeply saddened by Ken Taylor&#8217;s untimely passing this month. Ken was the show&#8217;s co-founder, longtime co-host, chief cheerleader, and guiding light. In this special episode, co-hosts Josh Landy and Debra Satz, along with host emeritus and co-creator John Perry, remember their colleague and friend. They also hear from past guests, former students, and others touched by Ken&#8217;s life and work.
If you&#8217;re inclined to take a deep dive into Ken&#8217;s personal background and life as a philosopher, then we think you&#8217;ll thoroughly enjoy this extensive interview and his Stanford obituary. We&#8217;re also touched and honored that Ken&#8217;s family has requested that donations in his memory be made to Philosophy Talk.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/509/ken-taylor-tribute.mp3" length="50188956" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The Philosophy Talk team is deeply saddened by Ken Taylor&#8217;s untimely passing this month. Ken was the show&#8217;s co-founder, longtime co-host, chief cheerleader, and guiding light. In this special episode, co-hosts Josh Landy and Debra Satz, along with host emeritus and co-creator John Perry, remember their colleague and friend. They also hear from past guests, former students, and others touched by Ken&#8217;s life and work.
If you&#8217;re inclined to take a deep dive into Ken&#8217;s personal background and life as a philosopher, then we think you&#8217;ll thoroughly enjoy this extensive interview and his Stanford obituary. We&#8217;re also touched and honored that Ken&#8217;s family has requested that donations in his memory be made to Philosophy Talk.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/pcQ2UACfdiU.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The Philosophy Talk team is deeply saddened by Ken Taylor&#8217;s untimely passing this month. Ken was the show&#8217;s co-founder, longtime co-host, chief cheerleader, and guiding light. In this special episode, co-hosts Josh Landy and Debra Satz, along with host emeritus and co-creator John Perry, remember their colleague and friend. They also hear from past guests, former students, and others touched by Ken&#8217;s life and work.
If you&#8217;re inclined to take a deep dive into Ken&#8217;s personal background and life as a philosopher, then we think you&#8217;ll thoroughly enjoy this extensive interview and his Stanford obituary. We&#8217;re also touched and honored that Ken&#8217;s family has requested that donations in his memory be made to Philosophy Talk.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/pcQ2UACfdiU.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Sanctuary Cities</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/sanctuary-cities/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 17 Nov 2019 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/sanctuary-cities/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[In the U.S. there are over 500 sanctuary cities—municipalities that limit their cooperation with the federal government’s immigration law enforcement. Although opponents portray sanctuary cities as besieged by crime, empirical data does not bear out such claims. But what actually justifies sanctuary policies in the first place? Do appeals to public health or safety warrant these measures? Or should lack of cooperation be seen as an act of resistance against unjust federal policies? And how should local municipalities respond to claims that they lack the authority to impede federal immigration enforcement? Josh and Ken find sanctuary with Shelley Wilcox from SF State University, author of “How Can Sanctuary Policies be Justified?”]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[In the U.S. there are over 500 sanctuary cities—municipalities that limit their cooperation with the federal government’s immigration law enforcement. Although opponents portray sanctuary cities as besieged by crime, empirical data does not bear out such]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[In the U.S. there are over 500 sanctuary cities—municipalities that limit their cooperation with the federal government’s immigration law enforcement. Although opponents portray sanctuary cities as besieged by crime, empirical data does not bear out such claims. But what actually justifies sanctuary policies in the first place? Do appeals to public health or safety warrant these measures? Or should lack of cooperation be seen as an act of resistance against unjust federal policies? And how should local municipalities respond to claims that they lack the authority to impede federal immigration enforcement? Josh and Ken find sanctuary with Shelley Wilcox from SF State University, author of “How Can Sanctuary Policies be Justified?”]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/464/sanctuary-cities.mp3" length="49470484" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[In the U.S. there are over 500 sanctuary cities—municipalities that limit their cooperation with the federal government’s immigration law enforcement. Although opponents portray sanctuary cities as besieged by crime, empirical data does not bear out such claims. But what actually justifies sanctuary policies in the first place? Do appeals to public health or safety warrant these measures? Or should lack of cooperation be seen as an act of resistance against unjust federal policies? And how should local municipalities respond to claims that they lack the authority to impede federal immigration enforcement? Josh and Ken find sanctuary with Shelley Wilcox from SF State University, author of “How Can Sanctuary Policies be Justified?”]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/9HzkvksWTns.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[In the U.S. there are over 500 sanctuary cities—municipalities that limit their cooperation with the federal government’s immigration law enforcement. Although opponents portray sanctuary cities as besieged by crime, empirical data does not bear out such claims. But what actually justifies sanctuary policies in the first place? Do appeals to public health or safety warrant these measures? Or should lack of cooperation be seen as an act of resistance against unjust federal policies? And how should local municipalities respond to claims that they lack the authority to impede federal immigration enforcement? Josh and Ken find sanctuary with Shelley Wilcox from SF State University, author of “How Can Sanctuary Policies be Justified?”]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/9HzkvksWTns.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Hobbes and the Ideal Citizen</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/hobbes-and-ideal-citizen/</link>
	<pubDate>Mon, 04 Nov 2019 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/hobbes-and-ideal-citizen/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Seventeenth century philosopher Thomas Hobbes believed that without government to control our worst impulses, life would be &#8216;solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.&#8217; Consequently, he thought that absolute monarchy is the best form of government. So is Hobbes’ ideal citizen simply someone who is willing to submit to absolute authority, or are there other features the ideal citizen must have? What flaws would make a subject bad, or worse, a threat to peace in the realm? And are there any lessons modern democracies can learn from Hobbes’ political philosophy? Josh and Ken submit to Stanford political scientist Alison McQueen, author of Political Realism in Apocalyptic Times.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Seventeenth century philosopher Thomas Hobbes believed that without government to control our worst impulses, life would be &#8216;solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.&#8217; Consequently, he thought that absolute monarchy is the best form of gover]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Seventeenth century philosopher Thomas Hobbes believed that without government to control our worst impulses, life would be &#8216;solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.&#8217; Consequently, he thought that absolute monarchy is the best form of government. So is Hobbes’ ideal citizen simply someone who is willing to submit to absolute authority, or are there other features the ideal citizen must have? What flaws would make a subject bad, or worse, a threat to peace in the realm? And are there any lessons modern democracies can learn from Hobbes’ political philosophy? Josh and Ken submit to Stanford political scientist Alison McQueen, author of Political Realism in Apocalyptic Times.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/493/hobbes-and-ideal-citizen.mp3" length="49379369" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Seventeenth century philosopher Thomas Hobbes believed that without government to control our worst impulses, life would be &#8216;solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.&#8217; Consequently, he thought that absolute monarchy is the best form of government. So is Hobbes’ ideal citizen simply someone who is willing to submit to absolute authority, or are there other features the ideal citizen must have? What flaws would make a subject bad, or worse, a threat to peace in the realm? And are there any lessons modern democracies can learn from Hobbes’ political philosophy? Josh and Ken submit to Stanford political scientist Alison McQueen, author of Political Realism in Apocalyptic Times.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/xmjeNr04pfA-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Seventeenth century philosopher Thomas Hobbes believed that without government to control our worst impulses, life would be &#8216;solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.&#8217; Consequently, he thought that absolute monarchy is the best form of government. So is Hobbes’ ideal citizen simply someone who is willing to submit to absolute authority, or are there other features the ideal citizen must have? What flaws would make a subject bad, or worse, a threat to peace in the realm? And are there any lessons modern democracies can learn from Hobbes’ political philosophy? Josh and Ken submit to Stanford political scientist Alison McQueen, author of Political Realism in Apocalyptic Times.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/xmjeNr04pfA-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Conscious Machines</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/conscious-machines/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 20 Oct 2019 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/conscious-machines/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Computers have already surpassed us in their ability to perform certain cognitive tasks. Perhaps it won’t be long till every household has a super intelligent robot who can outperform us in almost every domain. While future AI might be excellent at appearing conscious, could AI ever actually become conscious? Would forcing conscious machines to work for us be akin to slavery? Could we design AI that specifically lacks consciousness? Or is consciousness simply an emergent property of intelligence? Josh and Ken become conscious with their guest, Susan Schneider, Director of the AI, Mind and Society Group at the University of Connecticut and author of Artificial You: A.I. and the Future of Your Mind.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Computers have already surpassed us in their ability to perform certain cognitive tasks. Perhaps it won’t be long till every household has a super intelligent robot who can outperform us in almost every domain. While future AI might be excellent at appea]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Computers have already surpassed us in their ability to perform certain cognitive tasks. Perhaps it won’t be long till every household has a super intelligent robot who can outperform us in almost every domain. While future AI might be excellent at appearing conscious, could AI ever actually become conscious? Would forcing conscious machines to work for us be akin to slavery? Could we design AI that specifically lacks consciousness? Or is consciousness simply an emergent property of intelligence? Josh and Ken become conscious with their guest, Susan Schneider, Director of the AI, Mind and Society Group at the University of Connecticut and author of Artificial You: A.I. and the Future of Your Mind.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/501/conscious-machines.mp3" length="49706631" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Computers have already surpassed us in their ability to perform certain cognitive tasks. Perhaps it won’t be long till every household has a super intelligent robot who can outperform us in almost every domain. While future AI might be excellent at appearing conscious, could AI ever actually become conscious? Would forcing conscious machines to work for us be akin to slavery? Could we design AI that specifically lacks consciousness? Or is consciousness simply an emergent property of intelligence? Josh and Ken become conscious with their guest, Susan Schneider, Director of the AI, Mind and Society Group at the University of Connecticut and author of Artificial You: A.I. and the Future of Your Mind.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ICihq8jFgkM-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Computers have already surpassed us in their ability to perform certain cognitive tasks. Perhaps it won’t be long till every household has a super intelligent robot who can outperform us in almost every domain. While future AI might be excellent at appearing conscious, could AI ever actually become conscious? Would forcing conscious machines to work for us be akin to slavery? Could we design AI that specifically lacks consciousness? Or is consciousness simply an emergent property of intelligence? Josh and Ken become conscious with their guest, Susan Schneider, Director of the AI, Mind and Society Group at the University of Connecticut and author of Artificial You: A.I. and the Future of Your Mind.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ICihq8jFgkM-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Allure of Authoritarianismx</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/allure-authoritarianism/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 06 Oct 2019 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/allure-authoritarianism/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[In George Orwell’s 1984, the party’s “final, most essential command” was “to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.” Authoritarian regimes call on us to accept as fact whatever they tell us; or worse, as Hannah Arendt says, they get us to a point where we no longer know—or care about—the difference between fiction and reality. So why are so many so willing to reject the evidence of their senses and deny basic, confirmable truths? Is there something about human psychology that makes us susceptible to totalitarian propaganda? And as the appeal of authoritarian leaders grows around the world, how do we guard against such radical thought manipulation? Josh and Ken lure Michael Lynch from the University of Connecticut, author of Know-It-All Society: Truth and Arrogance in Political Culture.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[In George Orwell’s 1984, the party’s “final, most essential command” was “to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.” Authoritarian regimes call on us to accept as fact whatever they tell us; or worse, as Hannah Arendt says, they get us to a point whe]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[In George Orwell’s 1984, the party’s “final, most essential command” was “to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.” Authoritarian regimes call on us to accept as fact whatever they tell us; or worse, as Hannah Arendt says, they get us to a point where we no longer know—or care about—the difference between fiction and reality. So why are so many so willing to reject the evidence of their senses and deny basic, confirmable truths? Is there something about human psychology that makes us susceptible to totalitarian propaganda? And as the appeal of authoritarian leaders grows around the world, how do we guard against such radical thought manipulation? Josh and Ken lure Michael Lynch from the University of Connecticut, author of Know-It-All Society: Truth and Arrogance in Political Culture.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/499/allure-authoritarianism.mp3" length="48104176" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[In George Orwell’s 1984, the party’s “final, most essential command” was “to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.” Authoritarian regimes call on us to accept as fact whatever they tell us; or worse, as Hannah Arendt says, they get us to a point where we no longer know—or care about—the difference between fiction and reality. So why are so many so willing to reject the evidence of their senses and deny basic, confirmable truths? Is there something about human psychology that makes us susceptible to totalitarian propaganda? And as the appeal of authoritarian leaders grows around the world, how do we guard against such radical thought manipulation? Josh and Ken lure Michael Lynch from the University of Connecticut, author of Know-It-All Society: Truth and Arrogance in Political Culture.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/kuoFNmvSjrw.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[In George Orwell’s 1984, the party’s “final, most essential command” was “to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.” Authoritarian regimes call on us to accept as fact whatever they tell us; or worse, as Hannah Arendt says, they get us to a point where we no longer know—or care about—the difference between fiction and reality. So why are so many so willing to reject the evidence of their senses and deny basic, confirmable truths? Is there something about human psychology that makes us susceptible to totalitarian propaganda? And as the appeal of authoritarian leaders grows around the world, how do we guard against such radical thought manipulation? Josh and Ken lure Michael Lynch from the University of Connecticut, author of Know-It-All Society: Truth and Arrogance in Political Culture.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/kuoFNmvSjrw.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Explanation At Its Best</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/explanation-its-best/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 29 Sep 2019 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/explanation-its-best/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[In science as well as everyday life, we often feel the pull of simpler, more elegant, or more beautiful explanations. For example, you notice the street is wet and infer the best explanation is that it rained earlier. But are we justified in assuming these tidy explanations are most likely to be true? What makes an explanation “simple” or “elegant” in the first place? And can the “loveliness” of an explanation ever be a good guide to its “likeliness”? Josh and Ken try to explain things with Princeton University psychologist Tania Lombrozo, co-editor of Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[In science as well as everyday life, we often feel the pull of simpler, more elegant, or more beautiful explanations. For example, you notice the street is wet and infer the best explanation is that it rained earlier. But are we justified in assuming the]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[In science as well as everyday life, we often feel the pull of simpler, more elegant, or more beautiful explanations. For example, you notice the street is wet and infer the best explanation is that it rained earlier. But are we justified in assuming these tidy explanations are most likely to be true? What makes an explanation “simple” or “elegant” in the first place? And can the “loveliness” of an explanation ever be a good guide to its “likeliness”? Josh and Ken try to explain things with Princeton University psychologist Tania Lombrozo, co-editor of Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/503/explanation-its-best.mp3" length="48831843" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[In science as well as everyday life, we often feel the pull of simpler, more elegant, or more beautiful explanations. For example, you notice the street is wet and infer the best explanation is that it rained earlier. But are we justified in assuming these tidy explanations are most likely to be true? What makes an explanation “simple” or “elegant” in the first place? And can the “loveliness” of an explanation ever be a good guide to its “likeliness”? Josh and Ken try to explain things with Princeton University psychologist Tania Lombrozo, co-editor of Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/GbAPfnJERtw-3.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[In science as well as everyday life, we often feel the pull of simpler, more elegant, or more beautiful explanations. For example, you notice the street is wet and infer the best explanation is that it rained earlier. But are we justified in assuming these tidy explanations are most likely to be true? What makes an explanation “simple” or “elegant” in the first place? And can the “loveliness” of an explanation ever be a good guide to its “likeliness”? Josh and Ken try to explain things with Princeton University psychologist Tania Lombrozo, co-editor of Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/GbAPfnJERtw-3.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Changing Minds on Climate Change</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/changing-minds-climate-change/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 08 Sep 2019 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/changing-minds-climate-change/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[There is consensus among scientists that global warming is real and that it’s caused by human activity. Despite the overwhelming evidence and the urgency to act, there are still many who are skeptical of or flat-out deny climate change. Are these climate deniers simply impervious to scientific evidence? Or have they just not been exposed to the right kind of information? When it comes to ideologically driven views, is it possible to change people’s minds by appeal to facts? Or are humans hopelessly and incorrigibly irrational? Ken and Josh don&#8217;t deny talking to cognitive scientist Michael Ranney, head of the Reasoning Research Group at UC Berkeley.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[There is consensus among scientists that global warming is real and that it’s caused by human activity. Despite the overwhelming evidence and the urgency to act, there are still many who are skeptical of or flat-out deny climate change. Are these climate]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[There is consensus among scientists that global warming is real and that it’s caused by human activity. Despite the overwhelming evidence and the urgency to act, there are still many who are skeptical of or flat-out deny climate change. Are these climate deniers simply impervious to scientific evidence? Or have they just not been exposed to the right kind of information? When it comes to ideologically driven views, is it possible to change people’s minds by appeal to facts? Or are humans hopelessly and incorrigibly irrational? Ken and Josh don&#8217;t deny talking to cognitive scientist Michael Ranney, head of the Reasoning Research Group at UC Berkeley.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/495/changing-minds-climate-change.mp3" length="48776672" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[There is consensus among scientists that global warming is real and that it’s caused by human activity. Despite the overwhelming evidence and the urgency to act, there are still many who are skeptical of or flat-out deny climate change. Are these climate deniers simply impervious to scientific evidence? Or have they just not been exposed to the right kind of information? When it comes to ideologically driven views, is it possible to change people’s minds by appeal to facts? Or are humans hopelessly and incorrigibly irrational? Ken and Josh don&#8217;t deny talking to cognitive scientist Michael Ranney, head of the Reasoning Research Group at UC Berkeley.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/NcP-bC3RANk-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[There is consensus among scientists that global warming is real and that it’s caused by human activity. Despite the overwhelming evidence and the urgency to act, there are still many who are skeptical of or flat-out deny climate change. Are these climate deniers simply impervious to scientific evidence? Or have they just not been exposed to the right kind of information? When it comes to ideologically driven views, is it possible to change people’s minds by appeal to facts? Or are humans hopelessly and incorrigibly irrational? Ken and Josh don&#8217;t deny talking to cognitive scientist Michael Ranney, head of the Reasoning Research Group at UC Berkeley.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/NcP-bC3RANk-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Reading the Troubled Past</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/reading-troubled-past/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 11 Aug 2019 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/reading-troubled-past/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Nigerian writer Chinua Achebe lambasted Joseph Conrad’s novel Heart of Darkness as a deeply racist work that should be removed from the Western canon. Defenders of Conrad say the novel is simply an expression of its time and not an endorsement of the racist attitudes it represents. So how do we judge the moral legitimacy of older works of literature and philosophy? Should we shun writers for holding racist or sexist views? Or is it important to read—and censure—them? Is it fair to judge authors of the past by today’s politically conscious standards? Josh and Ken have no trouble reading with Julie Napolin from The New School, author of The Fact of Resonance: Modernist Acoustics and Narrative Form.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Nigerian writer Chinua Achebe lambasted Joseph Conrad’s novel Heart of Darkness as a deeply racist work that should be removed from the Western canon. Defenders of Conrad say the novel is simply an expression of its time and not an endorsement of the rac]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Nigerian writer Chinua Achebe lambasted Joseph Conrad’s novel Heart of Darkness as a deeply racist work that should be removed from the Western canon. Defenders of Conrad say the novel is simply an expression of its time and not an endorsement of the racist attitudes it represents. So how do we judge the moral legitimacy of older works of literature and philosophy? Should we shun writers for holding racist or sexist views? Or is it important to read—and censure—them? Is it fair to judge authors of the past by today’s politically conscious standards? Josh and Ken have no trouble reading with Julie Napolin from The New School, author of The Fact of Resonance: Modernist Acoustics and Narrative Form.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/497/reading-troubled-past.mp3" length="48710635" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Nigerian writer Chinua Achebe lambasted Joseph Conrad’s novel Heart of Darkness as a deeply racist work that should be removed from the Western canon. Defenders of Conrad say the novel is simply an expression of its time and not an endorsement of the racist attitudes it represents. So how do we judge the moral legitimacy of older works of literature and philosophy? Should we shun writers for holding racist or sexist views? Or is it important to read—and censure—them? Is it fair to judge authors of the past by today’s politically conscious standards? Josh and Ken have no trouble reading with Julie Napolin from The New School, author of The Fact of Resonance: Modernist Acoustics and Narrative Form.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/aKWr6N38QSI.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Nigerian writer Chinua Achebe lambasted Joseph Conrad’s novel Heart of Darkness as a deeply racist work that should be removed from the Western canon. Defenders of Conrad say the novel is simply an expression of its time and not an endorsement of the racist attitudes it represents. So how do we judge the moral legitimacy of older works of literature and philosophy? Should we shun writers for holding racist or sexist views? Or is it important to read—and censure—them? Is it fair to judge authors of the past by today’s politically conscious standards? Josh and Ken have no trouble reading with Julie Napolin from The New School, author of The Fact of Resonance: Modernist Acoustics and Narrative Form.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/aKWr6N38QSI.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Doomsday Doctrine</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/doomsday-doctrine/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 04 Aug 2019 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/doomsday-doctrine/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The doctrine of mutually assured destruction is supposed to deter both sides in a war from launching the first nuclear strike. However, the strategy of the US, NATO, and other super powers has been to plan the destruction of nearly all life on Earth. If near total annihilation would be monstrous, ethically speaking, then what should we say about preparing for and planning it? Can there be any moral justification for plausibly threatening a nuclear holocaust? And now that we’ve gotten ourselves in this situation, is there any realistic and ethical way out? John and Ken avoid going nuclear with writer, activist, former defense analyst and whistleblower, Daniel Ellsberg, author of The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The doctrine of mutually assured destruction is supposed to deter both sides in a war from launching the first nuclear strike. However, the strategy of the US, NATO, and other super powers has been to plan the destruction of nearly all life on Earth. If ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The doctrine of mutually assured destruction is supposed to deter both sides in a war from launching the first nuclear strike. However, the strategy of the US, NATO, and other super powers has been to plan the destruction of nearly all life on Earth. If near total annihilation would be monstrous, ethically speaking, then what should we say about preparing for and planning it? Can there be any moral justification for plausibly threatening a nuclear holocaust? And now that we’ve gotten ourselves in this situation, is there any realistic and ethical way out? John and Ken avoid going nuclear with writer, activist, former defense analyst and whistleblower, Daniel Ellsberg, author of The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/489/doomsday-doctrine.mp3" length="49638922" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The doctrine of mutually assured destruction is supposed to deter both sides in a war from launching the first nuclear strike. However, the strategy of the US, NATO, and other super powers has been to plan the destruction of nearly all life on Earth. If near total annihilation would be monstrous, ethically speaking, then what should we say about preparing for and planning it? Can there be any moral justification for plausibly threatening a nuclear holocaust? And now that we’ve gotten ourselves in this situation, is there any realistic and ethical way out? John and Ken avoid going nuclear with writer, activist, former defense analyst and whistleblower, Daniel Ellsberg, author of The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/52Uc2pnMKNw.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The doctrine of mutually assured destruction is supposed to deter both sides in a war from launching the first nuclear strike. However, the strategy of the US, NATO, and other super powers has been to plan the destruction of nearly all life on Earth. If near total annihilation would be monstrous, ethically speaking, then what should we say about preparing for and planning it? Can there be any moral justification for plausibly threatening a nuclear holocaust? And now that we’ve gotten ourselves in this situation, is there any realistic and ethical way out? John and Ken avoid going nuclear with writer, activist, former defense analyst and whistleblower, Daniel Ellsberg, author of The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/52Uc2pnMKNw.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Is Postmodernism Really to Blame for Post-Truth?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/postmodernism-really-blame/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 14 Jul 2019 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/postmodernism-really-blame/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Postmodernism is often characterized by its rejection of concepts championed by the Enlightenment, like meaning, truth, reason, and knowledge. Some philosophers blame postmodernism for making cynicism about truth and facts now respectable in political debate. So is postmodernism responsible for “fake news” and “alternative facts”? Or does it simply provide the tools to describe popular distrust of traditional authorities, like science and the media? Must we reject postmodernism in order to rescue truth? Josh and Ken find trust in Thomas de Zengotita, author of Postmodern Theory and Progressive Politics: Toward a New Humanism.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Postmodernism is often characterized by its rejection of concepts championed by the Enlightenment, like meaning, truth, reason, and knowledge. Some philosophers blame postmodernism for making cynicism about truth and facts now respectable in political de]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Postmodernism is often characterized by its rejection of concepts championed by the Enlightenment, like meaning, truth, reason, and knowledge. Some philosophers blame postmodernism for making cynicism about truth and facts now respectable in political debate. So is postmodernism responsible for “fake news” and “alternative facts”? Or does it simply provide the tools to describe popular distrust of traditional authorities, like science and the media? Must we reject postmodernism in order to rescue truth? Josh and Ken find trust in Thomas de Zengotita, author of Postmodern Theory and Progressive Politics: Toward a New Humanism.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/487/postmodernism-really-blame.mp3" length="48739056" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Postmodernism is often characterized by its rejection of concepts championed by the Enlightenment, like meaning, truth, reason, and knowledge. Some philosophers blame postmodernism for making cynicism about truth and facts now respectable in political debate. So is postmodernism responsible for “fake news” and “alternative facts”? Or does it simply provide the tools to describe popular distrust of traditional authorities, like science and the media? Must we reject postmodernism in order to rescue truth? Josh and Ken find trust in Thomas de Zengotita, author of Postmodern Theory and Progressive Politics: Toward a New Humanism.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/LlrohQDDLbA.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Postmodernism is often characterized by its rejection of concepts championed by the Enlightenment, like meaning, truth, reason, and knowledge. Some philosophers blame postmodernism for making cynicism about truth and facts now respectable in political debate. So is postmodernism responsible for “fake news” and “alternative facts”? Or does it simply provide the tools to describe popular distrust of traditional authorities, like science and the media? Must we reject postmodernism in order to rescue truth? Josh and Ken find trust in Thomas de Zengotita, author of Postmodern Theory and Progressive Politics: Toward a New Humanism.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/LlrohQDDLbA.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Summer Reading (and Misreading)</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/summer-reading-and-misreading/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 07 Jul 2019 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/summer-reading-and-misreading/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What should you be reading this summer—and how should you be reading it? We’re often told that fiction offers us entertainment, moral examples, and lessons about life. But are we getting too quick to dismiss complicated fiction—the kind that doesn’t have straightforward heroes and happy endings? Josh and Ken talk to writers and philosophers about reading and misreading for your summer pleasure.

Maryanne Wolf from UCLA on the neuroscience of (mis)reading
Thomas Pavel from the University of Chicago on the role of genre in (mis)reading
Antonia Peacocke from Stanford University on &#8220;reader&#8217;s block&#8221; and other reading mishaps]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What should you be reading this summer—and how should you be reading it? We’re often told that fiction offers us entertainment, moral examples, and lessons about life. But are we getting too quick to dismiss complicated fiction—the kind that doesn’t have]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What should you be reading this summer—and how should you be reading it? We’re often told that fiction offers us entertainment, moral examples, and lessons about life. But are we getting too quick to dismiss complicated fiction—the kind that doesn’t have straightforward heroes and happy endings? Josh and Ken talk to writers and philosophers about reading and misreading for your summer pleasure.

Maryanne Wolf from UCLA on the neuroscience of (mis)reading
Thomas Pavel from the University of Chicago on the role of genre in (mis)reading
Antonia Peacocke from Stanford University on &#8220;reader&#8217;s block&#8221; and other reading mishaps]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/491/summer-reading-and-misreading.mp3" length="50300969" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What should you be reading this summer—and how should you be reading it? We’re often told that fiction offers us entertainment, moral examples, and lessons about life. But are we getting too quick to dismiss complicated fiction—the kind that doesn’t have straightforward heroes and happy endings? Josh and Ken talk to writers and philosophers about reading and misreading for your summer pleasure.

Maryanne Wolf from UCLA on the neuroscience of (mis)reading
Thomas Pavel from the University of Chicago on the role of genre in (mis)reading
Antonia Peacocke from Stanford University on &#8220;reader&#8217;s block&#8221; and other reading mishaps]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/vHzgIVXwBhI.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What should you be reading this summer—and how should you be reading it? We’re often told that fiction offers us entertainment, moral examples, and lessons about life. But are we getting too quick to dismiss complicated fiction—the kind that doesn’t have straightforward heroes and happy endings? Josh and Ken talk to writers and philosophers about reading and misreading for your summer pleasure.

Maryanne Wolf from UCLA on the neuroscience of (mis)reading
Thomas Pavel from the University of Chicago on the role of genre in (mis)reading
Antonia Peacocke from Stanford University on &#8220;reader&#8217;s block&#8221; and other reading mishaps]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/vHzgIVXwBhI.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>J.S. Mill and the Good Life</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/js-mill-and-good-life/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 23 Jun 2019 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/js-mill-and-good-life/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[John Stuart Mill was one of the most important British philosophers of the 19th century. As a liberal, he thought that individuals are generally the best judges of their own welfare. But Mill was also a utilitarian who thought that there were objectively lower and higher pleasures and that the good life was one which maximized higher pleasures. So is there a way to reconcile Mill’s liberal project with his utilitarianism? Is the good life for Mill one in which individuals determine their own paths? Or should those who know better still try to nudge others to live better lives? John and Ken fulfill their potential with David Brink from UC San Diego, author of Mill&#8217;s Progressive Principles.
&#160;]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[John Stuart Mill was one of the most important British philosophers of the 19th century. As a liberal, he thought that individuals are generally the best judges of their own welfare. But Mill was also a utilitarian who thought that there were objectively]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[John Stuart Mill was one of the most important British philosophers of the 19th century. As a liberal, he thought that individuals are generally the best judges of their own welfare. But Mill was also a utilitarian who thought that there were objectively lower and higher pleasures and that the good life was one which maximized higher pleasures. So is there a way to reconcile Mill’s liberal project with his utilitarianism? Is the good life for Mill one in which individuals determine their own paths? Or should those who know better still try to nudge others to live better lives? John and Ken fulfill their potential with David Brink from UC San Diego, author of Mill&#8217;s Progressive Principles.
&#160;]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/481/js-mill-and-good-life.mp3" length="48280555" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[John Stuart Mill was one of the most important British philosophers of the 19th century. As a liberal, he thought that individuals are generally the best judges of their own welfare. But Mill was also a utilitarian who thought that there were objectively lower and higher pleasures and that the good life was one which maximized higher pleasures. So is there a way to reconcile Mill’s liberal project with his utilitarianism? Is the good life for Mill one in which individuals determine their own paths? Or should those who know better still try to nudge others to live better lives? John and Ken fulfill their potential with David Brink from UC San Diego, author of Mill&#8217;s Progressive Principles.
&#160;]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/rlTXb4stdxw.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[John Stuart Mill was one of the most important British philosophers of the 19th century. As a liberal, he thought that individuals are generally the best judges of their own welfare. But Mill was also a utilitarian who thought that there were objectively lower and higher pleasures and that the good life was one which maximized higher pleasures. So is there a way to reconcile Mill’s liberal project with his utilitarianism? Is the good life for Mill one in which individuals determine their own paths? Or should those who know better still try to nudge others to live better lives? John and Ken fulfill their potential with David Brink from UC San Diego, author of Mill&#8217;s Progressive Principles.
&#160;]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/rlTXb4stdxw.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Limits of Tolerance</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/limits-tolerance/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 09 Jun 2019 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/limits-tolerance/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[In order to reach compromise, people try to be tolerant of others with different beliefs. Despite its value, there are numerous factors that may hinder our exercise of tolerance. As the schisms between our beliefs grow larger, what happens when our moral and political ideals put us deeply at odds with our fellow citizens? Do we begrudgingly tolerate them by agreeing to live and let live? Do we shun them and their benighted views as beyond the pale? Or do we attempt to persuade them? Do we owe it to those we disagree with to be open to persuasion? Ken and Ray are more than tolerant of their guest, Reigina Rini from York University, author of The Ethics of Microaggression.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[In order to reach compromise, people try to be tolerant of others with different beliefs. Despite its value, there are numerous factors that may hinder our exercise of tolerance. As the schisms between our beliefs grow larger, what happens when our moral]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[In order to reach compromise, people try to be tolerant of others with different beliefs. Despite its value, there are numerous factors that may hinder our exercise of tolerance. As the schisms between our beliefs grow larger, what happens when our moral and political ideals put us deeply at odds with our fellow citizens? Do we begrudgingly tolerate them by agreeing to live and let live? Do we shun them and their benighted views as beyond the pale? Or do we attempt to persuade them? Do we owe it to those we disagree with to be open to persuasion? Ken and Ray are more than tolerant of their guest, Reigina Rini from York University, author of The Ethics of Microaggression.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/483/limits-tolerance.mp3" length="48769985" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[In order to reach compromise, people try to be tolerant of others with different beliefs. Despite its value, there are numerous factors that may hinder our exercise of tolerance. As the schisms between our beliefs grow larger, what happens when our moral and political ideals put us deeply at odds with our fellow citizens? Do we begrudgingly tolerate them by agreeing to live and let live? Do we shun them and their benighted views as beyond the pale? Or do we attempt to persuade them? Do we owe it to those we disagree with to be open to persuasion? Ken and Ray are more than tolerant of their guest, Reigina Rini from York University, author of The Ethics of Microaggression.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ceTpK3TcAmg.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[In order to reach compromise, people try to be tolerant of others with different beliefs. Despite its value, there are numerous factors that may hinder our exercise of tolerance. As the schisms between our beliefs grow larger, what happens when our moral and political ideals put us deeply at odds with our fellow citizens? Do we begrudgingly tolerate them by agreeing to live and let live? Do we shun them and their benighted views as beyond the pale? Or do we attempt to persuade them? Do we owe it to those we disagree with to be open to persuasion? Ken and Ray are more than tolerant of their guest, Reigina Rini from York University, author of The Ethics of Microaggression.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ceTpK3TcAmg.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>What Is Religious Belief?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/what-religious-belief/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 05 May 2019 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/what-religious-belief/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Many people profess to believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent God. Yet psychological data shows that people often think and reason about God in ways contrary to their professed religious beliefs. So are these so-called religious beliefs genuinely held? Or are “believers” just playing an elaborate game of pretense? Is there a difference between ordinary factual belief and religious belief? And what role do people&#8217;s religious creedences play in shaping their social identities? Josh and Ken get real with Neil van Leeuwen from Georgia State University, author of Religion as Make-Believe (forthcoming).
&#160;]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Many people profess to believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent God. Yet psychological data shows that people often think and reason about God in ways contrary to their professed religious beliefs. So are these so-called religious beliefs genu]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Many people profess to believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent God. Yet psychological data shows that people often think and reason about God in ways contrary to their professed religious beliefs. So are these so-called religious beliefs genuinely held? Or are “believers” just playing an elaborate game of pretense? Is there a difference between ordinary factual belief and religious belief? And what role do people&#8217;s religious creedences play in shaping their social identities? Josh and Ken get real with Neil van Leeuwen from Georgia State University, author of Religion as Make-Believe (forthcoming).
&#160;]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/468/what-religious-belief.mp3" length="48589844" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Many people profess to believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent God. Yet psychological data shows that people often think and reason about God in ways contrary to their professed religious beliefs. So are these so-called religious beliefs genuinely held? Or are “believers” just playing an elaborate game of pretense? Is there a difference between ordinary factual belief and religious belief? And what role do people&#8217;s religious creedences play in shaping their social identities? Josh and Ken get real with Neil van Leeuwen from Georgia State University, author of Religion as Make-Believe (forthcoming).
&#160;]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/y8BK8Fya6bg.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Many people profess to believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent God. Yet psychological data shows that people often think and reason about God in ways contrary to their professed religious beliefs. So are these so-called religious beliefs genuinely held? Or are “believers” just playing an elaborate game of pretense? Is there a difference between ordinary factual belief and religious belief? And what role do people&#8217;s religious creedences play in shaping their social identities? Josh and Ken get real with Neil van Leeuwen from Georgia State University, author of Religion as Make-Believe (forthcoming).
&#160;]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/y8BK8Fya6bg.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Is Philanthropy Bad for Democracy?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/philanthropy-bad-democracy/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 28 Apr 2019 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/philanthropy-bad-democracy/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[In a liberal democracy, individuals should have the freedom to give money to charities of their choice. But is there a difference between charitable giving from ordinary individuals and philanthropic giving from extremely wealthy individuals? Whose interests are served when the wealthy give? Should the state continue to encourage big philanthropy with massive tax breaks for the rich? Or should it focus more on taxing extreme wealth? Is big philanthropy destroying democracy? Josh and Ken donate airtime to Stanford political scientist Rob Reich, author of Just Giving: Why Philanthropy Is Failing Democracy and How It Can Do Better.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[In a liberal democracy, individuals should have the freedom to give money to charities of their choice. But is there a difference between charitable giving from ordinary individuals and philanthropic giving from extremely wealthy individuals? Whose inter]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[In a liberal democracy, individuals should have the freedom to give money to charities of their choice. But is there a difference between charitable giving from ordinary individuals and philanthropic giving from extremely wealthy individuals? Whose interests are served when the wealthy give? Should the state continue to encourage big philanthropy with massive tax breaks for the rich? Or should it focus more on taxing extreme wealth? Is big philanthropy destroying democracy? Josh and Ken donate airtime to Stanford political scientist Rob Reich, author of Just Giving: Why Philanthropy Is Failing Democracy and How It Can Do Better.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/470/philanthropy-bad-democracy.mp3" length="48543451" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[In a liberal democracy, individuals should have the freedom to give money to charities of their choice. But is there a difference between charitable giving from ordinary individuals and philanthropic giving from extremely wealthy individuals? Whose interests are served when the wealthy give? Should the state continue to encourage big philanthropy with massive tax breaks for the rich? Or should it focus more on taxing extreme wealth? Is big philanthropy destroying democracy? Josh and Ken donate airtime to Stanford political scientist Rob Reich, author of Just Giving: Why Philanthropy Is Failing Democracy and How It Can Do Better.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/7z7bX3-E-a4.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[In a liberal democracy, individuals should have the freedom to give money to charities of their choice. But is there a difference between charitable giving from ordinary individuals and philanthropic giving from extremely wealthy individuals? Whose interests are served when the wealthy give? Should the state continue to encourage big philanthropy with massive tax breaks for the rich? Or should it focus more on taxing extreme wealth? Is big philanthropy destroying democracy? Josh and Ken donate airtime to Stanford political scientist Rob Reich, author of Just Giving: Why Philanthropy Is Failing Democracy and How It Can Do Better.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/7z7bX3-E-a4.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Authority and Resistance</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/authority-and-resistance/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 21 Apr 2019 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/authority-and-resistance/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Authority can refer to people or institutions that have the political power to make decisions, give orders, and enforce rules. It can also refer to a certain kind of expertise or knowledge that we might defer to. Sometimes we respect authority, and sometimes we resist it or even revolt against it. But where exactly does authority come from, and when, if ever, ought we defer to it? How do we challenge authority? What makes an authority figure authoritarian? And can there be anarchist forms of authority? Josh and Ken authorize a conversation with James Martel from San Francisco State University, author of Subverting the Leviathan: Reading Thomas Hobbes as a Radical Democrat.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Authority can refer to people or institutions that have the political power to make decisions, give orders, and enforce rules. It can also refer to a certain kind of expertise or knowledge that we might defer to. Sometimes we respect authority, and somet]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Authority can refer to people or institutions that have the political power to make decisions, give orders, and enforce rules. It can also refer to a certain kind of expertise or knowledge that we might defer to. Sometimes we respect authority, and sometimes we resist it or even revolt against it. But where exactly does authority come from, and when, if ever, ought we defer to it? How do we challenge authority? What makes an authority figure authoritarian? And can there be anarchist forms of authority? Josh and Ken authorize a conversation with James Martel from San Francisco State University, author of Subverting the Leviathan: Reading Thomas Hobbes as a Radical Democrat.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/462/authority-and-resistance.mp3" length="49454184" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Authority can refer to people or institutions that have the political power to make decisions, give orders, and enforce rules. It can also refer to a certain kind of expertise or knowledge that we might defer to. Sometimes we respect authority, and sometimes we resist it or even revolt against it. But where exactly does authority come from, and when, if ever, ought we defer to it? How do we challenge authority? What makes an authority figure authoritarian? And can there be anarchist forms of authority? Josh and Ken authorize a conversation with James Martel from San Francisco State University, author of Subverting the Leviathan: Reading Thomas Hobbes as a Radical Democrat.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/OgQ_RypjtUo.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Authority can refer to people or institutions that have the political power to make decisions, give orders, and enforce rules. It can also refer to a certain kind of expertise or knowledge that we might defer to. Sometimes we respect authority, and sometimes we resist it or even revolt against it. But where exactly does authority come from, and when, if ever, ought we defer to it? How do we challenge authority? What makes an authority figure authoritarian? And can there be anarchist forms of authority? Josh and Ken authorize a conversation with James Martel from San Francisco State University, author of Subverting the Leviathan: Reading Thomas Hobbes as a Radical Democrat.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/OgQ_RypjtUo.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Hacking the Brain: Beyond the Five Senses</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/hacking-brain/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 14 Apr 2019 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/hacking-brain/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Humans evolved to have a variety of senses—smell, sight, touch, etc.—that provide information about the world around us. Our brains use this sensory information to construct a particular picture of reality. But what if it were technologically possible to hack our brains and create new senses for humans, such as echolocation or magnetoception? How would our brains integrate this new kind of information? What would it be like to perceive the world using these strange new senses? And how would these novel senses change our view of reality? Josh and Ken sense they&#8217;ll talk to neuroscientist David Eagleman, author of The Brain: The Story of You.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Humans evolved to have a variety of senses—smell, sight, touch, etc.—that provide information about the world around us. Our brains use this sensory information to construct a particular picture of reality. But what if it were technologically possible to]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Humans evolved to have a variety of senses—smell, sight, touch, etc.—that provide information about the world around us. Our brains use this sensory information to construct a particular picture of reality. But what if it were technologically possible to hack our brains and create new senses for humans, such as echolocation or magnetoception? How would our brains integrate this new kind of information? What would it be like to perceive the world using these strange new senses? And how would these novel senses change our view of reality? Josh and Ken sense they&#8217;ll talk to neuroscientist David Eagleman, author of The Brain: The Story of You.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/460/hacking-brain.mp3" length="49373936" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Humans evolved to have a variety of senses—smell, sight, touch, etc.—that provide information about the world around us. Our brains use this sensory information to construct a particular picture of reality. But what if it were technologically possible to hack our brains and create new senses for humans, such as echolocation or magnetoception? How would our brains integrate this new kind of information? What would it be like to perceive the world using these strange new senses? And how would these novel senses change our view of reality? Josh and Ken sense they&#8217;ll talk to neuroscientist David Eagleman, author of The Brain: The Story of You.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/dHQJiXOTY40.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Humans evolved to have a variety of senses—smell, sight, touch, etc.—that provide information about the world around us. Our brains use this sensory information to construct a particular picture of reality. But what if it were technologically possible to hack our brains and create new senses for humans, such as echolocation or magnetoception? How would our brains integrate this new kind of information? What would it be like to perceive the world using these strange new senses? And how would these novel senses change our view of reality? Josh and Ken sense they&#8217;ll talk to neuroscientist David Eagleman, author of The Brain: The Story of You.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/dHQJiXOTY40.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Immigration and Multiculturalism</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/immigration-and-multiculturalism/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 10 Mar 2019 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/immigration-and-multiculturalism/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Whether for economic reasons or to flee violence and persecution, immigration rates continue to climb globally. At the same time, opposition to immigration and intolerance of multiculturalism is also growing. Should cultural or ethnic identity ever be a factor in immigration policy? Do immigrants have an obligation to assimilate to the dominant culture? Or should we make cultural accommodations for immigrants who don’t share our values and traditions? Do the answers vary depending on how culturally diverse or homogenous the host country already is? The Philosophers lift the gate for Sarah Song from the UC Berkeley School of Law, author of Immigration and Democracy.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Whether for economic reasons or to flee violence and persecution, immigration rates continue to climb globally. At the same time, opposition to immigration and intolerance of multiculturalism is also growing. Should cultural or ethnic identity ever be a ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Whether for economic reasons or to flee violence and persecution, immigration rates continue to climb globally. At the same time, opposition to immigration and intolerance of multiculturalism is also growing. Should cultural or ethnic identity ever be a factor in immigration policy? Do immigrants have an obligation to assimilate to the dominant culture? Or should we make cultural accommodations for immigrants who don’t share our values and traditions? Do the answers vary depending on how culturally diverse or homogenous the host country already is? The Philosophers lift the gate for Sarah Song from the UC Berkeley School of Law, author of Immigration and Democracy.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/458/immigration-and-multiculturalism.mp3" length="48978546" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Whether for economic reasons or to flee violence and persecution, immigration rates continue to climb globally. At the same time, opposition to immigration and intolerance of multiculturalism is also growing. Should cultural or ethnic identity ever be a factor in immigration policy? Do immigrants have an obligation to assimilate to the dominant culture? Or should we make cultural accommodations for immigrants who don’t share our values and traditions? Do the answers vary depending on how culturally diverse or homogenous the host country already is? The Philosophers lift the gate for Sarah Song from the UC Berkeley School of Law, author of Immigration and Democracy.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/PL_2m9B9858.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Whether for economic reasons or to flee violence and persecution, immigration rates continue to climb globally. At the same time, opposition to immigration and intolerance of multiculturalism is also growing. Should cultural or ethnic identity ever be a factor in immigration policy? Do immigrants have an obligation to assimilate to the dominant culture? Or should we make cultural accommodations for immigrants who don’t share our values and traditions? Do the answers vary depending on how culturally diverse or homogenous the host country already is? The Philosophers lift the gate for Sarah Song from the UC Berkeley School of Law, author of Immigration and Democracy.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/PL_2m9B9858.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The 2019 Dionysus Awards</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/2019-dionysus-awards/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 17 Feb 2019 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/2019-dionysus-awards/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What movies of the past year challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Josh and Ken talk to philosophers, film critics, and listeners as they present their sixth (mostly) annual Dionysus Awards for the most thoughtful films of the past year, including:

Least Superficial Superhero Movie
Best Thought Experiment in the Possibility of Racial Justice
Most Profound Existentialist Cowboy Movie]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What movies of the past year challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Josh and Ken talk to philosophers, film critics, and listeners as they present their sixth (mostly) annual Dionysus Awards for the most thoughtful films o]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What movies of the past year challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Josh and Ken talk to philosophers, film critics, and listeners as they present their sixth (mostly) annual Dionysus Awards for the most thoughtful films of the past year, including:

Least Superficial Superhero Movie
Best Thought Experiment in the Possibility of Racial Justice
Most Profound Existentialist Cowboy Movie]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/453/2019-dionysus-awards.mp3" length="50294700" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What movies of the past year challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Josh and Ken talk to philosophers, film critics, and listeners as they present their sixth (mostly) annual Dionysus Awards for the most thoughtful films of the past year, including:

Least Superficial Superhero Movie
Best Thought Experiment in the Possibility of Racial Justice
Most Profound Existentialist Cowboy Movie]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/09wXI6d1xOw.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What movies of the past year challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Josh and Ken talk to philosophers, film critics, and listeners as they present their sixth (mostly) annual Dionysus Awards for the most thoughtful films of the past year, including:

Least Superficial Superhero Movie
Best Thought Experiment in the Possibility of Racial Justice
Most Profound Existentialist Cowboy Movie]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/09wXI6d1xOw.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>What Do We Owe Future Generations?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/what-do-we-owe-future-generations/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 10 Feb 2019 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/what-do-we-owe-future-generations/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[We talk about owing future generations a better world. We might also think that we should do things for future generations even if our actions might not benefit present-day people. But is it possible to have obligations to people who are not yet born? Can people who do not exist be said to have rights that we should respect? And if they do, what do we do if our rights and theirs conflict? Josh and Ken are obliged to welcome Rahul Kumar from Queen&#8217;s University, editor of Ethics and Future Generations.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[We talk about owing future generations a better world. We might also think that we should do things for future generations even if our actions might not benefit present-day people. But is it possible to have obligations to people who are not yet born? Ca]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[We talk about owing future generations a better world. We might also think that we should do things for future generations even if our actions might not benefit present-day people. But is it possible to have obligations to people who are not yet born? Can people who do not exist be said to have rights that we should respect? And if they do, what do we do if our rights and theirs conflict? Josh and Ken are obliged to welcome Rahul Kumar from Queen&#8217;s University, editor of Ethics and Future Generations.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/447/what-do-we-owe-future-generations.mp3" length="47789871" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[We talk about owing future generations a better world. We might also think that we should do things for future generations even if our actions might not benefit present-day people. But is it possible to have obligations to people who are not yet born? Can people who do not exist be said to have rights that we should respect? And if they do, what do we do if our rights and theirs conflict? Josh and Ken are obliged to welcome Rahul Kumar from Queen&#8217;s University, editor of Ethics and Future Generations.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/t7f9JF-hbmg-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[We talk about owing future generations a better world. We might also think that we should do things for future generations even if our actions might not benefit present-day people. But is it possible to have obligations to people who are not yet born? Can people who do not exist be said to have rights that we should respect? And if they do, what do we do if our rights and theirs conflict? Josh and Ken are obliged to welcome Rahul Kumar from Queen&#8217;s University, editor of Ethics and Future Generations.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/t7f9JF-hbmg-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Envy: Vice or Virtue?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/envy-vice-or-virtue/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jan 2019 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/envy-vice-or-virtue/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Bertrand Russell said that envy was one of the most potent causes of unhappiness, and it&#8217;s well known as one of the seven deadly sins. But is envy always a bad thing? Is it simply a petty emotion we should try to avoid, or could envy help us understand ourselves more? Is envy rooted in unhealthy comparison with others, or does it come from our own vision of excellence? Could envy even be used to improve ourselves? Josh and Ken consider whether to envy their guest, Sara Protasi from the University of Puget Sound, author of The Philosophy of Envy.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Bertrand Russell said that envy was one of the most potent causes of unhappiness, and it&#8217;s well known as one of the seven deadly sins. But is envy always a bad thing? Is it simply a petty emotion we should try to avoid, or could envy help us unders]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Bertrand Russell said that envy was one of the most potent causes of unhappiness, and it&#8217;s well known as one of the seven deadly sins. But is envy always a bad thing? Is it simply a petty emotion we should try to avoid, or could envy help us understand ourselves more? Is envy rooted in unhealthy comparison with others, or does it come from our own vision of excellence? Could envy even be used to improve ourselves? Josh and Ken consider whether to envy their guest, Sara Protasi from the University of Puget Sound, author of The Philosophy of Envy.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/451/envy-vice-or-virtue.mp3" length="48708963" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Bertrand Russell said that envy was one of the most potent causes of unhappiness, and it&#8217;s well known as one of the seven deadly sins. But is envy always a bad thing? Is it simply a petty emotion we should try to avoid, or could envy help us understand ourselves more? Is envy rooted in unhealthy comparison with others, or does it come from our own vision of excellence? Could envy even be used to improve ourselves? Josh and Ken consider whether to envy their guest, Sara Protasi from the University of Puget Sound, author of The Philosophy of Envy.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/3PDOeP1Bl6w.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Bertrand Russell said that envy was one of the most potent causes of unhappiness, and it&#8217;s well known as one of the seven deadly sins. But is envy always a bad thing? Is it simply a petty emotion we should try to avoid, or could envy help us understand ourselves more? Is envy rooted in unhealthy comparison with others, or does it come from our own vision of excellence? Could envy even be used to improve ourselves? Josh and Ken consider whether to envy their guest, Sara Protasi from the University of Puget Sound, author of The Philosophy of Envy.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/3PDOeP1Bl6w.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Examined Year: 2018</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/examined-year-2018/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 30 Dec 2018 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/examined-year-2018/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[A new year offers an opportunity to reflect on the significant events of the previous year. So what happened over the past twelve months that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Join the Philosophers as they celebrate the examined year with a philosophical look back at the year that was 2018.

The Year in Climate Consciousness with Greg Dalton, Founder and Host of Climate One at the Commonwealth Club
The Year in Demagoguery and Propaganda with Yale philosopher Jason Stanley, author of How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them

Plus a philosophical roundtable featuring all four hosts, including host emeritus John Perry and new Dean of Stanford Humanities and Sciences Debra Satz.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[A new year offers an opportunity to reflect on the significant events of the previous year. So what happened over the past twelve months that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Join the Philosophers as they celebrate t]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[A new year offers an opportunity to reflect on the significant events of the previous year. So what happened over the past twelve months that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Join the Philosophers as they celebrate the examined year with a philosophical look back at the year that was 2018.

The Year in Climate Consciousness with Greg Dalton, Founder and Host of Climate One at the Commonwealth Club
The Year in Demagoguery and Propaganda with Yale philosopher Jason Stanley, author of How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them

Plus a philosophical roundtable featuring all four hosts, including host emeritus John Perry and new Dean of Stanford Humanities and Sciences Debra Satz.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/449/examined-year-2018.mp3" length="49630563" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[A new year offers an opportunity to reflect on the significant events of the previous year. So what happened over the past twelve months that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Join the Philosophers as they celebrate the examined year with a philosophical look back at the year that was 2018.

The Year in Climate Consciousness with Greg Dalton, Founder and Host of Climate One at the Commonwealth Club
The Year in Demagoguery and Propaganda with Yale philosopher Jason Stanley, author of How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them

Plus a philosophical roundtable featuring all four hosts, including host emeritus John Perry and new Dean of Stanford Humanities and Sciences Debra Satz.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/NU4sgrFuiTc.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[A new year offers an opportunity to reflect on the significant events of the previous year. So what happened over the past twelve months that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Join the Philosophers as they celebrate the examined year with a philosophical look back at the year that was 2018.

The Year in Climate Consciousness with Greg Dalton, Founder and Host of Climate One at the Commonwealth Club
The Year in Demagoguery and Propaganda with Yale philosopher Jason Stanley, author of How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them

Plus a philosophical roundtable featuring all four hosts, including host emeritus John Perry and new Dean of Stanford Humanities and Sciences Debra Satz.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/NU4sgrFuiTc.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Foreign Aid – or Injury?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/foreign-aid-or-injury/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2018 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/foreign-aid-or-injury/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Many of us might think that developed nations should lead the effort to end global poverty. But decades of foreign aid—from governments and non-governmental organizations—have failed to produce sustainable growth in the developing world. How can we empower local actors to become self-sufficient rather than dependent on foreign aid? Is there a way to help those in the developing world without inadvertently giving more power to corrupt dictators? Do developed nations have an obligation to fight global poverty the right way? Debra and Ken enlist the aid of Dartmouth economist John Welborn.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Many of us might think that developed nations should lead the effort to end global poverty. But decades of foreign aid—from governments and non-governmental organizations—have failed to produce sustainable growth in the developing world. How can we empow]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Many of us might think that developed nations should lead the effort to end global poverty. But decades of foreign aid—from governments and non-governmental organizations—have failed to produce sustainable growth in the developing world. How can we empower local actors to become self-sufficient rather than dependent on foreign aid? Is there a way to help those in the developing world without inadvertently giving more power to corrupt dictators? Do developed nations have an obligation to fight global poverty the right way? Debra and Ken enlist the aid of Dartmouth economist John Welborn.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/439/foreign-aid-or-injury.mp3" length="48420571" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Many of us might think that developed nations should lead the effort to end global poverty. But decades of foreign aid—from governments and non-governmental organizations—have failed to produce sustainable growth in the developing world. How can we empower local actors to become self-sufficient rather than dependent on foreign aid? Is there a way to help those in the developing world without inadvertently giving more power to corrupt dictators? Do developed nations have an obligation to fight global poverty the right way? Debra and Ken enlist the aid of Dartmouth economist John Welborn.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/AqbRbDZ3mTA-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Many of us might think that developed nations should lead the effort to end global poverty. But decades of foreign aid—from governments and non-governmental organizations—have failed to produce sustainable growth in the developing world. How can we empower local actors to become self-sufficient rather than dependent on foreign aid? Is there a way to help those in the developing world without inadvertently giving more power to corrupt dictators? Do developed nations have an obligation to fight global poverty the right way? Debra and Ken enlist the aid of Dartmouth economist John Welborn.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/AqbRbDZ3mTA-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Foucault and Power</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/foucault-and-power/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 02 Dec 2018 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/foucault-and-power/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Michel Foucault was a 20th century philosopher known for his work concerning power and knowledge. Foucault is often cited for his theory of knowledge and power, which are inextricably linked. But what exactly is Foucault&#8217;s philosophy of power? Is it a universal theory intended to be applied in any context, or was Foucault simply responding to the specific power dynamics of his time? Josh and Ken share power with Gary Gutting from the University of Notre Dame, author of Thinking the Impossible: French Philosophy Since 1960.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Michel Foucault was a 20th century philosopher known for his work concerning power and knowledge. Foucault is often cited for his theory of knowledge and power, which are inextricably linked. But what exactly is Foucault&#8217;s philosophy of power? Is i]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Michel Foucault was a 20th century philosopher known for his work concerning power and knowledge. Foucault is often cited for his theory of knowledge and power, which are inextricably linked. But what exactly is Foucault&#8217;s philosophy of power? Is it a universal theory intended to be applied in any context, or was Foucault simply responding to the specific power dynamics of his time? Josh and Ken share power with Gary Gutting from the University of Notre Dame, author of Thinking the Impossible: French Philosophy Since 1960.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/445/foucault-and-power.mp3" length="49055451" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Michel Foucault was a 20th century philosopher known for his work concerning power and knowledge. Foucault is often cited for his theory of knowledge and power, which are inextricably linked. But what exactly is Foucault&#8217;s philosophy of power? Is it a universal theory intended to be applied in any context, or was Foucault simply responding to the specific power dynamics of his time? Josh and Ken share power with Gary Gutting from the University of Notre Dame, author of Thinking the Impossible: French Philosophy Since 1960.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/XcK0Qb8AE8g.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Michel Foucault was a 20th century philosopher known for his work concerning power and knowledge. Foucault is often cited for his theory of knowledge and power, which are inextricably linked. But what exactly is Foucault&#8217;s philosophy of power? Is it a universal theory intended to be applied in any context, or was Foucault simply responding to the specific power dynamics of his time? Josh and Ken share power with Gary Gutting from the University of Notre Dame, author of Thinking the Impossible: French Philosophy Since 1960.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/XcK0Qb8AE8g.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Creative Life</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/creative-life/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2018 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/creative-life/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Parents and students alike often think that a college major defines possible career options. Yet what distinguishes today&#8217;s work world from bygone times is that it&#8217;s quite common for adults to have a variety of different careers in a single lifetime. So what can students do now to ensure happiness and fulfillment in all possible future careers? Are there some majors that cultivate greater creativity in our career choices? And what unique life skills can an education in the humanities offer those about to embark on adult life? Josh and Ken get creative with Scott Forstall, inventor of the iPhone and a Tony award-winning Broadway producer, in a program recorded live at Stuyvesant High School in New York City.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Parents and students alike often think that a college major defines possible career options. Yet what distinguishes today&#8217;s work world from bygone times is that it&#8217;s quite common for adults to have a variety of different careers in a single l]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Parents and students alike often think that a college major defines possible career options. Yet what distinguishes today&#8217;s work world from bygone times is that it&#8217;s quite common for adults to have a variety of different careers in a single lifetime. So what can students do now to ensure happiness and fulfillment in all possible future careers? Are there some majors that cultivate greater creativity in our career choices? And what unique life skills can an education in the humanities offer those about to embark on adult life? Josh and Ken get creative with Scott Forstall, inventor of the iPhone and a Tony award-winning Broadway producer, in a program recorded live at Stuyvesant High School in New York City.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/441/creative-life.mp3" length="49857097" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Parents and students alike often think that a college major defines possible career options. Yet what distinguishes today&#8217;s work world from bygone times is that it&#8217;s quite common for adults to have a variety of different careers in a single lifetime. So what can students do now to ensure happiness and fulfillment in all possible future careers? Are there some majors that cultivate greater creativity in our career choices? And what unique life skills can an education in the humanities offer those about to embark on adult life? Josh and Ken get creative with Scott Forstall, inventor of the iPhone and a Tony award-winning Broadway producer, in a program recorded live at Stuyvesant High School in New York City.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/p4rVFgveg5A.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Parents and students alike often think that a college major defines possible career options. Yet what distinguishes today&#8217;s work world from bygone times is that it&#8217;s quite common for adults to have a variety of different careers in a single lifetime. So what can students do now to ensure happiness and fulfillment in all possible future careers? Are there some majors that cultivate greater creativity in our career choices? And what unique life skills can an education in the humanities offer those about to embark on adult life? Josh and Ken get creative with Scott Forstall, inventor of the iPhone and a Tony award-winning Broadway producer, in a program recorded live at Stuyvesant High School in New York City.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/p4rVFgveg5A.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Does Reputation Matter?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/does-reputation-matter/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 11 Nov 2018 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/does-reputation-matter/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[We think about about our own reputation all the time, and we constantly reference the reputations of the people we meet and interact with. But why do we care so much about reputation? Is it rational for us to rely on reputation so heavily in our day-to-day lives? Are judgments about reputation just a handy social screening mechanism or something much more nefarious? Josh and Ken manage their reputations with Gloria Origgi from the Institut Jean Nicod, author of Reputation: What It Is and Why It Matters.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[We think about about our own reputation all the time, and we constantly reference the reputations of the people we meet and interact with. But why do we care so much about reputation? Is it rational for us to rely on reputation so heavily in our day-to-d]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[We think about about our own reputation all the time, and we constantly reference the reputations of the people we meet and interact with. But why do we care so much about reputation? Is it rational for us to rely on reputation so heavily in our day-to-day lives? Are judgments about reputation just a handy social screening mechanism or something much more nefarious? Josh and Ken manage their reputations with Gloria Origgi from the Institut Jean Nicod, author of Reputation: What It Is and Why It Matters.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/443/does-reputation-matter.mp3" length="49489293" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[We think about about our own reputation all the time, and we constantly reference the reputations of the people we meet and interact with. But why do we care so much about reputation? Is it rational for us to rely on reputation so heavily in our day-to-day lives? Are judgments about reputation just a handy social screening mechanism or something much more nefarious? Josh and Ken manage their reputations with Gloria Origgi from the Institut Jean Nicod, author of Reputation: What It Is and Why It Matters.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Ss0YbtgNras.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[We think about about our own reputation all the time, and we constantly reference the reputations of the people we meet and interact with. But why do we care so much about reputation? Is it rational for us to rely on reputation so heavily in our day-to-day lives? Are judgments about reputation just a handy social screening mechanism or something much more nefarious? Josh and Ken manage their reputations with Gloria Origgi from the Institut Jean Nicod, author of Reputation: What It Is and Why It Matters.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Ss0YbtgNras.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Can Reason Save Us?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/can-reason-save-us/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 21 Oct 2018 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/can-reason-save-us/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[To an optimist, things are constantly getting better: disease and extreme poverty are down; life expectancy, literacy, and equality are up; and it’s all thanks to the glory of human reason. But a pessimist would point to the continuing presence of injustice, oppression, and war, and the dangers of global warming and nuclear annihilation. So who&#8217;s right? Are we really living in an age of progress? And can reason really save us? Josh and Ken try to reason with renowned cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, author of Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress.
This program was recorded live at Kepler&#8217;s Books in Menlo Park, CA.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[To an optimist, things are constantly getting better: disease and extreme poverty are down; life expectancy, literacy, and equality are up; and it’s all thanks to the glory of human reason. But a pessimist would point to the continuing presence of injust]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[To an optimist, things are constantly getting better: disease and extreme poverty are down; life expectancy, literacy, and equality are up; and it’s all thanks to the glory of human reason. But a pessimist would point to the continuing presence of injustice, oppression, and war, and the dangers of global warming and nuclear annihilation. So who&#8217;s right? Are we really living in an age of progress? And can reason really save us? Josh and Ken try to reason with renowned cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, author of Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress.
This program was recorded live at Kepler&#8217;s Books in Menlo Park, CA.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/435/can-reason-save-us.mp3" length="49276133" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[To an optimist, things are constantly getting better: disease and extreme poverty are down; life expectancy, literacy, and equality are up; and it’s all thanks to the glory of human reason. But a pessimist would point to the continuing presence of injustice, oppression, and war, and the dangers of global warming and nuclear annihilation. So who&#8217;s right? Are we really living in an age of progress? And can reason really save us? Josh and Ken try to reason with renowned cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, author of Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress.
This program was recorded live at Kepler&#8217;s Books in Menlo Park, CA.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/ePxJfGOxpuA.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[To an optimist, things are constantly getting better: disease and extreme poverty are down; life expectancy, literacy, and equality are up; and it’s all thanks to the glory of human reason. But a pessimist would point to the continuing presence of injustice, oppression, and war, and the dangers of global warming and nuclear annihilation. So who&#8217;s right? Are we really living in an age of progress? And can reason really save us? Josh and Ken try to reason with renowned cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, author of Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress.
This program was recorded live at Kepler&#8217;s Books in Menlo Park, CA.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/ePxJfGOxpuA.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The New Golden Age of Television</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/new-golden-age-television/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 30 Sep 2018 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/new-golden-age-television/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[They called it a “vast wasteland” in the 1960s, but TV is very different today. Freedom from the broadcast schedule means TV makers can create longer, more complex, more philosophical stories, while binge-watching and on-demand viewing have changed the way we see those stories. Josh and Ken talk to philosophers and others about television&#8217;s new golden age.

Alexander Nehamas on serious watching
Katherine Tullmann on Game of Thrones
Jorah Dannenberg on Westworld
Pamela Hieronymi on The Good Place (where she worked as a philosophical consultant!)

Plus suggestions from listeners like you.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[They called it a “vast wasteland” in the 1960s, but TV is very different today. Freedom from the broadcast schedule means TV makers can create longer, more complex, more philosophical stories, while binge-watching and on-demand viewing have changed the w]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[They called it a “vast wasteland” in the 1960s, but TV is very different today. Freedom from the broadcast schedule means TV makers can create longer, more complex, more philosophical stories, while binge-watching and on-demand viewing have changed the way we see those stories. Josh and Ken talk to philosophers and others about television&#8217;s new golden age.

Alexander Nehamas on serious watching
Katherine Tullmann on Game of Thrones
Jorah Dannenberg on Westworld
Pamela Hieronymi on The Good Place (where she worked as a philosophical consultant!)

Plus suggestions from listeners like you.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/431/new-golden-age-television.mp3" length="49942778" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[They called it a “vast wasteland” in the 1960s, but TV is very different today. Freedom from the broadcast schedule means TV makers can create longer, more complex, more philosophical stories, while binge-watching and on-demand viewing have changed the way we see those stories. Josh and Ken talk to philosophers and others about television&#8217;s new golden age.

Alexander Nehamas on serious watching
Katherine Tullmann on Game of Thrones
Jorah Dannenberg on Westworld
Pamela Hieronymi on The Good Place (where she worked as a philosophical consultant!)

Plus suggestions from listeners like you.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Untitled-design-16_0.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[They called it a “vast wasteland” in the 1960s, but TV is very different today. Freedom from the broadcast schedule means TV makers can create longer, more complex, more philosophical stories, while binge-watching and on-demand viewing have changed the way we see those stories. Josh and Ken talk to philosophers and others about television&#8217;s new golden age.

Alexander Nehamas on serious watching
Katherine Tullmann on Game of Thrones
Jorah Dannenberg on Westworld
Pamela Hieronymi on The Good Place (where she worked as a philosophical consultant!)

Plus suggestions from listeners like you.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Untitled-design-16_0.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Psychology of Cruelty</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/psychology-cruelty/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 16 Sep 2018 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/psychology-cruelty/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Throughout history, people have committed all kinds of cruel, degrading, and evil acts toward other people. Many believe that for evil acts like genocide to be even possible, the victims must first be dehumanized by the perpetrators, starting with dehumanizing language or propaganda. But is this lack of empathy always at the heart of human cruelty? When we call others “vermin,” “roaches,” or “animals” are we thereby denying their humanity? Or can human cruelty and violence sometimes rely on actually recognizing the other’s humanity? Josh and guest host Alison Gopnik welcome back Paul Bloom from Yale University, author of Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Throughout history, people have committed all kinds of cruel, degrading, and evil acts toward other people. Many believe that for evil acts like genocide to be even possible, the victims must first be dehumanized by the perpetrators, starting with dehuma]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Throughout history, people have committed all kinds of cruel, degrading, and evil acts toward other people. Many believe that for evil acts like genocide to be even possible, the victims must first be dehumanized by the perpetrators, starting with dehumanizing language or propaganda. But is this lack of empathy always at the heart of human cruelty? When we call others “vermin,” “roaches,” or “animals” are we thereby denying their humanity? Or can human cruelty and violence sometimes rely on actually recognizing the other’s humanity? Josh and guest host Alison Gopnik welcome back Paul Bloom from Yale University, author of Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/427/psychology-cruelty.mp3" length="48524643" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Throughout history, people have committed all kinds of cruel, degrading, and evil acts toward other people. Many believe that for evil acts like genocide to be even possible, the victims must first be dehumanized by the perpetrators, starting with dehumanizing language or propaganda. But is this lack of empathy always at the heart of human cruelty? When we call others “vermin,” “roaches,” or “animals” are we thereby denying their humanity? Or can human cruelty and violence sometimes rely on actually recognizing the other’s humanity? Josh and guest host Alison Gopnik welcome back Paul Bloom from Yale University, author of Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/VYG0h-2AsiY.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Throughout history, people have committed all kinds of cruel, degrading, and evil acts toward other people. Many believe that for evil acts like genocide to be even possible, the victims must first be dehumanized by the perpetrators, starting with dehumanizing language or propaganda. But is this lack of empathy always at the heart of human cruelty? When we call others “vermin,” “roaches,” or “animals” are we thereby denying their humanity? Or can human cruelty and violence sometimes rely on actually recognizing the other’s humanity? Josh and guest host Alison Gopnik welcome back Paul Bloom from Yale University, author of Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/VYG0h-2AsiY.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Athlete as Philosopher</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/athlete-philosopher/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 26 Aug 2018 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/athlete-philosopher/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[For the ancient Greeks, sport was an integral part of education. Athletic programs remain in schools today, but there is a growing gap between the modern sports experience and enduring educational values such as self-discovery, responsibility, respect, and citizenship. Is there a way to bridge this gap? Can sports be a means to teach values such as these? Josh and Ken try out with Heather Reid from Morningside College, author of The Philosophical Athlete.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[For the ancient Greeks, sport was an integral part of education. Athletic programs remain in schools today, but there is a growing gap between the modern sports experience and enduring educational values such as self-discovery, responsibility, respect, a]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[For the ancient Greeks, sport was an integral part of education. Athletic programs remain in schools today, but there is a growing gap between the modern sports experience and enduring educational values such as self-discovery, responsibility, respect, and citizenship. Is there a way to bridge this gap? Can sports be a means to teach values such as these? Josh and Ken try out with Heather Reid from Morningside College, author of The Philosophical Athlete.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/425/athlete-philosopher.mp3" length="49383549" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[For the ancient Greeks, sport was an integral part of education. Athletic programs remain in schools today, but there is a growing gap between the modern sports experience and enduring educational values such as self-discovery, responsibility, respect, and citizenship. Is there a way to bridge this gap? Can sports be a means to teach values such as these? Josh and Ken try out with Heather Reid from Morningside College, author of The Philosophical Athlete.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/MKucNk8IL24.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[For the ancient Greeks, sport was an integral part of education. Athletic programs remain in schools today, but there is a growing gap between the modern sports experience and enduring educational values such as self-discovery, responsibility, respect, and citizenship. Is there a way to bridge this gap? Can sports be a means to teach values such as these? Josh and Ken try out with Heather Reid from Morningside College, author of The Philosophical Athlete.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/MKucNk8IL24.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Ethics of Algorithms</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/ethics-algorithms/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Aug 2018 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/ethics-algorithms/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Recent years have seen the rise of machine learning algorithms surrounding us in our homes and back pockets. They&#8217;re increasingly used in everything from recommending movies to guiding sentencing in criminal courts, thanks to their being perceived as unbiased and fair. But can algorithms really be objective when they are created by biased human programmers? Are such biased algorithms inherently immoral? And is there a way to resist immoral algorithms? Josh and Ken run the code with Angèle Christin from Stanford University, author of Metrics at Work: Journalism and the Contested Meaning of Algorithms.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Recent years have seen the rise of machine learning algorithms surrounding us in our homes and back pockets. They&#8217;re increasingly used in everything from recommending movies to guiding sentencing in criminal courts, thanks to their being perceived ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Recent years have seen the rise of machine learning algorithms surrounding us in our homes and back pockets. They&#8217;re increasingly used in everything from recommending movies to guiding sentencing in criminal courts, thanks to their being perceived as unbiased and fair. But can algorithms really be objective when they are created by biased human programmers? Are such biased algorithms inherently immoral? And is there a way to resist immoral algorithms? Josh and Ken run the code with Angèle Christin from Stanford University, author of Metrics at Work: Journalism and the Contested Meaning of Algorithms.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/429/ethics-algorithms.mp3" length="48467800" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Recent years have seen the rise of machine learning algorithms surrounding us in our homes and back pockets. They&#8217;re increasingly used in everything from recommending movies to guiding sentencing in criminal courts, thanks to their being perceived as unbiased and fair. But can algorithms really be objective when they are created by biased human programmers? Are such biased algorithms inherently immoral? And is there a way to resist immoral algorithms? Josh and Ken run the code with Angèle Christin from Stanford University, author of Metrics at Work: Journalism and the Contested Meaning of Algorithms.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/DDtri0-hM7I-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Recent years have seen the rise of machine learning algorithms surrounding us in our homes and back pockets. They&#8217;re increasingly used in everything from recommending movies to guiding sentencing in criminal courts, thanks to their being perceived as unbiased and fair. But can algorithms really be objective when they are created by biased human programmers? Are such biased algorithms inherently immoral? And is there a way to resist immoral algorithms? Josh and Ken run the code with Angèle Christin from Stanford University, author of Metrics at Work: Journalism and the Contested Meaning of Algorithms.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/DDtri0-hM7I-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Does Science Over-reach?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/does-science-over-reach/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jul 2018 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/does-science-over-reach/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[We&#8217;ve all heard the phrase, &#8220;You can&#8217;t argue with science.&#8221; Appealing to scientific fact as a way to settle a question makes sense given the amazing advancements science has brought us in understanding how the world works. But should we take the accomplishments of science as evidence for scientism—the view that science is the best and only way to acquire genuine knowledge? Does faith in science require that we disregard all non-scientific viewpoints? Are there important questions that science cannot answer? Josh and Ken collect their data with Massimo Pugliucci from the CUNY Graduate Center, editor of Science Unlimited?: The Challenges of Scientism.
Part of a six-part series on Intellectual Humility.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[We&#8217;ve all heard the phrase, &#8220;You can&#8217;t argue with science.&#8221; Appealing to scientific fact as a way to settle a question makes sense given the amazing advancements science has brought us in understanding how the world works. But sho]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[We&#8217;ve all heard the phrase, &#8220;You can&#8217;t argue with science.&#8221; Appealing to scientific fact as a way to settle a question makes sense given the amazing advancements science has brought us in understanding how the world works. But should we take the accomplishments of science as evidence for scientism—the view that science is the best and only way to acquire genuine knowledge? Does faith in science require that we disregard all non-scientific viewpoints? Are there important questions that science cannot answer? Josh and Ken collect their data with Massimo Pugliucci from the CUNY Graduate Center, editor of Science Unlimited?: The Challenges of Scientism.
Part of a six-part series on Intellectual Humility.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/421/does-science-over-reach.mp3" length="48592770" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[We&#8217;ve all heard the phrase, &#8220;You can&#8217;t argue with science.&#8221; Appealing to scientific fact as a way to settle a question makes sense given the amazing advancements science has brought us in understanding how the world works. But should we take the accomplishments of science as evidence for scientism—the view that science is the best and only way to acquire genuine knowledge? Does faith in science require that we disregard all non-scientific viewpoints? Are there important questions that science cannot answer? Josh and Ken collect their data with Massimo Pugliucci from the CUNY Graduate Center, editor of Science Unlimited?: The Challenges of Scientism.
Part of a six-part series on Intellectual Humility.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/yljxxH5YZiM-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[We&#8217;ve all heard the phrase, &#8220;You can&#8217;t argue with science.&#8221; Appealing to scientific fact as a way to settle a question makes sense given the amazing advancements science has brought us in understanding how the world works. But should we take the accomplishments of science as evidence for scientism—the view that science is the best and only way to acquire genuine knowledge? Does faith in science require that we disregard all non-scientific viewpoints? Are there important questions that science cannot answer? Josh and Ken collect their data with Massimo Pugliucci from the CUNY Graduate Center, editor of Science Unlimited?: The Challenges of Scientism.
Part of a six-part series on Intellectual Humility.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/yljxxH5YZiM-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Radical Markets: Solutions for a Gilded Age?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/radical-markets/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 15 Jul 2018 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/radical-markets/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Many people think that growing inequality, the rise of populism and nativism, and the decay of democratic institutions all have the same cause—the overreach of markets. The solution, they believe, is to limit the market through regulation. But what if rather than shrinking the market, the answer lies in expanding the market? Is it possible that we haven&#8217;t let markets go far enough? Do our current regulations lead to too many monopolies? And could turning more things into assets that are for sale to the highest bidder actually be the solution to our new gilded age? Debra and Ken buy and sell with Glen Weyl from Yale University, co-author of Radical Markets: Uprooting Capitalism and Democracy for a Just Society.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Many people think that growing inequality, the rise of populism and nativism, and the decay of democratic institutions all have the same cause—the overreach of markets. The solution, they believe, is to limit the market through regulation. But what if ra]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Many people think that growing inequality, the rise of populism and nativism, and the decay of democratic institutions all have the same cause—the overreach of markets. The solution, they believe, is to limit the market through regulation. But what if rather than shrinking the market, the answer lies in expanding the market? Is it possible that we haven&#8217;t let markets go far enough? Do our current regulations lead to too many monopolies? And could turning more things into assets that are for sale to the highest bidder actually be the solution to our new gilded age? Debra and Ken buy and sell with Glen Weyl from Yale University, co-author of Radical Markets: Uprooting Capitalism and Democracy for a Just Society.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/423/radical-markets.mp3" length="48418481" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Many people think that growing inequality, the rise of populism and nativism, and the decay of democratic institutions all have the same cause—the overreach of markets. The solution, they believe, is to limit the market through regulation. But what if rather than shrinking the market, the answer lies in expanding the market? Is it possible that we haven&#8217;t let markets go far enough? Do our current regulations lead to too many monopolies? And could turning more things into assets that are for sale to the highest bidder actually be the solution to our new gilded age? Debra and Ken buy and sell with Glen Weyl from Yale University, co-author of Radical Markets: Uprooting Capitalism and Democracy for a Just Society.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cb-0hfS9nWI.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Many people think that growing inequality, the rise of populism and nativism, and the decay of democratic institutions all have the same cause—the overreach of markets. The solution, they believe, is to limit the market through regulation. But what if rather than shrinking the market, the answer lies in expanding the market? Is it possible that we haven&#8217;t let markets go far enough? Do our current regulations lead to too many monopolies? And could turning more things into assets that are for sale to the highest bidder actually be the solution to our new gilded age? Debra and Ken buy and sell with Glen Weyl from Yale University, co-author of Radical Markets: Uprooting Capitalism and Democracy for a Just Society.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cb-0hfS9nWI.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Summer Reading List 2018</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/summer-reading-list-2018/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 01 Jul 2018 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/summer-reading-list-2018/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Summer is here – what philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues do you want to read up on? Heidegger&#8217;s Being and Time may not be the obvious choice to take on vacation, but there are lots of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your summer reading. Host emeritus John Perry joins Debra and Ken to think about which classics of political philosophy to dig into this summer, and Josh and Ken talk to a couple of past guests with new books, and take suggestions from the Community of Thinkers.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Summer is here – what philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues do you want to read up on? Heidegger&#8217;s Being and Time may not be the obvious choice to take on vacation, but there are lots of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-class]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Summer is here – what philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues do you want to read up on? Heidegger&#8217;s Being and Time may not be the obvious choice to take on vacation, but there are lots of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your summer reading. Host emeritus John Perry joins Debra and Ken to think about which classics of political philosophy to dig into this summer, and Josh and Ken talk to a couple of past guests with new books, and take suggestions from the Community of Thinkers.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/419/summer-reading-list-2018.mp3" length="50368261" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Summer is here – what philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues do you want to read up on? Heidegger&#8217;s Being and Time may not be the obvious choice to take on vacation, but there are lots of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your summer reading. Host emeritus John Perry joins Debra and Ken to think about which classics of political philosophy to dig into this summer, and Josh and Ken talk to a couple of past guests with new books, and take suggestions from the Community of Thinkers.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/jp1CYTkxnls.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Summer is here – what philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues do you want to read up on? Heidegger&#8217;s Being and Time may not be the obvious choice to take on vacation, but there are lots of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your summer reading. Host emeritus John Perry joins Debra and Ken to think about which classics of political philosophy to dig into this summer, and Josh and Ken talk to a couple of past guests with new books, and take suggestions from the Community of Thinkers.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/jp1CYTkxnls.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Value of Care: Feminism and Ethics</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/value-care-feminism-and-ethics/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jun 2018 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/value-care-feminism-and-ethics/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[We sometimes think of the domains of ethics and morality as divorced from feeling and emotion. You keep your promises because it maximizes good. But what if care were thought of as the bedrock of morality? While we know that more care work is performed by women, would a care-based approach to ethics be feminist, or merely feminine? What would it look like for us to build our institutions around the goal of promoting care? Debra and Ken take care to welcome Joan Tronto from the University of Minnesota, author of Who Cares?: How to Reshape a Democratic Politics.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[We sometimes think of the domains of ethics and morality as divorced from feeling and emotion. You keep your promises because it maximizes good. But what if care were thought of as the bedrock of morality? While we know that more care work is performed b]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[We sometimes think of the domains of ethics and morality as divorced from feeling and emotion. You keep your promises because it maximizes good. But what if care were thought of as the bedrock of morality? While we know that more care work is performed by women, would a care-based approach to ethics be feminist, or merely feminine? What would it look like for us to build our institutions around the goal of promoting care? Debra and Ken take care to welcome Joan Tronto from the University of Minnesota, author of Who Cares?: How to Reshape a Democratic Politics.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/417/value-care-feminism-and-ethics.mp3" length="48646687" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[We sometimes think of the domains of ethics and morality as divorced from feeling and emotion. You keep your promises because it maximizes good. But what if care were thought of as the bedrock of morality? While we know that more care work is performed by women, would a care-based approach to ethics be feminist, or merely feminine? What would it look like for us to build our institutions around the goal of promoting care? Debra and Ken take care to welcome Joan Tronto from the University of Minnesota, author of Who Cares?: How to Reshape a Democratic Politics.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/1OhAuG0Aqik.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[We sometimes think of the domains of ethics and morality as divorced from feeling and emotion. You keep your promises because it maximizes good. But what if care were thought of as the bedrock of morality? While we know that more care work is performed by women, would a care-based approach to ethics be feminist, or merely feminine? What would it look like for us to build our institutions around the goal of promoting care? Debra and Ken take care to welcome Joan Tronto from the University of Minnesota, author of Who Cares?: How to Reshape a Democratic Politics.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/1OhAuG0Aqik.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Repugnant Markets: Should Everything Be For Sale?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/repugnant-markets/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 03 Jun 2018 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/repugnant-markets/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[We might ban buying or selling horse meat in the US not for the protection of horses, but because we find it morally repugnant. Yet this moral repugnance is clearly not universal, and on some level may even be arbitrary, given France&#8217;s attitude toward horse meat. What role, if any, should moral repugnance play in determining the rules of our marketplaces? Even if we want to eliminate the influence of moral repugnance, can we? Debra and Ken hold their noses with Nobel Prize-winning economist Al Roth, author of Who Gets What ― and Why: The New Economics of Matchmaking and Market Design.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[We might ban buying or selling horse meat in the US not for the protection of horses, but because we find it morally repugnant. Yet this moral repugnance is clearly not universal, and on some level may even be arbitrary, given France&#8217;s attitude tow]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[We might ban buying or selling horse meat in the US not for the protection of horses, but because we find it morally repugnant. Yet this moral repugnance is clearly not universal, and on some level may even be arbitrary, given France&#8217;s attitude toward horse meat. What role, if any, should moral repugnance play in determining the rules of our marketplaces? Even if we want to eliminate the influence of moral repugnance, can we? Debra and Ken hold their noses with Nobel Prize-winning economist Al Roth, author of Who Gets What ― and Why: The New Economics of Matchmaking and Market Design.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/415/repugnant-markets.mp3" length="48604055" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[We might ban buying or selling horse meat in the US not for the protection of horses, but because we find it morally repugnant. Yet this moral repugnance is clearly not universal, and on some level may even be arbitrary, given France&#8217;s attitude toward horse meat. What role, if any, should moral repugnance play in determining the rules of our marketplaces? Even if we want to eliminate the influence of moral repugnance, can we? Debra and Ken hold their noses with Nobel Prize-winning economist Al Roth, author of Who Gets What ― and Why: The New Economics of Matchmaking and Market Design.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/KLXKOOhrU-I.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[We might ban buying or selling horse meat in the US not for the protection of horses, but because we find it morally repugnant. Yet this moral repugnance is clearly not universal, and on some level may even be arbitrary, given France&#8217;s attitude toward horse meat. What role, if any, should moral repugnance play in determining the rules of our marketplaces? Even if we want to eliminate the influence of moral repugnance, can we? Debra and Ken hold their noses with Nobel Prize-winning economist Al Roth, author of Who Gets What ― and Why: The New Economics of Matchmaking and Market Design.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/KLXKOOhrU-I.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Faith and Humility</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/faith-and-humility/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 06 May 2018 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/faith-and-humility/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Some would argue that faith requires that one blindly—rather than rationally— believe. Faith in one ‘true’ religion often entails rejection of all others. Given this, can there ever be humility when it comes to religious faith? How unwavering should the faithful be when it comes to their religious convictions, attitudes, and actions? Should we encourage religious humility, or would it taint the very concept of faith? Can religious faith and intellectual humility ever be reconciled? The Philosophers humbly believe in talking to Joshua Hook from the University of North Texas, co-author of Cultural Humility: Engaging Diverse Identities in Therapy.
Part of a six-part series on Intellectual Humility.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Some would argue that faith requires that one blindly—rather than rationally— believe. Faith in one ‘true’ religion often entails rejection of all others. Given this, can there ever be humility when it comes to religious faith? How unwavering should the ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Some would argue that faith requires that one blindly—rather than rationally— believe. Faith in one ‘true’ religion often entails rejection of all others. Given this, can there ever be humility when it comes to religious faith? How unwavering should the faithful be when it comes to their religious convictions, attitudes, and actions? Should we encourage religious humility, or would it taint the very concept of faith? Can religious faith and intellectual humility ever be reconciled? The Philosophers humbly believe in talking to Joshua Hook from the University of North Texas, co-author of Cultural Humility: Engaging Diverse Identities in Therapy.
Part of a six-part series on Intellectual Humility.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/413/faith-and-humility.mp3" length="48108355" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Some would argue that faith requires that one blindly—rather than rationally— believe. Faith in one ‘true’ religion often entails rejection of all others. Given this, can there ever be humility when it comes to religious faith? How unwavering should the faithful be when it comes to their religious convictions, attitudes, and actions? Should we encourage religious humility, or would it taint the very concept of faith? Can religious faith and intellectual humility ever be reconciled? The Philosophers humbly believe in talking to Joshua Hook from the University of North Texas, co-author of Cultural Humility: Engaging Diverse Identities in Therapy.
Part of a six-part series on Intellectual Humility.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/AFDEa9YknL8.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Some would argue that faith requires that one blindly—rather than rationally— believe. Faith in one ‘true’ religion often entails rejection of all others. Given this, can there ever be humility when it comes to religious faith? How unwavering should the faithful be when it comes to their religious convictions, attitudes, and actions? Should we encourage religious humility, or would it taint the very concept of faith? Can religious faith and intellectual humility ever be reconciled? The Philosophers humbly believe in talking to Joshua Hook from the University of North Texas, co-author of Cultural Humility: Engaging Diverse Identities in Therapy.
Part of a six-part series on Intellectual Humility.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/AFDEa9YknL8.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Are We Alone?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/are-we-alone/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 29 Apr 2018 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/are-we-alone/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[News that life might exist or have existed on Mars or somewhere else in our universe excites many. But should we really be happy to hear that news? What are the philosophical implications of the possibility of extraterrestrial life? If life can blossom in our own cosmic backyard, then that means that the universe is most likely saturated with life forms. And if that’s the case, why haven’t we found any evidence of other civilizations? Is it because all civilizations are prone to suicidal destruction at a certain point in their development? If so, how might we avoid this fate? The Philosophers search for life with Paul Davies from Arizona State University, author of The Eerie Silence: Renewing Our Search for Alien Intelligence.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[News that life might exist or have existed on Mars or somewhere else in our universe excites many. But should we really be happy to hear that news? What are the philosophical implications of the possibility of extraterrestrial life? If life can blossom i]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[News that life might exist or have existed on Mars or somewhere else in our universe excites many. But should we really be happy to hear that news? What are the philosophical implications of the possibility of extraterrestrial life? If life can blossom in our own cosmic backyard, then that means that the universe is most likely saturated with life forms. And if that’s the case, why haven’t we found any evidence of other civilizations? Is it because all civilizations are prone to suicidal destruction at a certain point in their development? If so, how might we avoid this fate? The Philosophers search for life with Paul Davies from Arizona State University, author of The Eerie Silence: Renewing Our Search for Alien Intelligence.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/409/are-we-alone.mp3" length="48803840" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[News that life might exist or have existed on Mars or somewhere else in our universe excites many. But should we really be happy to hear that news? What are the philosophical implications of the possibility of extraterrestrial life? If life can blossom in our own cosmic backyard, then that means that the universe is most likely saturated with life forms. And if that’s the case, why haven’t we found any evidence of other civilizations? Is it because all civilizations are prone to suicidal destruction at a certain point in their development? If so, how might we avoid this fate? The Philosophers search for life with Paul Davies from Arizona State University, author of The Eerie Silence: Renewing Our Search for Alien Intelligence.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/mfsinRdq60.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[News that life might exist or have existed on Mars or somewhere else in our universe excites many. But should we really be happy to hear that news? What are the philosophical implications of the possibility of extraterrestrial life? If life can blossom in our own cosmic backyard, then that means that the universe is most likely saturated with life forms. And if that’s the case, why haven’t we found any evidence of other civilizations? Is it because all civilizations are prone to suicidal destruction at a certain point in their development? If so, how might we avoid this fate? The Philosophers search for life with Paul Davies from Arizona State University, author of The Eerie Silence: Renewing Our Search for Alien Intelligence.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/mfsinRdq60.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Trolling, Bullying, and Flame Wars: Humility and Online Discourse</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/trolling-bullying-and-flame-wars/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 15 Apr 2018 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/trolling-bullying-and-flame-wars/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Open up any online comments section and you’ll find them: internet trolls, from the mildly inflammatory to the viciously bullying. It seems that the ease of posting online leads many to abandon any semblance of intellectual humility. So can we have intellectual humility on an anonymous forum with little oversight and accountability? Does current online behavior portend the end of humility in the public domain? How do we encourage greater humility and less arrogance in any public discourse? The Philosophers open up the comments section for Michael Lynch from the University of Connecticut, author of The Internet of Us: Knowing More and Understanding Less in the Age of Big Data.
Part of a six-part series on Intellectual Humility.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Open up any online comments section and you’ll find them: internet trolls, from the mildly inflammatory to the viciously bullying. It seems that the ease of posting online leads many to abandon any semblance of intellectual humility. So can we have intel]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Open up any online comments section and you’ll find them: internet trolls, from the mildly inflammatory to the viciously bullying. It seems that the ease of posting online leads many to abandon any semblance of intellectual humility. So can we have intellectual humility on an anonymous forum with little oversight and accountability? Does current online behavior portend the end of humility in the public domain? How do we encourage greater humility and less arrogance in any public discourse? The Philosophers open up the comments section for Michael Lynch from the University of Connecticut, author of The Internet of Us: Knowing More and Understanding Less in the Age of Big Data.
Part of a six-part series on Intellectual Humility.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/411/trolling-bullying-and-flame-wars.mp3" length="48753684" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Open up any online comments section and you’ll find them: internet trolls, from the mildly inflammatory to the viciously bullying. It seems that the ease of posting online leads many to abandon any semblance of intellectual humility. So can we have intellectual humility on an anonymous forum with little oversight and accountability? Does current online behavior portend the end of humility in the public domain? How do we encourage greater humility and less arrogance in any public discourse? The Philosophers open up the comments section for Michael Lynch from the University of Connecticut, author of The Internet of Us: Knowing More and Understanding Less in the Age of Big Data.
Part of a six-part series on Intellectual Humility.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/440px-Michael_Patrick_Lynch_at_Senate_House_0.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Open up any online comments section and you’ll find them: internet trolls, from the mildly inflammatory to the viciously bullying. It seems that the ease of posting online leads many to abandon any semblance of intellectual humility. So can we have intellectual humility on an anonymous forum with little oversight and accountability? Does current online behavior portend the end of humility in the public domain? How do we encourage greater humility and less arrogance in any public discourse? The Philosophers open up the comments section for Michael Lynch from the University of Connecticut, author of The Internet of Us: Knowing More and Understanding Less in the Age of Big Data.
Part of a six-part series on Intellectual Humility.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/440px-Michael_Patrick_Lynch_at_Senate_House_0.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Monstrous Technologies?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/monstrous-technologies/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 08 Apr 2018 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/monstrous-technologies/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein raises powerful questions about the responsibilities of scientists to consider the impact of their inventions on the world. Are these questions as relevant now as they were 200 years ago? What insights, if any, should today’s technologists and disrupters glean from Shelley&#8217;s story? What does it mean to take responsibility for one’s scientific or technological innovations? And what role should university educators play in ensuring that no new monsters are unleashed onto the world? Josh and Ken have a monstrously fun conversation with Persis Drell, Provost and former Dean of Engineering from Stanford University.
This program was recorded live on the Stanford campus as part of the university&#8217;s Frankenstein@200 project.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein raises powerful questions about the responsibilities of scientists to consider the impact of their inventions on the world. Are these questions as relevant now as they were 200 years ago? What insights, if any, should today’s ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein raises powerful questions about the responsibilities of scientists to consider the impact of their inventions on the world. Are these questions as relevant now as they were 200 years ago? What insights, if any, should today’s technologists and disrupters glean from Shelley&#8217;s story? What does it mean to take responsibility for one’s scientific or technological innovations? And what role should university educators play in ensuring that no new monsters are unleashed onto the world? Josh and Ken have a monstrously fun conversation with Persis Drell, Provost and former Dean of Engineering from Stanford University.
This program was recorded live on the Stanford campus as part of the university&#8217;s Frankenstein@200 project.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/405/monstrous-technologies.mp3" length="48285570" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein raises powerful questions about the responsibilities of scientists to consider the impact of their inventions on the world. Are these questions as relevant now as they were 200 years ago? What insights, if any, should today’s technologists and disrupters glean from Shelley&#8217;s story? What does it mean to take responsibility for one’s scientific or technological innovations? And what role should university educators play in ensuring that no new monsters are unleashed onto the world? Josh and Ken have a monstrously fun conversation with Persis Drell, Provost and former Dean of Engineering from Stanford University.
This program was recorded live on the Stanford campus as part of the university&#8217;s Frankenstein@200 project.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/G8ORQMtisrY.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein raises powerful questions about the responsibilities of scientists to consider the impact of their inventions on the world. Are these questions as relevant now as they were 200 years ago? What insights, if any, should today’s technologists and disrupters glean from Shelley&#8217;s story? What does it mean to take responsibility for one’s scientific or technological innovations? And what role should university educators play in ensuring that no new monsters are unleashed onto the world? Josh and Ken have a monstrously fun conversation with Persis Drell, Provost and former Dean of Engineering from Stanford University.
This program was recorded live on the Stanford campus as part of the university&#8217;s Frankenstein@200 project.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/G8ORQMtisrY.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Adorno and the Culture Industry</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/adorno-and-culture-industry/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 25 Mar 2018 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/adorno-and-culture-industry/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What&#8217;s your favorite movie? Did you watch that season finale last night? No spoilers! Popular cultures pervades modern life. But what if pop culture was actually more pernicious than we ordinarily think? Could it be systematically deceiving us—eroding our ability to think for ourselves and fight for change? That&#8217;s what the 20th century German philosopher Theodor Adorno thought. The Philosophers get cultured on Adorno&#8217;s life and thought with Adrian Daub from Stanford University, co-author of The James Bond Songs: Pop Anthems of Late Capitalism.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What&#8217;s your favorite movie? Did you watch that season finale last night? No spoilers! Popular cultures pervades modern life. But what if pop culture was actually more pernicious than we ordinarily think? Could it be systematically deceiving us—erod]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What&#8217;s your favorite movie? Did you watch that season finale last night? No spoilers! Popular cultures pervades modern life. But what if pop culture was actually more pernicious than we ordinarily think? Could it be systematically deceiving us—eroding our ability to think for ourselves and fight for change? That&#8217;s what the 20th century German philosopher Theodor Adorno thought. The Philosophers get cultured on Adorno&#8217;s life and thought with Adrian Daub from Stanford University, co-author of The James Bond Songs: Pop Anthems of Late Capitalism.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/407/adorno-and-culture-industry.mp3" length="48160600" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What&#8217;s your favorite movie? Did you watch that season finale last night? No spoilers! Popular cultures pervades modern life. But what if pop culture was actually more pernicious than we ordinarily think? Could it be systematically deceiving us—eroding our ability to think for ourselves and fight for change? That&#8217;s what the 20th century German philosopher Theodor Adorno thought. The Philosophers get cultured on Adorno&#8217;s life and thought with Adrian Daub from Stanford University, co-author of The James Bond Songs: Pop Anthems of Late Capitalism.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/3Pp-1Iy40Ek.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What&#8217;s your favorite movie? Did you watch that season finale last night? No spoilers! Popular cultures pervades modern life. But what if pop culture was actually more pernicious than we ordinarily think? Could it be systematically deceiving us—eroding our ability to think for ourselves and fight for change? That&#8217;s what the 20th century German philosopher Theodor Adorno thought. The Philosophers get cultured on Adorno&#8217;s life and thought with Adrian Daub from Stanford University, co-author of The James Bond Songs: Pop Anthems of Late Capitalism.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/3Pp-1Iy40Ek.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>How to Humbly Disagree</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/how-humbly-disagree/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 11 Mar 2018 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/how-humbly-disagree/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[People like to argue, especially Philosophy Talk listeners! But no matter how hard we try to resolve disputes through rational discourse, sometimes we may still disagree about important issues. One response to this predicament is simply to agree to disagree. But should the mere fact of disagreement lower our confidence in our views? Should we change how we judge our own beliefs when we realize that other people disagree? Or do we only have reason to doubt our beliefs when we learn that experts disagree with us? The Philosophy Talk hosts humbly welcome Nathan Ballantyne from Fordham University, author of Knowing Our Limits (forthcoming).
Part of a six-part series on Intellectual Humility.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[People like to argue, especially Philosophy Talk listeners! But no matter how hard we try to resolve disputes through rational discourse, sometimes we may still disagree about important issues. One response to this predicament is simply to agree to disag]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[People like to argue, especially Philosophy Talk listeners! But no matter how hard we try to resolve disputes through rational discourse, sometimes we may still disagree about important issues. One response to this predicament is simply to agree to disagree. But should the mere fact of disagreement lower our confidence in our views? Should we change how we judge our own beliefs when we realize that other people disagree? Or do we only have reason to doubt our beliefs when we learn that experts disagree with us? The Philosophy Talk hosts humbly welcome Nathan Ballantyne from Fordham University, author of Knowing Our Limits (forthcoming).
Part of a six-part series on Intellectual Humility.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/399/how-humbly-disagree.mp3" length="48994011" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[People like to argue, especially Philosophy Talk listeners! But no matter how hard we try to resolve disputes through rational discourse, sometimes we may still disagree about important issues. One response to this predicament is simply to agree to disagree. But should the mere fact of disagreement lower our confidence in our views? Should we change how we judge our own beliefs when we realize that other people disagree? Or do we only have reason to doubt our beliefs when we learn that experts disagree with us? The Philosophy Talk hosts humbly welcome Nathan Ballantyne from Fordham University, author of Knowing Our Limits (forthcoming).
Part of a six-part series on Intellectual Humility.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/AuKA0PJtoRE-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[People like to argue, especially Philosophy Talk listeners! But no matter how hard we try to resolve disputes through rational discourse, sometimes we may still disagree about important issues. One response to this predicament is simply to agree to disagree. But should the mere fact of disagreement lower our confidence in our views? Should we change how we judge our own beliefs when we realize that other people disagree? Or do we only have reason to doubt our beliefs when we learn that experts disagree with us? The Philosophy Talk hosts humbly welcome Nathan Ballantyne from Fordham University, author of Knowing Our Limits (forthcoming).
Part of a six-part series on Intellectual Humility.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/AuKA0PJtoRE-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Misogyny and Gender Inequality</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/misogyny-and-gender-inequality/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 25 Feb 2018 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/misogyny-and-gender-inequality/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[With the recent #MeToo viral campaign, along with the wave of prominent male figures toppled for being serial sexual harassers or worse, the topic of misogyny has come into sharp focus. But what exactly is misogyny? And how does it differ from sexism? What set of beliefs or attitudes makes someone a misogynist? And why does misogyny persist despite the fact that traditional gender roles are being abandoned more and more? Ken and Debra explore the trials of the second sex with Kate Manne from Cornell University, author of Down, Girl: The Logic of Misogyny.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[With the recent #MeToo viral campaign, along with the wave of prominent male figures toppled for being serial sexual harassers or worse, the topic of misogyny has come into sharp focus. But what exactly is misogyny? And how does it differ from sexism? Wh]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[With the recent #MeToo viral campaign, along with the wave of prominent male figures toppled for being serial sexual harassers or worse, the topic of misogyny has come into sharp focus. But what exactly is misogyny? And how does it differ from sexism? What set of beliefs or attitudes makes someone a misogynist? And why does misogyny persist despite the fact that traditional gender roles are being abandoned more and more? Ken and Debra explore the trials of the second sex with Kate Manne from Cornell University, author of Down, Girl: The Logic of Misogyny.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/397/misogyny-and-gender-inequality.mp3" length="48860264" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[With the recent #MeToo viral campaign, along with the wave of prominent male figures toppled for being serial sexual harassers or worse, the topic of misogyny has come into sharp focus. But what exactly is misogyny? And how does it differ from sexism? What set of beliefs or attitudes makes someone a misogynist? And why does misogyny persist despite the fact that traditional gender roles are being abandoned more and more? Ken and Debra explore the trials of the second sex with Kate Manne from Cornell University, author of Down, Girl: The Logic of Misogyny.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/bp0V5mfTkd4.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[With the recent #MeToo viral campaign, along with the wave of prominent male figures toppled for being serial sexual harassers or worse, the topic of misogyny has come into sharp focus. But what exactly is misogyny? And how does it differ from sexism? What set of beliefs or attitudes makes someone a misogynist? And why does misogyny persist despite the fact that traditional gender roles are being abandoned more and more? Ken and Debra explore the trials of the second sex with Kate Manne from Cornell University, author of Down, Girl: The Logic of Misogyny.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/bp0V5mfTkd4.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The 5th (Mostly) Annual Dionysus Awards</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/dionysus-2018/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 18 Feb 2018 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/dionysus-2018/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Josh and Ken talk to philosophers, film critics, and listeners in presenting their fifth (mostly) annual Dionysus Awards for the most philosophically compelling movies of the past year. Categories include:

Most Searing Depiction of Humankind&#8217;s Propensity to Dehumanize the Other
Most Philosophically Absurdist and Cinematically Transgressive Film
Richest Investigation of the Drivers of History]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Josh and Ken talk to philosophers, film critics, and listeners in presenting their fifth (mostly) annual Dionysus Awards for the most philosophically compelling movies of the past year. Categories include:

Most Searing Depiction of Humankind&#8217;s Pro]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Josh and Ken talk to philosophers, film critics, and listeners in presenting their fifth (mostly) annual Dionysus Awards for the most philosophically compelling movies of the past year. Categories include:

Most Searing Depiction of Humankind&#8217;s Propensity to Dehumanize the Other
Most Philosophically Absurdist and Cinematically Transgressive Film
Richest Investigation of the Drivers of History]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/401/dionysus-2018.mp3" length="50048051" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Josh and Ken talk to philosophers, film critics, and listeners in presenting their fifth (mostly) annual Dionysus Awards for the most philosophically compelling movies of the past year. Categories include:

Most Searing Depiction of Humankind&#8217;s Propensity to Dehumanize the Other
Most Philosophically Absurdist and Cinematically Transgressive Film
Richest Investigation of the Drivers of History]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/PPL5VwrdnAE.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Josh and Ken talk to philosophers, film critics, and listeners in presenting their fifth (mostly) annual Dionysus Awards for the most philosophically compelling movies of the past year. Categories include:

Most Searing Depiction of Humankind&#8217;s Propensity to Dehumanize the Other
Most Philosophically Absurdist and Cinematically Transgressive Film
Richest Investigation of the Drivers of History]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/PPL5VwrdnAE.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>James Baldwin and Social Justice</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/james-baldwin-and-social-justice/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 11 Feb 2018 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/james-baldwin-and-social-justice/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Sometimes, we struggle to tell the truth—especially when it&#8217;s the truth about ourselves. Why did James Baldwin, a prominent Civil Rights-era intellectual and novelist, believe that telling the truth about ourselves is not only difficult but can also be dangerous? How can truth deeply unsettle our assumptions about ourselves and our relations to others? And why did Baldwin think that this abstract concept of truth could play a concrete role in social justice? The Philosophers seek their own truth with Christopher Freeburg from the University of Illinois, author of Counterlife: Slavery after Resistance and Social Death.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Sometimes, we struggle to tell the truth—especially when it&#8217;s the truth about ourselves. Why did James Baldwin, a prominent Civil Rights-era intellectual and novelist, believe that telling the truth about ourselves is not only difficult but can als]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Sometimes, we struggle to tell the truth—especially when it&#8217;s the truth about ourselves. Why did James Baldwin, a prominent Civil Rights-era intellectual and novelist, believe that telling the truth about ourselves is not only difficult but can also be dangerous? How can truth deeply unsettle our assumptions about ourselves and our relations to others? And why did Baldwin think that this abstract concept of truth could play a concrete role in social justice? The Philosophers seek their own truth with Christopher Freeburg from the University of Illinois, author of Counterlife: Slavery after Resistance and Social Death.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/393/james-baldwin-and-social-justice.mp3" length="47470132" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Sometimes, we struggle to tell the truth—especially when it&#8217;s the truth about ourselves. Why did James Baldwin, a prominent Civil Rights-era intellectual and novelist, believe that telling the truth about ourselves is not only difficult but can also be dangerous? How can truth deeply unsettle our assumptions about ourselves and our relations to others? And why did Baldwin think that this abstract concept of truth could play a concrete role in social justice? The Philosophers seek their own truth with Christopher Freeburg from the University of Illinois, author of Counterlife: Slavery after Resistance and Social Death.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/TzrTQajiMDI.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Sometimes, we struggle to tell the truth—especially when it&#8217;s the truth about ourselves. Why did James Baldwin, a prominent Civil Rights-era intellectual and novelist, believe that telling the truth about ourselves is not only difficult but can also be dangerous? How can truth deeply unsettle our assumptions about ourselves and our relations to others? And why did Baldwin think that this abstract concept of truth could play a concrete role in social justice? The Philosophers seek their own truth with Christopher Freeburg from the University of Illinois, author of Counterlife: Slavery after Resistance and Social Death.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/TzrTQajiMDI.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Frantz Fanon and the Violence of Colonialism</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/frantz-fanon/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jan 2018 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/frantz-fanon/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Frantz Fanon is a thinker who has inspired radical liberation movements in places ranging from Palestine to South Africa to the United States. Most famous for his work The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon is often understood as a proponent of revolutionary violence. But is this a fair characterization of Fanon, or is it an oversimplification of a deeper and richer body of work? What exactly is Fanon’s philosophy of violence, and how does it relate to his philosophy and psychology of the colonial subject? How has Fanon shaped how we think of identity politics? The Philosophers welcome Nigel Gibson from Emerson College, author of Fanon: The Postcolonial Imagination.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Frantz Fanon is a thinker who has inspired radical liberation movements in places ranging from Palestine to South Africa to the United States. Most famous for his work The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon is often understood as a proponent of revolutionary v]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Frantz Fanon is a thinker who has inspired radical liberation movements in places ranging from Palestine to South Africa to the United States. Most famous for his work The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon is often understood as a proponent of revolutionary violence. But is this a fair characterization of Fanon, or is it an oversimplification of a deeper and richer body of work? What exactly is Fanon’s philosophy of violence, and how does it relate to his philosophy and psychology of the colonial subject? How has Fanon shaped how we think of identity politics? The Philosophers welcome Nigel Gibson from Emerson College, author of Fanon: The Postcolonial Imagination.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/395/frantz-fanon.mp3" length="47557485" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Frantz Fanon is a thinker who has inspired radical liberation movements in places ranging from Palestine to South Africa to the United States. Most famous for his work The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon is often understood as a proponent of revolutionary violence. But is this a fair characterization of Fanon, or is it an oversimplification of a deeper and richer body of work? What exactly is Fanon’s philosophy of violence, and how does it relate to his philosophy and psychology of the colonial subject? How has Fanon shaped how we think of identity politics? The Philosophers welcome Nigel Gibson from Emerson College, author of Fanon: The Postcolonial Imagination.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/FEXNBe826I4.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Frantz Fanon is a thinker who has inspired radical liberation movements in places ranging from Palestine to South Africa to the United States. Most famous for his work The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon is often understood as a proponent of revolutionary violence. But is this a fair characterization of Fanon, or is it an oversimplification of a deeper and richer body of work? What exactly is Fanon’s philosophy of violence, and how does it relate to his philosophy and psychology of the colonial subject? How has Fanon shaped how we think of identity politics? The Philosophers welcome Nigel Gibson from Emerson College, author of Fanon: The Postcolonial Imagination.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/FEXNBe826I4.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Fractured Identities</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/fractured-identities/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 21 Jan 2018 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/fractured-identities/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Despite tremendous strides made towards civil and political rights in the United States, discrimination and exclusion based on race, class, gender, and sexuality are still pervasive. As a result, individuals seen as &#8220;the other&#8221; often experience a painful inner fracturing W.E.B. Du Bois called &#8220;double consciousness.&#8221; So, how does one shape a coherent identity in a world where one is considered &#8220;other&#8221;? What effects do micro aggressions have on the ability to develop a unified self? And what role might community play in helping heal fractured identities? The Philosophers identify with Julie Lythcott-Haims, author of Real American: A Memoir.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Despite tremendous strides made towards civil and political rights in the United States, discrimination and exclusion based on race, class, gender, and sexuality are still pervasive. As a result, individuals seen as &#8220;the other&#8221; often experien]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Despite tremendous strides made towards civil and political rights in the United States, discrimination and exclusion based on race, class, gender, and sexuality are still pervasive. As a result, individuals seen as &#8220;the other&#8221; often experience a painful inner fracturing W.E.B. Du Bois called &#8220;double consciousness.&#8221; So, how does one shape a coherent identity in a world where one is considered &#8220;other&#8221;? What effects do micro aggressions have on the ability to develop a unified self? And what role might community play in helping heal fractured identities? The Philosophers identify with Julie Lythcott-Haims, author of Real American: A Memoir.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/403/fractured-identities.mp3" length="48339069" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Despite tremendous strides made towards civil and political rights in the United States, discrimination and exclusion based on race, class, gender, and sexuality are still pervasive. As a result, individuals seen as &#8220;the other&#8221; often experience a painful inner fracturing W.E.B. Du Bois called &#8220;double consciousness.&#8221; So, how does one shape a coherent identity in a world where one is considered &#8220;other&#8221;? What effects do micro aggressions have on the ability to develop a unified self? And what role might community play in helping heal fractured identities? The Philosophers identify with Julie Lythcott-Haims, author of Real American: A Memoir.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/9yhu1uJBBPo.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Despite tremendous strides made towards civil and political rights in the United States, discrimination and exclusion based on race, class, gender, and sexuality are still pervasive. As a result, individuals seen as &#8220;the other&#8221; often experience a painful inner fracturing W.E.B. Du Bois called &#8220;double consciousness.&#8221; So, how does one shape a coherent identity in a world where one is considered &#8220;other&#8221;? What effects do micro aggressions have on the ability to develop a unified self? And what role might community play in helping heal fractured identities? The Philosophers identify with Julie Lythcott-Haims, author of Real American: A Memoir.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/9yhu1uJBBPo.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Philosophy of Retirement</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/philosophy-retirement/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 07 Jan 2018 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/philosophy-retirement/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Many of us look forward to retirement, that time in life when we stop working for a living. But what exactly is retirement and why do we retire? Does retirement always mean an end to work, or can it sometimes just mean a shift to a different kind of work? Ought we retire for purely selfish reasons, such as to give ourselves more leisure time? Or ought we retire for the public good, to give younger people greater opportunities for employment? In an age when people are living longer and technology is displacing more and more workers, how should our attitudes about retirement change? The Philosophers coax John Perry out of radio retirement to ask about all the work he&#8217;s been getting done since stepping away from the mic.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Many of us look forward to retirement, that time in life when we stop working for a living. But what exactly is retirement and why do we retire? Does retirement always mean an end to work, or can it sometimes just mean a shift to a different kind of work]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Many of us look forward to retirement, that time in life when we stop working for a living. But what exactly is retirement and why do we retire? Does retirement always mean an end to work, or can it sometimes just mean a shift to a different kind of work? Ought we retire for purely selfish reasons, such as to give ourselves more leisure time? Or ought we retire for the public good, to give younger people greater opportunities for employment? In an age when people are living longer and technology is displacing more and more workers, how should our attitudes about retirement change? The Philosophers coax John Perry out of radio retirement to ask about all the work he&#8217;s been getting done since stepping away from the mic.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/391/philosophy-retirement.mp3" length="48622027" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Many of us look forward to retirement, that time in life when we stop working for a living. But what exactly is retirement and why do we retire? Does retirement always mean an end to work, or can it sometimes just mean a shift to a different kind of work? Ought we retire for purely selfish reasons, such as to give ourselves more leisure time? Or ought we retire for the public good, to give younger people greater opportunities for employment? In an age when people are living longer and technology is displacing more and more workers, how should our attitudes about retirement change? The Philosophers coax John Perry out of radio retirement to ask about all the work he&#8217;s been getting done since stepping away from the mic.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/pBxT3ZlmQLI-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Many of us look forward to retirement, that time in life when we stop working for a living. But what exactly is retirement and why do we retire? Does retirement always mean an end to work, or can it sometimes just mean a shift to a different kind of work? Ought we retire for purely selfish reasons, such as to give ourselves more leisure time? Or ought we retire for the public good, to give younger people greater opportunities for employment? In an age when people are living longer and technology is displacing more and more workers, how should our attitudes about retirement change? The Philosophers coax John Perry out of radio retirement to ask about all the work he&#8217;s been getting done since stepping away from the mic.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/pBxT3ZlmQLI-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Examined Year: 2017</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/examined-year-2017/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 31 Dec 2017 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/examined-year-2017/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[A new year offers an opportunity to reflect on the significant events of the previous year. But what ideas and events took shape over the past twelve months that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Join Ken and Josh as they celebrate the examined year with a philosophical look back at the year that was 2017, featuring a roundtable discussion with host emeritus John Perry, as well as conversations with special guests:
• The Year in Gender Relations with Laura Kipnis from Northwestern University, author of Unwanted Advances: Sexual Paranoia Comes to Campus
• The Year in Democracy and Social Media with Larry Kramer, President of the Hewlett Foundation
Because the unexmained year is not worth reviewing!]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[A new year offers an opportunity to reflect on the significant events of the previous year. But what ideas and events took shape over the past twelve months that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Join Ken and Josh as ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[A new year offers an opportunity to reflect on the significant events of the previous year. But what ideas and events took shape over the past twelve months that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Join Ken and Josh as they celebrate the examined year with a philosophical look back at the year that was 2017, featuring a roundtable discussion with host emeritus John Perry, as well as conversations with special guests:
• The Year in Gender Relations with Laura Kipnis from Northwestern University, author of Unwanted Advances: Sexual Paranoia Comes to Campus
• The Year in Democracy and Social Media with Larry Kramer, President of the Hewlett Foundation
Because the unexmained year is not worth reviewing!]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/385/examined-year-2017.mp3" length="49893877" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[A new year offers an opportunity to reflect on the significant events of the previous year. But what ideas and events took shape over the past twelve months that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Join Ken and Josh as they celebrate the examined year with a philosophical look back at the year that was 2017, featuring a roundtable discussion with host emeritus John Perry, as well as conversations with special guests:
• The Year in Gender Relations with Laura Kipnis from Northwestern University, author of Unwanted Advances: Sexual Paranoia Comes to Campus
• The Year in Democracy and Social Media with Larry Kramer, President of the Hewlett Foundation
Because the unexmained year is not worth reviewing!]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/JFK7o8KD6g4.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[A new year offers an opportunity to reflect on the significant events of the previous year. But what ideas and events took shape over the past twelve months that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Join Ken and Josh as they celebrate the examined year with a philosophical look back at the year that was 2017, featuring a roundtable discussion with host emeritus John Perry, as well as conversations with special guests:
• The Year in Gender Relations with Laura Kipnis from Northwestern University, author of Unwanted Advances: Sexual Paranoia Comes to Campus
• The Year in Democracy and Social Media with Larry Kramer, President of the Hewlett Foundation
Because the unexmained year is not worth reviewing!]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/JFK7o8KD6g4.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Can Speech Kill?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/can-speech-kill/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 10 Dec 2017 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/can-speech-kill/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Free speech is one of the core tenets of our democracy. We’re inclined to think that more speech is always better. Although the Supreme Court has outlined some minor restrictions to our right to free speech, the most courts are willing to admit is that speech can lead to violence—it cannot itself do violence. But is it possible for speech to do both? If hate speech is used against a marginalized group, couldn’t the speech act literally do harm? And how does the answer to this question affect our commitment to free speech in a liberal democracy? The Philosophers do no harm with Lynne Tirrell from the University of Connecticut, author of “Genocidal Language Games.”]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Free speech is one of the core tenets of our democracy. We’re inclined to think that more speech is always better. Although the Supreme Court has outlined some minor restrictions to our right to free speech, the most courts are willing to admit is that s]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Free speech is one of the core tenets of our democracy. We’re inclined to think that more speech is always better. Although the Supreme Court has outlined some minor restrictions to our right to free speech, the most courts are willing to admit is that speech can lead to violence—it cannot itself do violence. But is it possible for speech to do both? If hate speech is used against a marginalized group, couldn’t the speech act literally do harm? And how does the answer to this question affect our commitment to free speech in a liberal democracy? The Philosophers do no harm with Lynne Tirrell from the University of Connecticut, author of “Genocidal Language Games.”]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/387/can-speech-kill.mp3" length="48338651" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free speech is one of the core tenets of our democracy. We’re inclined to think that more speech is always better. Although the Supreme Court has outlined some minor restrictions to our right to free speech, the most courts are willing to admit is that speech can lead to violence—it cannot itself do violence. But is it possible for speech to do both? If hate speech is used against a marginalized group, couldn’t the speech act literally do harm? And how does the answer to this question affect our commitment to free speech in a liberal democracy? The Philosophers do no harm with Lynne Tirrell from the University of Connecticut, author of “Genocidal Language Games.”]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/RBz0TaLh_vg.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Free speech is one of the core tenets of our democracy. We’re inclined to think that more speech is always better. Although the Supreme Court has outlined some minor restrictions to our right to free speech, the most courts are willing to admit is that speech can lead to violence—it cannot itself do violence. But is it possible for speech to do both? If hate speech is used against a marginalized group, couldn’t the speech act literally do harm? And how does the answer to this question affect our commitment to free speech in a liberal democracy? The Philosophers do no harm with Lynne Tirrell from the University of Connecticut, author of “Genocidal Language Games.”]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/RBz0TaLh_vg.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Midlife and Meaning</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/midlife-and-meaning/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 03 Dec 2017 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/midlife-and-meaning/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[At some point or another, the midlife crisis comes for us all. But what is it really about? Is it a sense of our mortality, the fear of not achieving what we hoped to, or the sinking feeling that we’ve been spending our whole adult lives chasing our tails? And what is the solution: a new car, a new life goal, or the choice to give up goals altogether? Ken and Josh entertain the possibilities with Kieran Setiya from MIT, author of Midlife: A Philosophical Guide.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[At some point or another, the midlife crisis comes for us all. But what is it really about? Is it a sense of our mortality, the fear of not achieving what we hoped to, or the sinking feeling that we’ve been spending our whole adult lives chasing our tail]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[At some point or another, the midlife crisis comes for us all. But what is it really about? Is it a sense of our mortality, the fear of not achieving what we hoped to, or the sinking feeling that we’ve been spending our whole adult lives chasing our tails? And what is the solution: a new car, a new life goal, or the choice to give up goals altogether? Ken and Josh entertain the possibilities with Kieran Setiya from MIT, author of Midlife: A Philosophical Guide.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/383/midlife-and-meaning.mp3" length="49595036" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[At some point or another, the midlife crisis comes for us all. But what is it really about? Is it a sense of our mortality, the fear of not achieving what we hoped to, or the sinking feeling that we’ve been spending our whole adult lives chasing our tails? And what is the solution: a new car, a new life goal, or the choice to give up goals altogether? Ken and Josh entertain the possibilities with Kieran Setiya from MIT, author of Midlife: A Philosophical Guide.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/uIPNbScCB2Y.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[At some point or another, the midlife crisis comes for us all. But what is it really about? Is it a sense of our mortality, the fear of not achieving what we hoped to, or the sinking feeling that we’ve been spending our whole adult lives chasing our tails? And what is the solution: a new car, a new life goal, or the choice to give up goals altogether? Ken and Josh entertain the possibilities with Kieran Setiya from MIT, author of Midlife: A Philosophical Guide.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/uIPNbScCB2Y.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Philosophy of Trash</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/philosophy-trash/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 05 Nov 2017 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/philosophy-trash/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[&#8220;One man&#8217;s trash is another man&#8217;s treasure,&#8221; or so the saying goes. But what makes something trash to begin with? The word can be used to describe disposable objects, pieces of culture, or even people. Underlying each of these uses, however, are feelings of indifference, disdain, or disgust. How do the things that we call trash reflect our values, as individuals, and as a society? What can we learn about ourselves by examining the things we deem worthy of throwing away? The Philosophers go dumpster diving with Elizabeth Spelman from Smith College, author of Trash Talks: Revelations in the Rubbish.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[&#8220;One man&#8217;s trash is another man&#8217;s treasure,&#8221; or so the saying goes. But what makes something trash to begin with? The word can be used to describe disposable objects, pieces of culture, or even people. Underlying each of these use]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[&#8220;One man&#8217;s trash is another man&#8217;s treasure,&#8221; or so the saying goes. But what makes something trash to begin with? The word can be used to describe disposable objects, pieces of culture, or even people. Underlying each of these uses, however, are feelings of indifference, disdain, or disgust. How do the things that we call trash reflect our values, as individuals, and as a society? What can we learn about ourselves by examining the things we deem worthy of throwing away? The Philosophers go dumpster diving with Elizabeth Spelman from Smith College, author of Trash Talks: Revelations in the Rubbish.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/379/philosophy-trash.mp3" length="47630628" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[&#8220;One man&#8217;s trash is another man&#8217;s treasure,&#8221; or so the saying goes. But what makes something trash to begin with? The word can be used to describe disposable objects, pieces of culture, or even people. Underlying each of these uses, however, are feelings of indifference, disdain, or disgust. How do the things that we call trash reflect our values, as individuals, and as a society? What can we learn about ourselves by examining the things we deem worthy of throwing away? The Philosophers go dumpster diving with Elizabeth Spelman from Smith College, author of Trash Talks: Revelations in the Rubbish.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/UJgBOdMRZYg.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[&#8220;One man&#8217;s trash is another man&#8217;s treasure,&#8221; or so the saying goes. But what makes something trash to begin with? The word can be used to describe disposable objects, pieces of culture, or even people. Underlying each of these uses, however, are feelings of indifference, disdain, or disgust. How do the things that we call trash reflect our values, as individuals, and as a society? What can we learn about ourselves by examining the things we deem worthy of throwing away? The Philosophers go dumpster diving with Elizabeth Spelman from Smith College, author of Trash Talks: Revelations in the Rubbish.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/UJgBOdMRZYg.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Race Matters</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/race-matters/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 29 Oct 2017 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/race-matters/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Started in the wake of George Zimmerman&#8217;s 2013 acquittal in the death of Trayvon Martin, the #BlackLivesMatter movement has become a powerful campaign demanding redress for the mistreatment of African-Americans by law enforcement in the United States. But it has also inspired deep antipathy from those who claim it overemphasizes racial issues. So how much does – and should – race matter? Does #BlackLivesMatter speak for all black people? How should we respond to counter-movements like #AllLivesMatter? Ken and Debra discuss matters with Chris Lebron from Johns Hopkins University, author of The Making of Black Lives Matter: A Brief History of an Idea.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Started in the wake of George Zimmerman&#8217;s 2013 acquittal in the death of Trayvon Martin, the #BlackLivesMatter movement has become a powerful campaign demanding redress for the mistreatment of African-Americans by law enforcement in the United Stat]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Started in the wake of George Zimmerman&#8217;s 2013 acquittal in the death of Trayvon Martin, the #BlackLivesMatter movement has become a powerful campaign demanding redress for the mistreatment of African-Americans by law enforcement in the United States. But it has also inspired deep antipathy from those who claim it overemphasizes racial issues. So how much does – and should – race matter? Does #BlackLivesMatter speak for all black people? How should we respond to counter-movements like #AllLivesMatter? Ken and Debra discuss matters with Chris Lebron from Johns Hopkins University, author of The Making of Black Lives Matter: A Brief History of an Idea.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/381/race-matters.mp3" length="48539271" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Started in the wake of George Zimmerman&#8217;s 2013 acquittal in the death of Trayvon Martin, the #BlackLivesMatter movement has become a powerful campaign demanding redress for the mistreatment of African-Americans by law enforcement in the United States. But it has also inspired deep antipathy from those who claim it overemphasizes racial issues. So how much does – and should – race matter? Does #BlackLivesMatter speak for all black people? How should we respond to counter-movements like #AllLivesMatter? Ken and Debra discuss matters with Chris Lebron from Johns Hopkins University, author of The Making of Black Lives Matter: A Brief History of an Idea.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/veq2n5jDkGA.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Started in the wake of George Zimmerman&#8217;s 2013 acquittal in the death of Trayvon Martin, the #BlackLivesMatter movement has become a powerful campaign demanding redress for the mistreatment of African-Americans by law enforcement in the United States. But it has also inspired deep antipathy from those who claim it overemphasizes racial issues. So how much does – and should – race matter? Does #BlackLivesMatter speak for all black people? How should we respond to counter-movements like #AllLivesMatter? Ken and Debra discuss matters with Chris Lebron from Johns Hopkins University, author of The Making of Black Lives Matter: A Brief History of an Idea.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/veq2n5jDkGA.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Internet of Things</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/internet-things/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 15 Oct 2017 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/internet-things/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Smart TVs, refrigerators, cars, and entire houses—the internet of things refers to the networking of all the devices in our lives, as they gather data and interact with one another, apparently to make our lives easier and more convenient. As we add more and more smart devices to our network, how will this augmented connectivity affect the way we live? Will these developments transform our world in ways that enrich our lives? Or will they just create more opportunities for hackers, corporations, and governments to pry into every aspect of our lives? Josh and Ken get smart with renowned computer scientist Carl Hewitt, editor of Inconsistency Robustness (Studies in Logic).]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Smart TVs, refrigerators, cars, and entire houses—the internet of things refers to the networking of all the devices in our lives, as they gather data and interact with one another, apparently to make our lives easier and more convenient. As we add more ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Smart TVs, refrigerators, cars, and entire houses—the internet of things refers to the networking of all the devices in our lives, as they gather data and interact with one another, apparently to make our lives easier and more convenient. As we add more and more smart devices to our network, how will this augmented connectivity affect the way we live? Will these developments transform our world in ways that enrich our lives? Or will they just create more opportunities for hackers, corporations, and governments to pry into every aspect of our lives? Josh and Ken get smart with renowned computer scientist Carl Hewitt, editor of Inconsistency Robustness (Studies in Logic).]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/389/internet-things.mp3" length="48079934" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Smart TVs, refrigerators, cars, and entire houses—the internet of things refers to the networking of all the devices in our lives, as they gather data and interact with one another, apparently to make our lives easier and more convenient. As we add more and more smart devices to our network, how will this augmented connectivity affect the way we live? Will these developments transform our world in ways that enrich our lives? Or will they just create more opportunities for hackers, corporations, and governments to pry into every aspect of our lives? Josh and Ken get smart with renowned computer scientist Carl Hewitt, editor of Inconsistency Robustness (Studies in Logic).]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/6qN316jvqc4.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Smart TVs, refrigerators, cars, and entire houses—the internet of things refers to the networking of all the devices in our lives, as they gather data and interact with one another, apparently to make our lives easier and more convenient. As we add more and more smart devices to our network, how will this augmented connectivity affect the way we live? Will these developments transform our world in ways that enrich our lives? Or will they just create more opportunities for hackers, corporations, and governments to pry into every aspect of our lives? Josh and Ken get smart with renowned computer scientist Carl Hewitt, editor of Inconsistency Robustness (Studies in Logic).]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/6qN316jvqc4.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>A World Without Work</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/world-without-work/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 24 Sep 2017 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/world-without-work/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Work: a lot lot of people do it, and a lot of people don’t seem to like it very much. But as computers and artificial intelligence get increasingly sophisticated, more and more of our workers will lose their jobs to technology. Should we view this inevitability with hope or with despair? Without the order and purpose that meaningful work provides in our lives, would we end up bored and restless? What obligations does government have to deal with these changes? What about providing all citizens with a basic income? The Philosophers work hard with Juliana Bidadanure from Stanford University, Faculty Director of the Stanford Basic Income Lab.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Work: a lot lot of people do it, and a lot of people don’t seem to like it very much. But as computers and artificial intelligence get increasingly sophisticated, more and more of our workers will lose their jobs to technology. Should we view this inevit]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Work: a lot lot of people do it, and a lot of people don’t seem to like it very much. But as computers and artificial intelligence get increasingly sophisticated, more and more of our workers will lose their jobs to technology. Should we view this inevitability with hope or with despair? Without the order and purpose that meaningful work provides in our lives, would we end up bored and restless? What obligations does government have to deal with these changes? What about providing all citizens with a basic income? The Philosophers work hard with Juliana Bidadanure from Stanford University, Faculty Director of the Stanford Basic Income Lab.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/377/world-without-work.mp3" length="49097247" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Work: a lot lot of people do it, and a lot of people don’t seem to like it very much. But as computers and artificial intelligence get increasingly sophisticated, more and more of our workers will lose their jobs to technology. Should we view this inevitability with hope or with despair? Without the order and purpose that meaningful work provides in our lives, would we end up bored and restless? What obligations does government have to deal with these changes? What about providing all citizens with a basic income? The Philosophers work hard with Juliana Bidadanure from Stanford University, Faculty Director of the Stanford Basic Income Lab.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/KLZZL-0DJKg.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Work: a lot lot of people do it, and a lot of people don’t seem to like it very much. But as computers and artificial intelligence get increasingly sophisticated, more and more of our workers will lose their jobs to technology. Should we view this inevitability with hope or with despair? Without the order and purpose that meaningful work provides in our lives, would we end up bored and restless? What obligations does government have to deal with these changes? What about providing all citizens with a basic income? The Philosophers work hard with Juliana Bidadanure from Stanford University, Faculty Director of the Stanford Basic Income Lab.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/KLZZL-0DJKg.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Post-Truth Politics</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/post-truth-politics/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 10 Sep 2017 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/post-truth-politics/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[You&#8217;ve probably heard about the dangerous effects of fake news, and the spread of sensational and targeted falsities. But what about &#8220;legitimate&#8221; news, one might still ask? Well, do you want the &#8220;liberal truth&#8221; or the &#8220;conservative truth&#8221;? Just stick to the facts? What if my &#8220;facts&#8221; differ from yours? Listen to science? Those scientists are all in someone&#8217;s pocket, you know. Can we know anything anymore in this age of epistemic nihilism? Have we entered the &#8220;post-truth&#8221; era? What does this mean for politics, policy, and accountability? The Philosophers don&#8217;t fake it with Christopher Meyers from CSU Bakersfield, editor of Journalism Ethics: A Philosophical Approach.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[You&#8217;ve probably heard about the dangerous effects of fake news, and the spread of sensational and targeted falsities. But what about &#8220;legitimate&#8221; news, one might still ask? Well, do you want the &#8220;liberal truth&#8221; or the &#8220]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[You&#8217;ve probably heard about the dangerous effects of fake news, and the spread of sensational and targeted falsities. But what about &#8220;legitimate&#8221; news, one might still ask? Well, do you want the &#8220;liberal truth&#8221; or the &#8220;conservative truth&#8221;? Just stick to the facts? What if my &#8220;facts&#8221; differ from yours? Listen to science? Those scientists are all in someone&#8217;s pocket, you know. Can we know anything anymore in this age of epistemic nihilism? Have we entered the &#8220;post-truth&#8221; era? What does this mean for politics, policy, and accountability? The Philosophers don&#8217;t fake it with Christopher Meyers from CSU Bakersfield, editor of Journalism Ethics: A Philosophical Approach.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/375/post-truth-politics.mp3" length="46785933" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[You&#8217;ve probably heard about the dangerous effects of fake news, and the spread of sensational and targeted falsities. But what about &#8220;legitimate&#8221; news, one might still ask? Well, do you want the &#8220;liberal truth&#8221; or the &#8220;conservative truth&#8221;? Just stick to the facts? What if my &#8220;facts&#8221; differ from yours? Listen to science? Those scientists are all in someone&#8217;s pocket, you know. Can we know anything anymore in this age of epistemic nihilism? Have we entered the &#8220;post-truth&#8221; era? What does this mean for politics, policy, and accountability? The Philosophers don&#8217;t fake it with Christopher Meyers from CSU Bakersfield, editor of Journalism Ethics: A Philosophical Approach.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/68yb6xWAMrk.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[You&#8217;ve probably heard about the dangerous effects of fake news, and the spread of sensational and targeted falsities. But what about &#8220;legitimate&#8221; news, one might still ask? Well, do you want the &#8220;liberal truth&#8221; or the &#8220;conservative truth&#8221;? Just stick to the facts? What if my &#8220;facts&#8221; differ from yours? Listen to science? Those scientists are all in someone&#8217;s pocket, you know. Can we know anything anymore in this age of epistemic nihilism? Have we entered the &#8220;post-truth&#8221; era? What does this mean for politics, policy, and accountability? The Philosophers don&#8217;t fake it with Christopher Meyers from CSU Bakersfield, editor of Journalism Ethics: A Philosophical Approach.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/68yb6xWAMrk.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Polyamory</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/polyamory/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 27 Aug 2017 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/polyamory/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[In most if not all modern Western societies, monogamy is the dominant form of romantic relationship. In polyamorous or &#8220;open&#8221; relationships, however, each person is free to love multiple partners at once. Just as our friendships are non-exclusive, advocates of polyamory believe our romantic relationship should be too. So why do so many people find polyamory distasteful, or even despicable? Is it immoral to love more than one person at a time? Or is our society&#8217;s commitment to monogamy simply a fossil of tradition that could one day be obsolete? Ken and Ray share the love with Carrie Jenkins from the University of British Columbia, author of What Love Is: And What It Could Be.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[In most if not all modern Western societies, monogamy is the dominant form of romantic relationship. In polyamorous or &#8220;open&#8221; relationships, however, each person is free to love multiple partners at once. Just as our friendships are non-exclu]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[In most if not all modern Western societies, monogamy is the dominant form of romantic relationship. In polyamorous or &#8220;open&#8221; relationships, however, each person is free to love multiple partners at once. Just as our friendships are non-exclusive, advocates of polyamory believe our romantic relationship should be too. So why do so many people find polyamory distasteful, or even despicable? Is it immoral to love more than one person at a time? Or is our society&#8217;s commitment to monogamy simply a fossil of tradition that could one day be obsolete? Ken and Ray share the love with Carrie Jenkins from the University of British Columbia, author of What Love Is: And What It Could Be.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/373/polyamory.mp3" length="48345756" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[In most if not all modern Western societies, monogamy is the dominant form of romantic relationship. In polyamorous or &#8220;open&#8221; relationships, however, each person is free to love multiple partners at once. Just as our friendships are non-exclusive, advocates of polyamory believe our romantic relationship should be too. So why do so many people find polyamory distasteful, or even despicable? Is it immoral to love more than one person at a time? Or is our society&#8217;s commitment to monogamy simply a fossil of tradition that could one day be obsolete? Ken and Ray share the love with Carrie Jenkins from the University of British Columbia, author of What Love Is: And What It Could Be.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Zc4kBskdLY.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[In most if not all modern Western societies, monogamy is the dominant form of romantic relationship. In polyamorous or &#8220;open&#8221; relationships, however, each person is free to love multiple partners at once. Just as our friendships are non-exclusive, advocates of polyamory believe our romantic relationship should be too. So why do so many people find polyamory distasteful, or even despicable? Is it immoral to love more than one person at a time? Or is our society&#8217;s commitment to monogamy simply a fossil of tradition that could one day be obsolete? Ken and Ray share the love with Carrie Jenkins from the University of British Columbia, author of What Love Is: And What It Could Be.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Zc4kBskdLY.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Could the Laws of Physics Ever Change?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/could-laws-physics-ever-change/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 13 Aug 2017 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/could-laws-physics-ever-change/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[From airplanes flying overhead to the cellular activity inside us, all events that take place in the world obey the laws of physics. Physicists seem to be getting closer and closer to understanding the physical laws that govern our universe. But what if our physical laws changed? Could that even be possible? How might changing of physical laws affect us? Or is just that what we take to be laws changes over time? Should we still call the laws of physics “laws”? The philosophers conserve mass with Massimo Pigliucci from the City University of New York, author of Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk.
Part of our series A Philosophical Guide to the Cosmos.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[From airplanes flying overhead to the cellular activity inside us, all events that take place in the world obey the laws of physics. Physicists seem to be getting closer and closer to understanding the physical laws that govern our universe. But what if ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[From airplanes flying overhead to the cellular activity inside us, all events that take place in the world obey the laws of physics. Physicists seem to be getting closer and closer to understanding the physical laws that govern our universe. But what if our physical laws changed? Could that even be possible? How might changing of physical laws affect us? Or is just that what we take to be laws changes over time? Should we still call the laws of physics “laws”? The philosophers conserve mass with Massimo Pigliucci from the City University of New York, author of Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk.
Part of our series A Philosophical Guide to the Cosmos.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/371/could-laws-physics-ever-change.mp3" length="48357459" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[From airplanes flying overhead to the cellular activity inside us, all events that take place in the world obey the laws of physics. Physicists seem to be getting closer and closer to understanding the physical laws that govern our universe. But what if our physical laws changed? Could that even be possible? How might changing of physical laws affect us? Or is just that what we take to be laws changes over time? Should we still call the laws of physics “laws”? The philosophers conserve mass with Massimo Pigliucci from the City University of New York, author of Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk.
Part of our series A Philosophical Guide to the Cosmos.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/F8zhpuzWxrY.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[From airplanes flying overhead to the cellular activity inside us, all events that take place in the world obey the laws of physics. Physicists seem to be getting closer and closer to understanding the physical laws that govern our universe. But what if our physical laws changed? Could that even be possible? How might changing of physical laws affect us? Or is just that what we take to be laws changes over time? Should we still call the laws of physics “laws”? The philosophers conserve mass with Massimo Pigliucci from the City University of New York, author of Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk.
Part of our series A Philosophical Guide to the Cosmos.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/F8zhpuzWxrY.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Driverless Cars at the Moral Crossroads</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/driverless-cars-moral-crossroads/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 30 Jul 2017 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/driverless-cars-moral-crossroads/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Autonomous vehicles are quickly emerging as the next innovation that will change society in radical ways. Champions of this new technology say that driverless cars, which are programed to obey the law and avoid collisions, will be safer than human controlled vehicles. But how do we program these vehicles to act ethically? Should we trust computer programmers to determine the most ethical response to all possible scenarios the vehicle might encounter? And who should be held responsible for the bad − potentially lethal − decisions these cars make? Our hosts take the wheel with Harvard psychologist Joshua Greene, author of &#8220;Our Driverless Dilemma: When Should Your Car be Willing to Kill You?&#8221;
Recorded live at Cubberley Auditorium on the Stanford campus with support from the Symbolic Systems Program and the McCoy Center for Ethics in Society.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Autonomous vehicles are quickly emerging as the next innovation that will change society in radical ways. Champions of this new technology say that driverless cars, which are programed to obey the law and avoid collisions, will be safer than human contro]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Autonomous vehicles are quickly emerging as the next innovation that will change society in radical ways. Champions of this new technology say that driverless cars, which are programed to obey the law and avoid collisions, will be safer than human controlled vehicles. But how do we program these vehicles to act ethically? Should we trust computer programmers to determine the most ethical response to all possible scenarios the vehicle might encounter? And who should be held responsible for the bad − potentially lethal − decisions these cars make? Our hosts take the wheel with Harvard psychologist Joshua Greene, author of &#8220;Our Driverless Dilemma: When Should Your Car be Willing to Kill You?&#8221;
Recorded live at Cubberley Auditorium on the Stanford campus with support from the Symbolic Systems Program and the McCoy Center for Ethics in Society.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/369/driverless-cars-moral-crossroads.mp3" length="48438961" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Autonomous vehicles are quickly emerging as the next innovation that will change society in radical ways. Champions of this new technology say that driverless cars, which are programed to obey the law and avoid collisions, will be safer than human controlled vehicles. But how do we program these vehicles to act ethically? Should we trust computer programmers to determine the most ethical response to all possible scenarios the vehicle might encounter? And who should be held responsible for the bad − potentially lethal − decisions these cars make? Our hosts take the wheel with Harvard psychologist Joshua Greene, author of &#8220;Our Driverless Dilemma: When Should Your Car be Willing to Kill You?&#8221;
Recorded live at Cubberley Auditorium on the Stanford campus with support from the Symbolic Systems Program and the McCoy Center for Ethics in Society.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/o3BDTYpih5s.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Autonomous vehicles are quickly emerging as the next innovation that will change society in radical ways. Champions of this new technology say that driverless cars, which are programed to obey the law and avoid collisions, will be safer than human controlled vehicles. But how do we program these vehicles to act ethically? Should we trust computer programmers to determine the most ethical response to all possible scenarios the vehicle might encounter? And who should be held responsible for the bad − potentially lethal − decisions these cars make? Our hosts take the wheel with Harvard psychologist Joshua Greene, author of &#8220;Our Driverless Dilemma: When Should Your Car be Willing to Kill You?&#8221;
Recorded live at Cubberley Auditorium on the Stanford campus with support from the Symbolic Systems Program and the McCoy Center for Ethics in Society.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/o3BDTYpih5s.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Cognitive Bias</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/cognitive-bias/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 16 Jul 2017 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/cognitive-bias/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Aristotle thought that rationality was the faculty that distinguished humans from other animals. However, psychological research shows that our judgments are plagued by systematic, irrational, unconscious errors known as ‘cognitive biases.’ In light of this research, can we really be confident in the superiority of human rationality? How much should we trust our own judgments when we are aware of our susceptibility to bias and error? And does our awareness of these biases obligate us to counter them? Debra and Ken shed their biases with Brian Nosek from the University of Virginia, co-Founder and Executive Director of the Center for Open Science.
Part of a six-part series on Intellectual Humility.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Aristotle thought that rationality was the faculty that distinguished humans from other animals. However, psychological research shows that our judgments are plagued by systematic, irrational, unconscious errors known as ‘cognitive biases.’ In light of t]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Aristotle thought that rationality was the faculty that distinguished humans from other animals. However, psychological research shows that our judgments are plagued by systematic, irrational, unconscious errors known as ‘cognitive biases.’ In light of this research, can we really be confident in the superiority of human rationality? How much should we trust our own judgments when we are aware of our susceptibility to bias and error? And does our awareness of these biases obligate us to counter them? Debra and Ken shed their biases with Brian Nosek from the University of Virginia, co-Founder and Executive Director of the Center for Open Science.
Part of a six-part series on Intellectual Humility.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/357/cognitive-bias.mp3" length="48547213" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Aristotle thought that rationality was the faculty that distinguished humans from other animals. However, psychological research shows that our judgments are plagued by systematic, irrational, unconscious errors known as ‘cognitive biases.’ In light of this research, can we really be confident in the superiority of human rationality? How much should we trust our own judgments when we are aware of our susceptibility to bias and error? And does our awareness of these biases obligate us to counter them? Debra and Ken shed their biases with Brian Nosek from the University of Virginia, co-Founder and Executive Director of the Center for Open Science.
Part of a six-part series on Intellectual Humility.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ViKZy0kIwvU.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Aristotle thought that rationality was the faculty that distinguished humans from other animals. However, psychological research shows that our judgments are plagued by systematic, irrational, unconscious errors known as ‘cognitive biases.’ In light of this research, can we really be confident in the superiority of human rationality? How much should we trust our own judgments when we are aware of our susceptibility to bias and error? And does our awareness of these biases obligate us to counter them? Debra and Ken shed their biases with Brian Nosek from the University of Virginia, co-Founder and Executive Director of the Center for Open Science.
Part of a six-part series on Intellectual Humility.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ViKZy0kIwvU.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Summer Reading List 2017</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/summer-reading-list-2017/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 02 Jul 2017 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/summer-reading-list-2017/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Summer is the perfect time to dig in to deep reading. Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism may be a bit much for the beach, but there are lots of readable classics and new titles that could make your summer reading a transformative experience.

Stanford literature professor Josh Landy on Toni Morrison&#8217;s Song of Solomon
Philosophy Talk&#8217;s film blogger, #FrancisOnFilm (aka Leslie Francis from the University of Utah), on Margaret Atwood&#8217;s The Handmaid&#8217;s Tale and the new TV series based on it
Roving Philosophical Reporter Holly J. McDede investigates the graphic novel behind this summer&#8217;s blockbuster Wonder Woman movie
Other recommendations from the Community of Thinkers]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Summer is the perfect time to dig in to deep reading. Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism may be a bit much for the beach, but there are lots of readable classics and new titles that could make your summer reading a transformative experience.
]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Summer is the perfect time to dig in to deep reading. Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism may be a bit much for the beach, but there are lots of readable classics and new titles that could make your summer reading a transformative experience.

Stanford literature professor Josh Landy on Toni Morrison&#8217;s Song of Solomon
Philosophy Talk&#8217;s film blogger, #FrancisOnFilm (aka Leslie Francis from the University of Utah), on Margaret Atwood&#8217;s The Handmaid&#8217;s Tale and the new TV series based on it
Roving Philosophical Reporter Holly J. McDede investigates the graphic novel behind this summer&#8217;s blockbuster Wonder Woman movie
Other recommendations from the Community of Thinkers]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/365/summer-reading-list-2017.mp3" length="49858733" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Summer is the perfect time to dig in to deep reading. Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism may be a bit much for the beach, but there are lots of readable classics and new titles that could make your summer reading a transformative experience.

Stanford literature professor Josh Landy on Toni Morrison&#8217;s Song of Solomon
Philosophy Talk&#8217;s film blogger, #FrancisOnFilm (aka Leslie Francis from the University of Utah), on Margaret Atwood&#8217;s The Handmaid&#8217;s Tale and the new TV series based on it
Roving Philosophical Reporter Holly J. McDede investigates the graphic novel behind this summer&#8217;s blockbuster Wonder Woman movie
Other recommendations from the Community of Thinkers]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/c8I321HD5LA.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Summer is the perfect time to dig in to deep reading. Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism may be a bit much for the beach, but there are lots of readable classics and new titles that could make your summer reading a transformative experience.

Stanford literature professor Josh Landy on Toni Morrison&#8217;s Song of Solomon
Philosophy Talk&#8217;s film blogger, #FrancisOnFilm (aka Leslie Francis from the University of Utah), on Margaret Atwood&#8217;s The Handmaid&#8217;s Tale and the new TV series based on it
Roving Philosophical Reporter Holly J. McDede investigates the graphic novel behind this summer&#8217;s blockbuster Wonder Woman movie
Other recommendations from the Community of Thinkers]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/c8I321HD5LA.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Habermas and Democracy</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/habermas-and-democracy/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 25 Jun 2017 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/habermas-and-democracy/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Jürgen Habermas is regarded as one of the last great public intellectuals of Europe and a major contributor to the philosophy of democracy. A member of the Frankfurt School, Habermas argues that humans can have rational communication that will lead to the democratization of society and consensus. But should we be so optimistic? Why does Habermas have faith in our ability to establish this so-called rational communication and to reach consensus? And how should we reform our liberal democracies to make them more democratic? Ray and Ken reach for consensus with Matthew Specter from Central Connecticut State University, author of Habermas: An Intellectual Biography.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Jürgen Habermas is regarded as one of the last great public intellectuals of Europe and a major contributor to the philosophy of democracy. A member of the Frankfurt School, Habermas argues that humans can have rational communication that will lead to th]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Jürgen Habermas is regarded as one of the last great public intellectuals of Europe and a major contributor to the philosophy of democracy. A member of the Frankfurt School, Habermas argues that humans can have rational communication that will lead to the democratization of society and consensus. But should we be so optimistic? Why does Habermas have faith in our ability to establish this so-called rational communication and to reach consensus? And how should we reform our liberal democracies to make them more democratic? Ray and Ken reach for consensus with Matthew Specter from Central Connecticut State University, author of Habermas: An Intellectual Biography.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/355/habermas-and-democracy.mp3" length="48296019" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Jürgen Habermas is regarded as one of the last great public intellectuals of Europe and a major contributor to the philosophy of democracy. A member of the Frankfurt School, Habermas argues that humans can have rational communication that will lead to the democratization of society and consensus. But should we be so optimistic? Why does Habermas have faith in our ability to establish this so-called rational communication and to reach consensus? And how should we reform our liberal democracies to make them more democratic? Ray and Ken reach for consensus with Matthew Specter from Central Connecticut State University, author of Habermas: An Intellectual Biography.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/kXNiwhSYGIQ.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Jürgen Habermas is regarded as one of the last great public intellectuals of Europe and a major contributor to the philosophy of democracy. A member of the Frankfurt School, Habermas argues that humans can have rational communication that will lead to the democratization of society and consensus. But should we be so optimistic? Why does Habermas have faith in our ability to establish this so-called rational communication and to reach consensus? And how should we reform our liberal democracies to make them more democratic? Ray and Ken reach for consensus with Matthew Specter from Central Connecticut State University, author of Habermas: An Intellectual Biography.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/kXNiwhSYGIQ.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Nonhuman Rights</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/nonhuman-rights/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 28 May 2017 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/nonhuman-rights/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Human rights—like freedom from discrimination and slavery— are fundamental rights and freedoms that every person enjoys simply because they&#8217;re human. But what about other animals, like monkeys, elephants, and dolphins? Should they enjoy similar fundamental rights? If we can extend the legal notion of personhood to inanimate, abstract objects like corporations, then shouldn’t we also extend it to other sentient creatures? How should we understand the concept of a “person” when it’s applied to nonhumans? What kind of cognitive and emotional complexity is required for nonhuman personhood? John and Ken extend rights to their human guest, Steven Wise, author of Rattling The Cage: Toward Legal Rights For Animals.
This episode was recorded before a live audience at Stanford University and is viewable on video.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Human rights—like freedom from discrimination and slavery— are fundamental rights and freedoms that every person enjoys simply because they&#8217;re human. But what about other animals, like monkeys, elephants, and dolphins? Should they enjoy similar fun]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Human rights—like freedom from discrimination and slavery— are fundamental rights and freedoms that every person enjoys simply because they&#8217;re human. But what about other animals, like monkeys, elephants, and dolphins? Should they enjoy similar fundamental rights? If we can extend the legal notion of personhood to inanimate, abstract objects like corporations, then shouldn’t we also extend it to other sentient creatures? How should we understand the concept of a “person” when it’s applied to nonhumans? What kind of cognitive and emotional complexity is required for nonhuman personhood? John and Ken extend rights to their human guest, Steven Wise, author of Rattling The Cage: Toward Legal Rights For Animals.
This episode was recorded before a live audience at Stanford University and is viewable on video.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/363/nonhuman-rights.mp3" length="49057959" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Human rights—like freedom from discrimination and slavery— are fundamental rights and freedoms that every person enjoys simply because they&#8217;re human. But what about other animals, like monkeys, elephants, and dolphins? Should they enjoy similar fundamental rights? If we can extend the legal notion of personhood to inanimate, abstract objects like corporations, then shouldn’t we also extend it to other sentient creatures? How should we understand the concept of a “person” when it’s applied to nonhumans? What kind of cognitive and emotional complexity is required for nonhuman personhood? John and Ken extend rights to their human guest, Steven Wise, author of Rattling The Cage: Toward Legal Rights For Animals.
This episode was recorded before a live audience at Stanford University and is viewable on video.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/TZiKi6QSsLw.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Human rights—like freedom from discrimination and slavery— are fundamental rights and freedoms that every person enjoys simply because they&#8217;re human. But what about other animals, like monkeys, elephants, and dolphins? Should they enjoy similar fundamental rights? If we can extend the legal notion of personhood to inanimate, abstract objects like corporations, then shouldn’t we also extend it to other sentient creatures? How should we understand the concept of a “person” when it’s applied to nonhumans? What kind of cognitive and emotional complexity is required for nonhuman personhood? John and Ken extend rights to their human guest, Steven Wise, author of Rattling The Cage: Toward Legal Rights For Animals.
This episode was recorded before a live audience at Stanford University and is viewable on video.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/TZiKi6QSsLw.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Should Beliefs Aim at Truth?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/should-beliefs-aim-truth/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 14 May 2017 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/should-beliefs-aim-truth/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[If beliefs can be described as having a goal or purpose, then surely that is something like aiming at the truth. Yet we all hold many false beliefs too. Do these false beliefs fail to meet their goal? Or are there some things we believe simply because they make us feel good? Could the goal of beliefs sometimes be to provide comfort? Or must all beliefs—unlike, say, desires and wishes—be based on some kind of justification or evidence? Josh and Ken truly believe their guest is Ray Briggs from Stanford University.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[If beliefs can be described as having a goal or purpose, then surely that is something like aiming at the truth. Yet we all hold many false beliefs too. Do these false beliefs fail to meet their goal? Or are there some things we believe simply because th]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[If beliefs can be described as having a goal or purpose, then surely that is something like aiming at the truth. Yet we all hold many false beliefs too. Do these false beliefs fail to meet their goal? Or are there some things we believe simply because they make us feel good? Could the goal of beliefs sometimes be to provide comfort? Or must all beliefs—unlike, say, desires and wishes—be based on some kind of justification or evidence? Josh and Ken truly believe their guest is Ray Briggs from Stanford University.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/367/should-beliefs-aim-truth.mp3" length="47663647" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[If beliefs can be described as having a goal or purpose, then surely that is something like aiming at the truth. Yet we all hold many false beliefs too. Do these false beliefs fail to meet their goal? Or are there some things we believe simply because they make us feel good? Could the goal of beliefs sometimes be to provide comfort? Or must all beliefs—unlike, say, desires and wishes—be based on some kind of justification or evidence? Josh and Ken truly believe their guest is Ray Briggs from Stanford University.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/vcTD12OmV4o.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[If beliefs can be described as having a goal or purpose, then surely that is something like aiming at the truth. Yet we all hold many false beliefs too. Do these false beliefs fail to meet their goal? Or are there some things we believe simply because they make us feel good? Could the goal of beliefs sometimes be to provide comfort? Or must all beliefs—unlike, say, desires and wishes—be based on some kind of justification or evidence? Josh and Ken truly believe their guest is Ray Briggs from Stanford University.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/vcTD12OmV4o.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Limits of Medical Consent</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/limits-medical-consent/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 07 May 2017 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/limits-medical-consent/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[In our healthcare system, parents normally make medical decisions for their kids because, we think, children are not competent to make such decisions for themselves. Similarly, we permit doctors to violate or defer consent for mentally incompetent adults. But where do we draw the line for what constitutes ‘incompetence’? Should severely depressed patients, for example, have the right to decide for themselves whether or not they want treatment? What makes a patient so incompetent, they should be precluded from making their own decisions? Ken and guest host Laura Maguire consent to talk to Jodi Halpern from the UC Berkeley School of Public Health, author of From Detached Concern to Empathy: Humanizing Medical Practice.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[In our healthcare system, parents normally make medical decisions for their kids because, we think, children are not competent to make such decisions for themselves. Similarly, we permit doctors to violate or defer consent for mentally incompetent adults]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[In our healthcare system, parents normally make medical decisions for their kids because, we think, children are not competent to make such decisions for themselves. Similarly, we permit doctors to violate or defer consent for mentally incompetent adults. But where do we draw the line for what constitutes ‘incompetence’? Should severely depressed patients, for example, have the right to decide for themselves whether or not they want treatment? What makes a patient so incompetent, they should be precluded from making their own decisions? Ken and guest host Laura Maguire consent to talk to Jodi Halpern from the UC Berkeley School of Public Health, author of From Detached Concern to Empathy: Humanizing Medical Practice.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/359/limits-medical-consent.mp3" length="47097312" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[In our healthcare system, parents normally make medical decisions for their kids because, we think, children are not competent to make such decisions for themselves. Similarly, we permit doctors to violate or defer consent for mentally incompetent adults. But where do we draw the line for what constitutes ‘incompetence’? Should severely depressed patients, for example, have the right to decide for themselves whether or not they want treatment? What makes a patient so incompetent, they should be precluded from making their own decisions? Ken and guest host Laura Maguire consent to talk to Jodi Halpern from the UC Berkeley School of Public Health, author of From Detached Concern to Empathy: Humanizing Medical Practice.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/cyTq8GycEiI.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[In our healthcare system, parents normally make medical decisions for their kids because, we think, children are not competent to make such decisions for themselves. Similarly, we permit doctors to violate or defer consent for mentally incompetent adults. But where do we draw the line for what constitutes ‘incompetence’? Should severely depressed patients, for example, have the right to decide for themselves whether or not they want treatment? What makes a patient so incompetent, they should be precluded from making their own decisions? Ken and guest host Laura Maguire consent to talk to Jodi Halpern from the UC Berkeley School of Public Health, author of From Detached Concern to Empathy: Humanizing Medical Practice.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/cyTq8GycEiI.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Phenomenology of Lived Experience</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/phenomenology-lived-experience/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 23 Apr 2017 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/phenomenology-lived-experience/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Phenomenology is the philosophical study of experience and consciousness, performed by philosophers ranging from Sartre and Heidegger to contemporary analytic philosophers of mind. But what methods do phenomenologists use to study the mind and experience in general? How can phenomenology help us understand a range of human experiences from agency to awe? And why does neuroscience and cognitive science need phenomenology? John and Ken learn what it’s like to talk to Shaun Gallagher from the University of Memphis, author of How the Body Shapes the Mind.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Phenomenology is the philosophical study of experience and consciousness, performed by philosophers ranging from Sartre and Heidegger to contemporary analytic philosophers of mind. But what methods do phenomenologists use to study the mind and experience]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Phenomenology is the philosophical study of experience and consciousness, performed by philosophers ranging from Sartre and Heidegger to contemporary analytic philosophers of mind. But what methods do phenomenologists use to study the mind and experience in general? How can phenomenology help us understand a range of human experiences from agency to awe? And why does neuroscience and cognitive science need phenomenology? John and Ken learn what it’s like to talk to Shaun Gallagher from the University of Memphis, author of How the Body Shapes the Mind.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/353/phenomenology-lived-experience.mp3" length="24073728" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Phenomenology is the philosophical study of experience and consciousness, performed by philosophers ranging from Sartre and Heidegger to contemporary analytic philosophers of mind. But what methods do phenomenologists use to study the mind and experience in general? How can phenomenology help us understand a range of human experiences from agency to awe? And why does neuroscience and cognitive science need phenomenology? John and Ken learn what it’s like to talk to Shaun Gallagher from the University of Memphis, author of How the Body Shapes the Mind.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/aC8kEWGrqWM.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Phenomenology is the philosophical study of experience and consciousness, performed by philosophers ranging from Sartre and Heidegger to contemporary analytic philosophers of mind. But what methods do phenomenologists use to study the mind and experience in general? How can phenomenology help us understand a range of human experiences from agency to awe? And why does neuroscience and cognitive science need phenomenology? John and Ken learn what it’s like to talk to Shaun Gallagher from the University of Memphis, author of How the Body Shapes the Mind.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/aC8kEWGrqWM.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Space-Time Continuum</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/space-time-continuum/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 02 Apr 2017 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/space-time-continuum/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Strange things are said about time: that it&#8217;s illusory, that it has no direction. But what about space, or the space-time continuum? What exactly is space-time? Are space and time fundamental features of the world? How do Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity change our understanding of space-time? Is there a distinction to be made between space and time, or must the two concepts be united into a single interwoven continuum? John and Ken expand their space-time with Tim Maudlin from NYU, author of Philosophy of Physics: Space and Time.
Part of our series A Philosophical Guide to the Cosmos.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Strange things are said about time: that it&#8217;s illusory, that it has no direction. But what about space, or the space-time continuum? What exactly is space-time? Are space and time fundamental features of the world? How do Einstein’s special and gen]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Strange things are said about time: that it&#8217;s illusory, that it has no direction. But what about space, or the space-time continuum? What exactly is space-time? Are space and time fundamental features of the world? How do Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity change our understanding of space-time? Is there a distinction to be made between space and time, or must the two concepts be united into a single interwoven continuum? John and Ken expand their space-time with Tim Maudlin from NYU, author of Philosophy of Physics: Space and Time.
Part of our series A Philosophical Guide to the Cosmos.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/335/space-time-continuum.mp3" length="24069504" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Strange things are said about time: that it&#8217;s illusory, that it has no direction. But what about space, or the space-time continuum? What exactly is space-time? Are space and time fundamental features of the world? How do Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity change our understanding of space-time? Is there a distinction to be made between space and time, or must the two concepts be united into a single interwoven continuum? John and Ken expand their space-time with Tim Maudlin from NYU, author of Philosophy of Physics: Space and Time.
Part of our series A Philosophical Guide to the Cosmos.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/0FH7trYi9Co.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Strange things are said about time: that it&#8217;s illusory, that it has no direction. But what about space, or the space-time continuum? What exactly is space-time? Are space and time fundamental features of the world? How do Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity change our understanding of space-time? Is there a distinction to be made between space and time, or must the two concepts be united into a single interwoven continuum? John and Ken expand their space-time with Tim Maudlin from NYU, author of Philosophy of Physics: Space and Time.
Part of our series A Philosophical Guide to the Cosmos.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/0FH7trYi9Co.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Knowing What We Know (And What We Don&#8217;t)</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/knowing-what-we-know/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 19 Mar 2017 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/knowing-what-we-know/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[It seems like we know many facts about ourselves and the world around us, even if there vastly many others we know that we don’t know. But how do we know if what we believe to be true is really knowledge? Can our beliefs be both justified and true, yet still not count as genuine knowledge? If so, then how much confidence should we really have in our beliefs? Is there a way to strike a balance between paralyzing skepticism, on the one hand, and dogmatic conviction, on the other? John and Ken know that their guest is Baron Reed from Northwestern University, co-editor of Skepticism: From Antiquity to the Present.
Part of a six-part series on Intellectual Humility.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[It seems like we know many facts about ourselves and the world around us, even if there vastly many others we know that we don’t know. But how do we know if what we believe to be true is really knowledge? Can our beliefs be both justified and true, yet s]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[It seems like we know many facts about ourselves and the world around us, even if there vastly many others we know that we don’t know. But how do we know if what we believe to be true is really knowledge? Can our beliefs be both justified and true, yet still not count as genuine knowledge? If so, then how much confidence should we really have in our beliefs? Is there a way to strike a balance between paralyzing skepticism, on the one hand, and dogmatic conviction, on the other? John and Ken know that their guest is Baron Reed from Northwestern University, co-editor of Skepticism: From Antiquity to the Present.
Part of a six-part series on Intellectual Humility.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/343/knowing-what-we-know.mp3" length="23925888" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[It seems like we know many facts about ourselves and the world around us, even if there vastly many others we know that we don’t know. But how do we know if what we believe to be true is really knowledge? Can our beliefs be both justified and true, yet still not count as genuine knowledge? If so, then how much confidence should we really have in our beliefs? Is there a way to strike a balance between paralyzing skepticism, on the one hand, and dogmatic conviction, on the other? John and Ken know that their guest is Baron Reed from Northwestern University, co-editor of Skepticism: From Antiquity to the Present.
Part of a six-part series on Intellectual Humility.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/KX_9i1-rYlM-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[It seems like we know many facts about ourselves and the world around us, even if there vastly many others we know that we don’t know. But how do we know if what we believe to be true is really knowledge? Can our beliefs be both justified and true, yet still not count as genuine knowledge? If so, then how much confidence should we really have in our beliefs? Is there a way to strike a balance between paralyzing skepticism, on the one hand, and dogmatic conviction, on the other? John and Ken know that their guest is Baron Reed from Northwestern University, co-editor of Skepticism: From Antiquity to the Present.
Part of a six-part series on Intellectual Humility.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/KX_9i1-rYlM-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Queerness</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/queerness/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 05 Mar 2017 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/queerness/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transsexual… it is safe to say that new ideas of gender and sexuality have broken into mainstream consciousness within the past few decades. What underlies each of these identities, however, is the notion of Queerness. But what defines what it means to be queer? Is it as much a political identity as it is a sexual or gender identity? How does ‘queerness’ subvert or challenge our notions of gender and sexuality? John and Ken welcome Susan Stryker from the University of Arizona, author of Transgender History: The Roots of Today&#8217;s Revolution.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transsexual… it is safe to say that new ideas of gender and sexuality have broken into mainstream consciousness within the past few decades. What underlies each of these identities, however, is the notion of Queerness]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transsexual… it is safe to say that new ideas of gender and sexuality have broken into mainstream consciousness within the past few decades. What underlies each of these identities, however, is the notion of Queerness. But what defines what it means to be queer? Is it as much a political identity as it is a sexual or gender identity? How does ‘queerness’ subvert or challenge our notions of gender and sexuality? John and Ken welcome Susan Stryker from the University of Arizona, author of Transgender History: The Roots of Today&#8217;s Revolution.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/345/queerness.mp3" length="24595008" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transsexual… it is safe to say that new ideas of gender and sexuality have broken into mainstream consciousness within the past few decades. What underlies each of these identities, however, is the notion of Queerness. But what defines what it means to be queer? Is it as much a political identity as it is a sexual or gender identity? How does ‘queerness’ subvert or challenge our notions of gender and sexuality? John and Ken welcome Susan Stryker from the University of Arizona, author of Transgender History: The Roots of Today&#8217;s Revolution.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/5ynLxTn431w.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transsexual… it is safe to say that new ideas of gender and sexuality have broken into mainstream consciousness within the past few decades. What underlies each of these identities, however, is the notion of Queerness. But what defines what it means to be queer? Is it as much a political identity as it is a sexual or gender identity? How does ‘queerness’ subvert or challenge our notions of gender and sexuality? John and Ken welcome Susan Stryker from the University of Arizona, author of Transgender History: The Roots of Today&#8217;s Revolution.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/5ynLxTn431w.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Freedom of Speech on Campus</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/freedom-speech-campus/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 26 Feb 2017 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/freedom-speech-campus/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[In the last few years, conservatives and liberals alike have accused activists on college campuses of silencing contrary opinions. Many have argued—quite vociferously—that activists’ unwillingness to hear from people with opposing opinions endangers freedom of speech in higher education. But is there really an Orwellian threat to free speech on college campuses? Are activists’ demands for respect actually quashing freedom of thought? And when does one person’s freedom of speech impinge on another’s? John and Ken create a safe space for Greg Lukianoff, co-author of &#8220;The Coddling of the American Mind.&#8221;]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[In the last few years, conservatives and liberals alike have accused activists on college campuses of silencing contrary opinions. Many have argued—quite vociferously—that activists’ unwillingness to hear from people with opposing opinions endangers free]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[In the last few years, conservatives and liberals alike have accused activists on college campuses of silencing contrary opinions. Many have argued—quite vociferously—that activists’ unwillingness to hear from people with opposing opinions endangers freedom of speech in higher education. But is there really an Orwellian threat to free speech on college campuses? Are activists’ demands for respect actually quashing freedom of thought? And when does one person’s freedom of speech impinge on another’s? John and Ken create a safe space for Greg Lukianoff, co-author of &#8220;The Coddling of the American Mind.&#8221;]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/339/freedom-speech-campus.mp3" length="23963904" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[In the last few years, conservatives and liberals alike have accused activists on college campuses of silencing contrary opinions. Many have argued—quite vociferously—that activists’ unwillingness to hear from people with opposing opinions endangers freedom of speech in higher education. But is there really an Orwellian threat to free speech on college campuses? Are activists’ demands for respect actually quashing freedom of thought? And when does one person’s freedom of speech impinge on another’s? John and Ken create a safe space for Greg Lukianoff, co-author of &#8220;The Coddling of the American Mind.&#8221;]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/p1ZLPGei0Wg.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[In the last few years, conservatives and liberals alike have accused activists on college campuses of silencing contrary opinions. Many have argued—quite vociferously—that activists’ unwillingness to hear from people with opposing opinions endangers freedom of speech in higher education. But is there really an Orwellian threat to free speech on college campuses? Are activists’ demands for respect actually quashing freedom of thought? And when does one person’s freedom of speech impinge on another’s? John and Ken create a safe space for Greg Lukianoff, co-author of &#8220;The Coddling of the American Mind.&#8221;]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/p1ZLPGei0Wg.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Philosophy Behind Bars</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/philosophy-behind-bars/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2017 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/philosophy-behind-bars/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[In 1994, Congress eliminated federal funding for college education in prisons. It was, they argued, unjust for prisoners to be eligible for Pell grants when ordinary citizens could not afford higher education. However, research suggests that education in prisons has positive consequences, such as lower recidivism rates and an improved prison environment. So should we have education programs in prisons? Or is the point of prison to punish inmates for their crimes rather than giving them the education many non-felons never receive? John and Ken take a lesson from Jennifer Lackey, who teaches philosophy at Northwestern University and at Stateville Correctional Center near Chicago.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[In 1994, Congress eliminated federal funding for college education in prisons. It was, they argued, unjust for prisoners to be eligible for Pell grants when ordinary citizens could not afford higher education. However, research suggests that education in]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[In 1994, Congress eliminated federal funding for college education in prisons. It was, they argued, unjust for prisoners to be eligible for Pell grants when ordinary citizens could not afford higher education. However, research suggests that education in prisons has positive consequences, such as lower recidivism rates and an improved prison environment. So should we have education programs in prisons? Or is the point of prison to punish inmates for their crimes rather than giving them the education many non-felons never receive? John and Ken take a lesson from Jennifer Lackey, who teaches philosophy at Northwestern University and at Stateville Correctional Center near Chicago.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/332/philosophy-behind-bars.mp3" length="23872320" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[In 1994, Congress eliminated federal funding for college education in prisons. It was, they argued, unjust for prisoners to be eligible for Pell grants when ordinary citizens could not afford higher education. However, research suggests that education in prisons has positive consequences, such as lower recidivism rates and an improved prison environment. So should we have education programs in prisons? Or is the point of prison to punish inmates for their crimes rather than giving them the education many non-felons never receive? John and Ken take a lesson from Jennifer Lackey, who teaches philosophy at Northwestern University and at Stateville Correctional Center near Chicago.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/kks-iEnVoVo.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[In 1994, Congress eliminated federal funding for college education in prisons. It was, they argued, unjust for prisoners to be eligible for Pell grants when ordinary citizens could not afford higher education. However, research suggests that education in prisons has positive consequences, such as lower recidivism rates and an improved prison environment. So should we have education programs in prisons? Or is the point of prison to punish inmates for their crimes rather than giving them the education many non-felons never receive? John and Ken take a lesson from Jennifer Lackey, who teaches philosophy at Northwestern University and at Stateville Correctional Center near Chicago.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/kks-iEnVoVo.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Reparations</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/reparations/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2017 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/reparations/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The United States brutally enslaved African Americans for its first hundred or so years of existence. For the next hundred years, black Americans were lynched, deprived of basic rights, and widely discriminated against. Now, while there are still certainly racial injustices to deal with, how are we to respond to the racial injustices of the past? Does time really heal all wounds? Could it ever be legitimate to compensate the descendants of slaves for burdens they themselves did not bear? Likewise, why should the descendants of slave-owners be made to pay for crimes they did not commit? John and Ken welcome Michael Dawson from the University of Chicago, author of Not in Our Lifetimes: The Future of Black Politics.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The United States brutally enslaved African Americans for its first hundred or so years of existence. For the next hundred years, black Americans were lynched, deprived of basic rights, and widely discriminated against. Now, while there are still certain]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The United States brutally enslaved African Americans for its first hundred or so years of existence. For the next hundred years, black Americans were lynched, deprived of basic rights, and widely discriminated against. Now, while there are still certainly racial injustices to deal with, how are we to respond to the racial injustices of the past? Does time really heal all wounds? Could it ever be legitimate to compensate the descendants of slaves for burdens they themselves did not bear? Likewise, why should the descendants of slave-owners be made to pay for crimes they did not commit? John and Ken welcome Michael Dawson from the University of Chicago, author of Not in Our Lifetimes: The Future of Black Politics.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/341/reparations.mp3" length="23851776" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The United States brutally enslaved African Americans for its first hundred or so years of existence. For the next hundred years, black Americans were lynched, deprived of basic rights, and widely discriminated against. Now, while there are still certainly racial injustices to deal with, how are we to respond to the racial injustices of the past? Does time really heal all wounds? Could it ever be legitimate to compensate the descendants of slaves for burdens they themselves did not bear? Likewise, why should the descendants of slave-owners be made to pay for crimes they did not commit? John and Ken welcome Michael Dawson from the University of Chicago, author of Not in Our Lifetimes: The Future of Black Politics.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/h3wtquZLIqA.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The United States brutally enslaved African Americans for its first hundred or so years of existence. For the next hundred years, black Americans were lynched, deprived of basic rights, and widely discriminated against. Now, while there are still certainly racial injustices to deal with, how are we to respond to the racial injustices of the past? Does time really heal all wounds? Could it ever be legitimate to compensate the descendants of slaves for burdens they themselves did not bear? Likewise, why should the descendants of slave-owners be made to pay for crimes they did not commit? John and Ken welcome Michael Dawson from the University of Chicago, author of Not in Our Lifetimes: The Future of Black Politics.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/h3wtquZLIqA.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Value of a College Education</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/value-college-education/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jan 2017 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/value-college-education/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[With 43.3 million Americans burdened with a total of $1.3 trillion in student loan debt, high school students thinking about attending college are faced with a daunting decision. Should they risk joining the ranks of the indebted in order to get a college degree? The answer depends on the value of a college education. Are college graduates happier, or better prepared for life? Is it the government’s job to ensure that investing in college is worth it for students? Should public colleges be free? Or would that decrease their value? And would studying philosophy increase or decrease the value of a college education? John and Ken get collegial with former Stanford president John Hennessy, in a program recorded live at De Anza High School in Richmond, California.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[With 43.3 million Americans burdened with a total of $1.3 trillion in student loan debt, high school students thinking about attending college are faced with a daunting decision. Should they risk joining the ranks of the indebted in order to get a colleg]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[With 43.3 million Americans burdened with a total of $1.3 trillion in student loan debt, high school students thinking about attending college are faced with a daunting decision. Should they risk joining the ranks of the indebted in order to get a college degree? The answer depends on the value of a college education. Are college graduates happier, or better prepared for life? Is it the government’s job to ensure that investing in college is worth it for students? Should public colleges be free? Or would that decrease their value? And would studying philosophy increase or decrease the value of a college education? John and Ken get collegial with former Stanford president John Hennessy, in a program recorded live at De Anza High School in Richmond, California.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/326/value-college-education.mp3" length="24552768" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[With 43.3 million Americans burdened with a total of $1.3 trillion in student loan debt, high school students thinking about attending college are faced with a daunting decision. Should they risk joining the ranks of the indebted in order to get a college degree? The answer depends on the value of a college education. Are college graduates happier, or better prepared for life? Is it the government’s job to ensure that investing in college is worth it for students? Should public colleges be free? Or would that decrease their value? And would studying philosophy increase or decrease the value of a college education? John and Ken get collegial with former Stanford president John Hennessy, in a program recorded live at De Anza High School in Richmond, California.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/8023mDpgaYM.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[With 43.3 million Americans burdened with a total of $1.3 trillion in student loan debt, high school students thinking about attending college are faced with a daunting decision. Should they risk joining the ranks of the indebted in order to get a college degree? The answer depends on the value of a college education. Are college graduates happier, or better prepared for life? Is it the government’s job to ensure that investing in college is worth it for students? Should public colleges be free? Or would that decrease their value? And would studying philosophy increase or decrease the value of a college education? John and Ken get collegial with former Stanford president John Hennessy, in a program recorded live at De Anza High School in Richmond, California.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/8023mDpgaYM.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Examined Year: 2016</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/examined-year-2016/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jan 2017 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/examined-year-2016/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Our annus horribilis is over. But what ideas and events took shape in 2016 that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Join John, Ken, and their special guests as they celebrate the examined year with a philosophical look back at a year of triumph and defeat.

The Year in Athletic Agony and Ecstasy with journalist David Johnson
The Year in Political Disruption with philosopher Debra Satz
The Year in Technology and Labor with political scientist Margaret Levi.

The unexamined year is not worth reviewing!]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Our annus horribilis is over. But what ideas and events took shape in 2016 that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Join John, Ken, and their special guests as they celebrate the examined year with a philosophical look ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Our annus horribilis is over. But what ideas and events took shape in 2016 that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Join John, Ken, and their special guests as they celebrate the examined year with a philosophical look back at a year of triumph and defeat.

The Year in Athletic Agony and Ecstasy with journalist David Johnson
The Year in Political Disruption with philosopher Debra Satz
The Year in Technology and Labor with political scientist Margaret Levi.

The unexamined year is not worth reviewing!]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/330/examined-year-2016.mp3" length="24489024" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Our annus horribilis is over. But what ideas and events took shape in 2016 that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Join John, Ken, and their special guests as they celebrate the examined year with a philosophical look back at a year of triumph and defeat.

The Year in Athletic Agony and Ecstasy with journalist David Johnson
The Year in Political Disruption with philosopher Debra Satz
The Year in Technology and Labor with political scientist Margaret Levi.

The unexamined year is not worth reviewing!]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/jClh9QnOuJs-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Our annus horribilis is over. But what ideas and events took shape in 2016 that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Join John, Ken, and their special guests as they celebrate the examined year with a philosophical look back at a year of triumph and defeat.

The Year in Athletic Agony and Ecstasy with journalist David Johnson
The Year in Political Disruption with philosopher Debra Satz
The Year in Technology and Labor with political scientist Margaret Levi.

The unexamined year is not worth reviewing!]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/jClh9QnOuJs-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Mystery of the Multiverse</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/mystery-multiverse/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 23 Oct 2016 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/mystery-multiverse/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[At the foundation of modern theoretical physics lie the equations that define our universe, telling us of its beginnings, evolution, and future. Make even minor adjustments to the fundamental laws of the universe, and life as we know it would not exist. How do we explain this extraordinary fact that our universe is so uniquely fine-tuned for life? Could our universe be just one of infinitely many in a vast multiverse? Does it make sense to talk about other universes if they can never be detected from this one? Can science ever prove or disprove the multiverse theory? Or does the theory make some testable predictions about our finely-tuned universe? John and Ken multiply their thoughts with George Ellis from the University of Cape Town, author of How Can Physics Underlie the Mind?
Part of our series A Philosophical Guide to the Cosmos.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[At the foundation of modern theoretical physics lie the equations that define our universe, telling us of its beginnings, evolution, and future. Make even minor adjustments to the fundamental laws of the universe, and life as we know it would not exist. ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[At the foundation of modern theoretical physics lie the equations that define our universe, telling us of its beginnings, evolution, and future. Make even minor adjustments to the fundamental laws of the universe, and life as we know it would not exist. How do we explain this extraordinary fact that our universe is so uniquely fine-tuned for life? Could our universe be just one of infinitely many in a vast multiverse? Does it make sense to talk about other universes if they can never be detected from this one? Can science ever prove or disprove the multiverse theory? Or does the theory make some testable predictions about our finely-tuned universe? John and Ken multiply their thoughts with George Ellis from the University of Cape Town, author of How Can Physics Underlie the Mind?
Part of our series A Philosophical Guide to the Cosmos.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/324/mystery-multiverse.mp3" length="24157056" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[At the foundation of modern theoretical physics lie the equations that define our universe, telling us of its beginnings, evolution, and future. Make even minor adjustments to the fundamental laws of the universe, and life as we know it would not exist. How do we explain this extraordinary fact that our universe is so uniquely fine-tuned for life? Could our universe be just one of infinitely many in a vast multiverse? Does it make sense to talk about other universes if they can never be detected from this one? Can science ever prove or disprove the multiverse theory? Or does the theory make some testable predictions about our finely-tuned universe? John and Ken multiply their thoughts with George Ellis from the University of Cape Town, author of How Can Physics Underlie the Mind?
Part of our series A Philosophical Guide to the Cosmos.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/hL76dbov-pY-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[At the foundation of modern theoretical physics lie the equations that define our universe, telling us of its beginnings, evolution, and future. Make even minor adjustments to the fundamental laws of the universe, and life as we know it would not exist. How do we explain this extraordinary fact that our universe is so uniquely fine-tuned for life? Could our universe be just one of infinitely many in a vast multiverse? Does it make sense to talk about other universes if they can never be detected from this one? Can science ever prove or disprove the multiverse theory? Or does the theory make some testable predictions about our finely-tuned universe? John and Ken multiply their thoughts with George Ellis from the University of Cape Town, author of How Can Physics Underlie the Mind?
Part of our series A Philosophical Guide to the Cosmos.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/hL76dbov-pY-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Matter and Energy &#8211; The Dark Side</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/matter-and-energy-dark-side/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 09 Oct 2016 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/matter-and-energy-dark-side/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[All the matter we have ever observed accounts for less than 5% of the universe. The rest? Dark energy and dark matter: mysterious entities that we only know about from their interactions with other matter. We infer their existence to satisfy our laws—but are we justified in making conclusions about what we cannot directly measure? How far can we trust our scientific laws? Where do we cross the line from theoretical science to metaphysics, and can the two overlap? John and Ken see the light with Priya Natarajan from Yale University, author of Mapping the Heavens: The Radical Scientific Ideas That Reveal the Cosmos.
Part of our series A Philosophical Guide to the Cosmos.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[All the matter we have ever observed accounts for less than 5% of the universe. The rest? Dark energy and dark matter: mysterious entities that we only know about from their interactions with other matter. We infer their existence to satisfy our laws—but]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[All the matter we have ever observed accounts for less than 5% of the universe. The rest? Dark energy and dark matter: mysterious entities that we only know about from their interactions with other matter. We infer their existence to satisfy our laws—but are we justified in making conclusions about what we cannot directly measure? How far can we trust our scientific laws? Where do we cross the line from theoretical science to metaphysics, and can the two overlap? John and Ken see the light with Priya Natarajan from Yale University, author of Mapping the Heavens: The Radical Scientific Ideas That Reveal the Cosmos.
Part of our series A Philosophical Guide to the Cosmos.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/322/matter-and-energy-dark-side.mp3" length="23781888" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[All the matter we have ever observed accounts for less than 5% of the universe. The rest? Dark energy and dark matter: mysterious entities that we only know about from their interactions with other matter. We infer their existence to satisfy our laws—but are we justified in making conclusions about what we cannot directly measure? How far can we trust our scientific laws? Where do we cross the line from theoretical science to metaphysics, and can the two overlap? John and Ken see the light with Priya Natarajan from Yale University, author of Mapping the Heavens: The Radical Scientific Ideas That Reveal the Cosmos.
Part of our series A Philosophical Guide to the Cosmos.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/4l7fR-k2p1U-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[All the matter we have ever observed accounts for less than 5% of the universe. The rest? Dark energy and dark matter: mysterious entities that we only know about from their interactions with other matter. We infer their existence to satisfy our laws—but are we justified in making conclusions about what we cannot directly measure? How far can we trust our scientific laws? Where do we cross the line from theoretical science to metaphysics, and can the two overlap? John and Ken see the light with Priya Natarajan from Yale University, author of Mapping the Heavens: The Radical Scientific Ideas That Reveal the Cosmos.
Part of our series A Philosophical Guide to the Cosmos.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/4l7fR-k2p1U-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>John Dewey and the Ideal of Democracy</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/john-dewey/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 25 Sep 2016 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/john-dewey/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[John Dewey is regarded by some as the American philosopher. In the first half of the 20th century, he stood as the most prominent public intellectual whose influence reached into intellectual movements in China, Japan, and India. Although we hear less of Dewey nowadays, his pragmatic political philosophy has influenced the likes of Richard Rorty and other political thinkers. What were the basic ideas in his philosophy of democracy? Does America have a public sphere? If not, how might we recreate a public necessary for democracy? And does the rise of the internet and social media fit into Dewey’s ideal democracy? John and Ken idealize a conversation with Melvin Rogers from UCLA, author of The Undiscovered Dewey: Religion, Morality, and the Ethos of Democracy.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[John Dewey is regarded by some as the American philosopher. In the first half of the 20th century, he stood as the most prominent public intellectual whose influence reached into intellectual movements in China, Japan, and India. Although we hear less of]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[John Dewey is regarded by some as the American philosopher. In the first half of the 20th century, he stood as the most prominent public intellectual whose influence reached into intellectual movements in China, Japan, and India. Although we hear less of Dewey nowadays, his pragmatic political philosophy has influenced the likes of Richard Rorty and other political thinkers. What were the basic ideas in his philosophy of democracy? Does America have a public sphere? If not, how might we recreate a public necessary for democracy? And does the rise of the internet and social media fit into Dewey’s ideal democracy? John and Ken idealize a conversation with Melvin Rogers from UCLA, author of The Undiscovered Dewey: Religion, Morality, and the Ethos of Democracy.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/318/john-dewey.mp3" length="23982016" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[John Dewey is regarded by some as the American philosopher. In the first half of the 20th century, he stood as the most prominent public intellectual whose influence reached into intellectual movements in China, Japan, and India. Although we hear less of Dewey nowadays, his pragmatic political philosophy has influenced the likes of Richard Rorty and other political thinkers. What were the basic ideas in his philosophy of democracy? Does America have a public sphere? If not, how might we recreate a public necessary for democracy? And does the rise of the internet and social media fit into Dewey’s ideal democracy? John and Ken idealize a conversation with Melvin Rogers from UCLA, author of The Undiscovered Dewey: Religion, Morality, and the Ethos of Democracy.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Zu1hFfFPoQM-5.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[John Dewey is regarded by some as the American philosopher. In the first half of the 20th century, he stood as the most prominent public intellectual whose influence reached into intellectual movements in China, Japan, and India. Although we hear less of Dewey nowadays, his pragmatic political philosophy has influenced the likes of Richard Rorty and other political thinkers. What were the basic ideas in his philosophy of democracy? Does America have a public sphere? If not, how might we recreate a public necessary for democracy? And does the rise of the internet and social media fit into Dewey’s ideal democracy? John and Ken idealize a conversation with Melvin Rogers from UCLA, author of The Undiscovered Dewey: Religion, Morality, and the Ethos of Democracy.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Zu1hFfFPoQM-5.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Magical Thinking</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/magical-thinking/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 18 Sep 2016 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/magical-thinking/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Have you ever avoided stepping on a crack, just in case you might break your mother’s back? Every day, people make decisions and act based on completely unfounded ideas and superstitions – even when they acknowledge that there is no evidence to support their reasoning. Why do we so often engage in this kind of magical thinking? What could cause otherwise rational people to believe outlandish things? Are we as rationally motivated as we might think? John and Ken share some magic with Michael Shermer, author of Skeptic: Viewing the World with a Rational Eye.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Have you ever avoided stepping on a crack, just in case you might break your mother’s back? Every day, people make decisions and act based on completely unfounded ideas and superstitions – even when they acknowledge that there is no evidence to support t]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Have you ever avoided stepping on a crack, just in case you might break your mother’s back? Every day, people make decisions and act based on completely unfounded ideas and superstitions – even when they acknowledge that there is no evidence to support their reasoning. Why do we so often engage in this kind of magical thinking? What could cause otherwise rational people to believe outlandish things? Are we as rationally motivated as we might think? John and Ken share some magic with Michael Shermer, author of Skeptic: Viewing the World with a Rational Eye.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/320/magical-thinking.mp3" length="23947392" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Have you ever avoided stepping on a crack, just in case you might break your mother’s back? Every day, people make decisions and act based on completely unfounded ideas and superstitions – even when they acknowledge that there is no evidence to support their reasoning. Why do we so often engage in this kind of magical thinking? What could cause otherwise rational people to believe outlandish things? Are we as rationally motivated as we might think? John and Ken share some magic with Michael Shermer, author of Skeptic: Viewing the World with a Rational Eye.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CNjMVXhvqzc.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Have you ever avoided stepping on a crack, just in case you might break your mother’s back? Every day, people make decisions and act based on completely unfounded ideas and superstitions – even when they acknowledge that there is no evidence to support their reasoning. Why do we so often engage in this kind of magical thinking? What could cause otherwise rational people to believe outlandish things? Are we as rationally motivated as we might think? John and Ken share some magic with Michael Shermer, author of Skeptic: Viewing the World with a Rational Eye.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CNjMVXhvqzc.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Election Special</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/election-special/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 04 Sep 2016 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/election-special/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[In this re-broadcast of our special episode from the lead-up to the 2016 election, John and Ken look beyond the horse races at some of the bigger questions raised by our electoral process.
• Do we always have a duty to vote? with Stanford political scientist Emilee Chapman
• Can our democracy survive the amount of money in politics? with former Labor Secretary Robert Reich
• How do we justify the two-party system? with Elaine Kamarck from the Brookings Institution.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[In this re-broadcast of our special episode from the lead-up to the 2016 election, John and Ken look beyond the horse races at some of the bigger questions raised by our electoral process.
• Do we always have a duty to vote? with Stanford political scien]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[In this re-broadcast of our special episode from the lead-up to the 2016 election, John and Ken look beyond the horse races at some of the bigger questions raised by our electoral process.
• Do we always have a duty to vote? with Stanford political scientist Emilee Chapman
• Can our democracy survive the amount of money in politics? with former Labor Secretary Robert Reich
• How do we justify the two-party system? with Elaine Kamarck from the Brookings Institution.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/437/election-special.mp3" length="50144653" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[In this re-broadcast of our special episode from the lead-up to the 2016 election, John and Ken look beyond the horse races at some of the bigger questions raised by our electoral process.
• Do we always have a duty to vote? with Stanford political scientist Emilee Chapman
• Can our democracy survive the amount of money in politics? with former Labor Secretary Robert Reich
• How do we justify the two-party system? with Elaine Kamarck from the Brookings Institution.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/pis1Kgz-h1s.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[In this re-broadcast of our special episode from the lead-up to the 2016 election, John and Ken look beyond the horse races at some of the bigger questions raised by our electoral process.
• Do we always have a duty to vote? with Stanford political scientist Emilee Chapman
• Can our democracy survive the amount of money in politics? with former Labor Secretary Robert Reich
• How do we justify the two-party system? with Elaine Kamarck from the Brookings Institution.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/pis1Kgz-h1s.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>This Is Your Brain on Art</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/this-is-your-brain-on-art/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 21 Aug 2016 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6974</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Humans actively seek to create and consume art. Its compelling nature has been discussed in the humanities since its inception, and the philosophical branch of aesthetics has long investigated its fundamental questions: What is beauty? What is art? What is good taste? Now researchers are applying the tools of neuroscience in an attempt to find answers to these questions. But can the scientific method truly be applied to the study of art? Can brain scans help address the questions of aesthetics, or is the matter simply too abstract? John and Ken set their brains on art with Gabrielle Starr from NYU, author of Feeling Beauty: The Neuroscience of Aesthetic Experience.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Humans actively seek to create and consume art. Its compelling nature has been discussed in the humanities since its inception, and the philosophical branch of aesthetics has long investigated its fundamental questions: What is beauty? What is art? What ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Humans actively seek to create and consume art. Its compelling nature has been discussed in the humanities since its inception, and the philosophical branch of aesthetics has long investigated its fundamental questions: What is beauty? What is art? What is good taste? Now researchers are applying the tools of neuroscience in an attempt to find answers to these questions. But can the scientific method truly be applied to the study of art? Can brain scans help address the questions of aesthetics, or is the matter simply too abstract? John and Ken set their brains on art with Gabrielle Starr from NYU, author of Feeling Beauty: The Neuroscience of Aesthetic Experience.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6974/this-is-your-brain-on-art.mp3" length="47978626" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Humans actively seek to create and consume art. Its compelling nature has been discussed in the humanities since its inception, and the philosophical branch of aesthetics has long investigated its fundamental questions: What is beauty? What is art? What is good taste? Now researchers are applying the tools of neuroscience in an attempt to find answers to these questions. But can the scientific method truly be applied to the study of art? Can brain scans help address the questions of aesthetics, or is the matter simply too abstract? John and Ken set their brains on art with Gabrielle Starr from NYU, author of Feeling Beauty: The Neuroscience of Aesthetic Experience.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/lE2fTXKrJhw.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Humans actively seek to create and consume art. Its compelling nature has been discussed in the humanities since its inception, and the philosophical branch of aesthetics has long investigated its fundamental questions: What is beauty? What is art? What is good taste? Now researchers are applying the tools of neuroscience in an attempt to find answers to these questions. But can the scientific method truly be applied to the study of art? Can brain scans help address the questions of aesthetics, or is the matter simply too abstract? John and Ken set their brains on art with Gabrielle Starr from NYU, author of Feeling Beauty: The Neuroscience of Aesthetic Experience.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/lE2fTXKrJhw.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Big Bang &#8211; Before and After</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-big-bang-before-and-after/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 14 Aug 2016 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6977</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The Big Bang theory is the prevailing theory about the “birth” of the universe. It posits a singularity, or super high density state from which the entire universe expanded and continues to expand. But what exactly is the Big Bang, and what’s the evidence that it took place? How do we account for the “Big Bang state”? Was there something before the Big Bang? What does the theory posit about the future of the universe? And what role does philosophy play in answering these mysteries? John and Ken have a singular conversation with Katherine Freese from the University of Michigan, author of The Cosmic Cocktail: Three Parts Dark Matter.
Part of our series A Philosophical Guide to the Cosmos.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The Big Bang theory is the prevailing theory about the “birth” of the universe. It posits a singularity, or super high density state from which the entire universe expanded and continues to expand. But what exactly is the Big Bang, and what’s the evidenc]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The Big Bang theory is the prevailing theory about the “birth” of the universe. It posits a singularity, or super high density state from which the entire universe expanded and continues to expand. But what exactly is the Big Bang, and what’s the evidence that it took place? How do we account for the “Big Bang state”? Was there something before the Big Bang? What does the theory posit about the future of the universe? And what role does philosophy play in answering these mysteries? John and Ken have a singular conversation with Katherine Freese from the University of Michigan, author of The Cosmic Cocktail: Three Parts Dark Matter.
Part of our series A Philosophical Guide to the Cosmos.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6977/the-big-bang-before-and-after.mp3" length="48717578" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The Big Bang theory is the prevailing theory about the “birth” of the universe. It posits a singularity, or super high density state from which the entire universe expanded and continues to expand. But what exactly is the Big Bang, and what’s the evidence that it took place? How do we account for the “Big Bang state”? Was there something before the Big Bang? What does the theory posit about the future of the universe? And what role does philosophy play in answering these mysteries? John and Ken have a singular conversation with Katherine Freese from the University of Michigan, author of The Cosmic Cocktail: Three Parts Dark Matter.
Part of our series A Philosophical Guide to the Cosmos.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/1mV9MOaSZTM.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The Big Bang theory is the prevailing theory about the “birth” of the universe. It posits a singularity, or super high density state from which the entire universe expanded and continues to expand. But what exactly is the Big Bang, and what’s the evidence that it took place? How do we account for the “Big Bang state”? Was there something before the Big Bang? What does the theory posit about the future of the universe? And what role does philosophy play in answering these mysteries? John and Ken have a singular conversation with Katherine Freese from the University of Michigan, author of The Cosmic Cocktail: Three Parts Dark Matter.
Part of our series A Philosophical Guide to the Cosmos.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/1mV9MOaSZTM.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>More Than Pun and Games</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/more-pun-and-games/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 31 Jul 2016 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/more-pun-and-games/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Puns have been called both the highest and lowest form of humor. There is something about them that is at once painful and pleasurable, capable of causing either a cringe or a chuckle. But what exactly is it about word play that we find humorous? Is there something in particular about puns that makes them especially cringe-worthy? How does the humor of a pun compare to other types of jokes? We may know why the chicken crossed the road – but can we eggsplain what’s funny about it? John and Ken get punny with John Pollack, author of The Pun Also Rises: How the Humble Pun Revolutionized Language, Changed History, and Made Wordplay More Than Some Antics.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Puns have been called both the highest and lowest form of humor. There is something about them that is at once painful and pleasurable, capable of causing either a cringe or a chuckle. But what exactly is it about word play that we find humorous? Is ther]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Puns have been called both the highest and lowest form of humor. There is something about them that is at once painful and pleasurable, capable of causing either a cringe or a chuckle. But what exactly is it about word play that we find humorous? Is there something in particular about puns that makes them especially cringe-worthy? How does the humor of a pun compare to other types of jokes? We may know why the chicken crossed the road – but can we eggsplain what’s funny about it? John and Ken get punny with John Pollack, author of The Pun Also Rises: How the Humble Pun Revolutionized Language, Changed History, and Made Wordplay More Than Some Antics.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/316/more-pun-and-games.mp3" length="48527569" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Puns have been called both the highest and lowest form of humor. There is something about them that is at once painful and pleasurable, capable of causing either a cringe or a chuckle. But what exactly is it about word play that we find humorous? Is there something in particular about puns that makes them especially cringe-worthy? How does the humor of a pun compare to other types of jokes? We may know why the chicken crossed the road – but can we eggsplain what’s funny about it? John and Ken get punny with John Pollack, author of The Pun Also Rises: How the Humble Pun Revolutionized Language, Changed History, and Made Wordplay More Than Some Antics.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/JPTpvnUvqoU-2.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Puns have been called both the highest and lowest form of humor. There is something about them that is at once painful and pleasurable, capable of causing either a cringe or a chuckle. But what exactly is it about word play that we find humorous? Is there something in particular about puns that makes them especially cringe-worthy? How does the humor of a pun compare to other types of jokes? We may know why the chicken crossed the road – but can we eggsplain what’s funny about it? John and Ken get punny with John Pollack, author of The Pun Also Rises: How the Humble Pun Revolutionized Language, Changed History, and Made Wordplay More Than Some Antics.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/JPTpvnUvqoU-2.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Mystery of Music</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-mystery-of-music/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 24 Jul 2016 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6980</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Most of us listen to music on a regular basis, but we don&#8217;t think much about how we listen. Moreover, when we disagree about music, we&#8217;re usually happy to agree that we just have different personal tastes. But maybe some of us just don&#8217;t know how to listen to music properly. Are there certain objectively correct ways to listen to music, or is it up to the individual how to listen? Are we worse off if we don&#8217;t listen to music in certain ways? How might we become better listeners? What insights have philosophers had on these questions? John and Ken drop the needle with Stanford musicologist Adrian Daub, co-author of The James Bond Songs: Pop Anthems of Late Capitalism.
This program was record live at Stage Werx Theatre in San Francisco.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Most of us listen to music on a regular basis, but we don&#8217;t think much about how we listen. Moreover, when we disagree about music, we&#8217;re usually happy to agree that we just have different personal tastes. But maybe some of us just don&#8217;]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Most of us listen to music on a regular basis, but we don&#8217;t think much about how we listen. Moreover, when we disagree about music, we&#8217;re usually happy to agree that we just have different personal tastes. But maybe some of us just don&#8217;t know how to listen to music properly. Are there certain objectively correct ways to listen to music, or is it up to the individual how to listen? Are we worse off if we don&#8217;t listen to music in certain ways? How might we become better listeners? What insights have philosophers had on these questions? John and Ken drop the needle with Stanford musicologist Adrian Daub, co-author of The James Bond Songs: Pop Anthems of Late Capitalism.
This program was record live at Stage Werx Theatre in San Francisco.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6980/the-mystery-of-music.mp3" length="49270700" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Most of us listen to music on a regular basis, but we don&#8217;t think much about how we listen. Moreover, when we disagree about music, we&#8217;re usually happy to agree that we just have different personal tastes. But maybe some of us just don&#8217;t know how to listen to music properly. Are there certain objectively correct ways to listen to music, or is it up to the individual how to listen? Are we worse off if we don&#8217;t listen to music in certain ways? How might we become better listeners? What insights have philosophers had on these questions? John and Ken drop the needle with Stanford musicologist Adrian Daub, co-author of The James Bond Songs: Pop Anthems of Late Capitalism.
This program was record live at Stage Werx Theatre in San Francisco.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/UAFl_6xB3Mk.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Most of us listen to music on a regular basis, but we don&#8217;t think much about how we listen. Moreover, when we disagree about music, we&#8217;re usually happy to agree that we just have different personal tastes. But maybe some of us just don&#8217;t know how to listen to music properly. Are there certain objectively correct ways to listen to music, or is it up to the individual how to listen? Are we worse off if we don&#8217;t listen to music in certain ways? How might we become better listeners? What insights have philosophers had on these questions? John and Ken drop the needle with Stanford musicologist Adrian Daub, co-author of The James Bond Songs: Pop Anthems of Late Capitalism.
This program was record live at Stage Werx Theatre in San Francisco.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/UAFl_6xB3Mk.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Identity Politics</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/identity-politics/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 17 Jul 2016 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6983</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The notion of identity has become so hugely important in contemporary political discourse that no conversation on social issues would be complete without it. Identity politics typically focuses on how to empower individuals from marginalized groups so that they can achieve greater equality and representation. But why should anyone mobilize behind a banner of identity rather than ideology? Why is it important have a diversity of identities in political representation? And does politicizing identities genuinely empower communities or just further divide them? John and Ken identify with Tommie Shelby from Harvard University, author of We Who Are Dark: The Philosophical Foundations of Black Solidarity.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The notion of identity has become so hugely important in contemporary political discourse that no conversation on social issues would be complete without it. Identity politics typically focuses on how to empower individuals from marginalized groups so th]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The notion of identity has become so hugely important in contemporary political discourse that no conversation on social issues would be complete without it. Identity politics typically focuses on how to empower individuals from marginalized groups so that they can achieve greater equality and representation. But why should anyone mobilize behind a banner of identity rather than ideology? Why is it important have a diversity of identities in political representation? And does politicizing identities genuinely empower communities or just further divide them? John and Ken identify with Tommie Shelby from Harvard University, author of We Who Are Dark: The Philosophical Foundations of Black Solidarity.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6983/identity-politics.mp3" length="24367680" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The notion of identity has become so hugely important in contemporary political discourse that no conversation on social issues would be complete without it. Identity politics typically focuses on how to empower individuals from marginalized groups so that they can achieve greater equality and representation. But why should anyone mobilize behind a banner of identity rather than ideology? Why is it important have a diversity of identities in political representation? And does politicizing identities genuinely empower communities or just further divide them? John and Ken identify with Tommie Shelby from Harvard University, author of We Who Are Dark: The Philosophical Foundations of Black Solidarity.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/rgxxhOgn5r0.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:46</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The notion of identity has become so hugely important in contemporary political discourse that no conversation on social issues would be complete without it. Identity politics typically focuses on how to empower individuals from marginalized groups so that they can achieve greater equality and representation. But why should anyone mobilize behind a banner of identity rather than ideology? Why is it important have a diversity of identities in political representation? And does politicizing identities genuinely empower communities or just further divide them? John and Ken identify with Tommie Shelby from Harvard University, author of We Who Are Dark: The Philosophical Foundations of Black Solidarity.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/rgxxhOgn5r0.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Radical Democracy Movement</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/radical-democracy/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 03 Jul 2016 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/radical-democracy/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Liberal democracy has its problems, including the fact that in trying to build consensus, it often ends up oppressing minorities or those who dissent. Radical democracy, on the other hand, tries to build consensus around difference, and challenge oppressive power relationships. But what are the risks of radical democracy? Is it really possible to have a democratic nation state without social conformity? How do we ensure both freedom and equality for all citizens in a society? And how does the anti-colonial tradition help us rethink what a modern democracy might be like? John and Ken join the struggle with Stanford historian Aishwary Kumar, author of Radical Equality: Ambedkar, Gandhi, and the Risk of Democracy, in a program recorded live at Stage Werx Theatre in San Francisco.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Liberal democracy has its problems, including the fact that in trying to build consensus, it often ends up oppressing minorities or those who dissent. Radical democracy, on the other hand, tries to build consensus around difference, and challenge oppress]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Liberal democracy has its problems, including the fact that in trying to build consensus, it often ends up oppressing minorities or those who dissent. Radical democracy, on the other hand, tries to build consensus around difference, and challenge oppressive power relationships. But what are the risks of radical democracy? Is it really possible to have a democratic nation state without social conformity? How do we ensure both freedom and equality for all citizens in a society? And how does the anti-colonial tradition help us rethink what a modern democracy might be like? John and Ken join the struggle with Stanford historian Aishwary Kumar, author of Radical Equality: Ambedkar, Gandhi, and the Risk of Democracy, in a program recorded live at Stage Werx Theatre in San Francisco.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/312/radical-democracy.mp3" length="48525317" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Liberal democracy has its problems, including the fact that in trying to build consensus, it often ends up oppressing minorities or those who dissent. Radical democracy, on the other hand, tries to build consensus around difference, and challenge oppressive power relationships. But what are the risks of radical democracy? Is it really possible to have a democratic nation state without social conformity? How do we ensure both freedom and equality for all citizens in a society? And how does the anti-colonial tradition help us rethink what a modern democracy might be like? John and Ken join the struggle with Stanford historian Aishwary Kumar, author of Radical Equality: Ambedkar, Gandhi, and the Risk of Democracy, in a program recorded live at Stage Werx Theatre in San Francisco.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/LKpvVVRHKE.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Liberal democracy has its problems, including the fact that in trying to build consensus, it often ends up oppressing minorities or those who dissent. Radical democracy, on the other hand, tries to build consensus around difference, and challenge oppressive power relationships. But what are the risks of radical democracy? Is it really possible to have a democratic nation state without social conformity? How do we ensure both freedom and equality for all citizens in a society? And how does the anti-colonial tradition help us rethink what a modern democracy might be like? John and Ken join the struggle with Stanford historian Aishwary Kumar, author of Radical Equality: Ambedkar, Gandhi, and the Risk of Democracy, in a program recorded live at Stage Werx Theatre in San Francisco.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/LKpvVVRHKE.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Philanthropy Trap</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/philanthropy-trap/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 19 Jun 2016 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/philanthropy-trap/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Many of us generally admire people who donate large sums of money to charity. Yet people donate for all sorts of reasons – some selfless, some not so much. Should we consider philanthropy as mere ego expression for the wealthy, or is it genuinely altruistic behavior? If philanthropists are so concerned with having an impact on society, how should we think about &#8220;measuring&#8221; this impact? Are there better ways than philanthropy to achieve positive social change? John and Ken donate their time to Bruce Sievers from the Haas Center for Public Service at Stanford University.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Many of us generally admire people who donate large sums of money to charity. Yet people donate for all sorts of reasons – some selfless, some not so much. Should we consider philanthropy as mere ego expression for the wealthy, or is it genuinely altruis]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Many of us generally admire people who donate large sums of money to charity. Yet people donate for all sorts of reasons – some selfless, some not so much. Should we consider philanthropy as mere ego expression for the wealthy, or is it genuinely altruistic behavior? If philanthropists are so concerned with having an impact on society, how should we think about &#8220;measuring&#8221; this impact? Are there better ways than philanthropy to achieve positive social change? John and Ken donate their time to Bruce Sievers from the Haas Center for Public Service at Stanford University.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/306/philanthropy-trap.mp3" length="47906319" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Many of us generally admire people who donate large sums of money to charity. Yet people donate for all sorts of reasons – some selfless, some not so much. Should we consider philanthropy as mere ego expression for the wealthy, or is it genuinely altruistic behavior? If philanthropists are so concerned with having an impact on society, how should we think about &#8220;measuring&#8221; this impact? Are there better ways than philanthropy to achieve positive social change? John and Ken donate their time to Bruce Sievers from the Haas Center for Public Service at Stanford University.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/0BXOmp0LKEg.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Many of us generally admire people who donate large sums of money to charity. Yet people donate for all sorts of reasons – some selfless, some not so much. Should we consider philanthropy as mere ego expression for the wealthy, or is it genuinely altruistic behavior? If philanthropists are so concerned with having an impact on society, how should we think about &#8220;measuring&#8221; this impact? Are there better ways than philanthropy to achieve positive social change? John and Ken donate their time to Bruce Sievers from the Haas Center for Public Service at Stanford University.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/0BXOmp0LKEg.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Philosophy of Sleep</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/philosophy-sleep/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jun 2016 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/philosophy-sleep/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Blessed are the sleepy ones,&#8221; writes Nietzsche, &#8220;for they shall soon drop off.&#8221; Sleep is an extraordinarily, albeit profoundly odd, phenomenon, yet we seem to accept prolonged nightly blackouts without question. Still, sleep has played a major role in philosophical thought, with the likes of Aristotle, Locke, and Leibniz putting forth theories about just what exactly sleep and dreams are. So what is the purpose of sleeping and dreaming? How can we distinguish wakefulness from sleep, as Descartes wondered? Do we experience dreams consciously? And do we sleep to live, or live to sleep? Ken and guest co-host Jorah Danenberg stay up with Deirdre Barrett from the Harvard Medical School, author of The Committee of Sleep: How Artists, Scientists, and Athletes Use Their Dreams for Creative Problem Solving.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[&#8220;Blessed are the sleepy ones,&#8221; writes Nietzsche, &#8220;for they shall soon drop off.&#8221; Sleep is an extraordinarily, albeit profoundly odd, phenomenon, yet we seem to accept prolonged nightly blackouts without question. Still, sleep has ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[&#8220;Blessed are the sleepy ones,&#8221; writes Nietzsche, &#8220;for they shall soon drop off.&#8221; Sleep is an extraordinarily, albeit profoundly odd, phenomenon, yet we seem to accept prolonged nightly blackouts without question. Still, sleep has played a major role in philosophical thought, with the likes of Aristotle, Locke, and Leibniz putting forth theories about just what exactly sleep and dreams are. So what is the purpose of sleeping and dreaming? How can we distinguish wakefulness from sleep, as Descartes wondered? Do we experience dreams consciously? And do we sleep to live, or live to sleep? Ken and guest co-host Jorah Danenberg stay up with Deirdre Barrett from the Harvard Medical School, author of The Committee of Sleep: How Artists, Scientists, and Athletes Use Their Dreams for Creative Problem Solving.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/314/philosophy-sleep.mp3" length="48538691" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[&#8220;Blessed are the sleepy ones,&#8221; writes Nietzsche, &#8220;for they shall soon drop off.&#8221; Sleep is an extraordinarily, albeit profoundly odd, phenomenon, yet we seem to accept prolonged nightly blackouts without question. Still, sleep has played a major role in philosophical thought, with the likes of Aristotle, Locke, and Leibniz putting forth theories about just what exactly sleep and dreams are. So what is the purpose of sleeping and dreaming? How can we distinguish wakefulness from sleep, as Descartes wondered? Do we experience dreams consciously? And do we sleep to live, or live to sleep? Ken and guest co-host Jorah Danenberg stay up with Deirdre Barrett from the Harvard Medical School, author of The Committee of Sleep: How Artists, Scientists, and Athletes Use Their Dreams for Creative Problem Solving.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/A1m7puGua8I.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[&#8220;Blessed are the sleepy ones,&#8221; writes Nietzsche, &#8220;for they shall soon drop off.&#8221; Sleep is an extraordinarily, albeit profoundly odd, phenomenon, yet we seem to accept prolonged nightly blackouts without question. Still, sleep has played a major role in philosophical thought, with the likes of Aristotle, Locke, and Leibniz putting forth theories about just what exactly sleep and dreams are. So what is the purpose of sleeping and dreaming? How can we distinguish wakefulness from sleep, as Descartes wondered? Do we experience dreams consciously? And do we sleep to live, or live to sleep? Ken and guest co-host Jorah Danenberg stay up with Deirdre Barrett from the Harvard Medical School, author of The Committee of Sleep: How Artists, Scientists, and Athletes Use Their Dreams for Creative Problem Solving.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/A1m7puGua8I.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Altered States</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/altered-states/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 22 May 2016 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/altered-states/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Aldous Huxley explains his conception of the brain as a &#8220;reducing valve&#8221; of consciousness in his provocative book, The Doors of Perception. His famous experiment with the psychedelic substance mescaline was an attempt to open this valve and expand his capacity for knowledge. However, many drugs and psychedelics today are seen as simply tools for pleasure or the source of bad habits. Do drugs possess the capability to expand our consciousness and provide meaningful insight? Or are they nothing more than a route to empty delirium? Ken and guest co-host Alison Gopnik take a trip with artist, scientist, and founder of the Beckley Foundation, Amanda Feilding.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Aldous Huxley explains his conception of the brain as a &#8220;reducing valve&#8221; of consciousness in his provocative book, The Doors of Perception. His famous experiment with the psychedelic substance mescaline was an attempt to open this valve and e]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Aldous Huxley explains his conception of the brain as a &#8220;reducing valve&#8221; of consciousness in his provocative book, The Doors of Perception. His famous experiment with the psychedelic substance mescaline was an attempt to open this valve and expand his capacity for knowledge. However, many drugs and psychedelics today are seen as simply tools for pleasure or the source of bad habits. Do drugs possess the capability to expand our consciousness and provide meaningful insight? Or are they nothing more than a route to empty delirium? Ken and guest co-host Alison Gopnik take a trip with artist, scientist, and founder of the Beckley Foundation, Amanda Feilding.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/308/altered-states.mp3" length="23991424" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Aldous Huxley explains his conception of the brain as a &#8220;reducing valve&#8221; of consciousness in his provocative book, The Doors of Perception. His famous experiment with the psychedelic substance mescaline was an attempt to open this valve and expand his capacity for knowledge. However, many drugs and psychedelics today are seen as simply tools for pleasure or the source of bad habits. Do drugs possess the capability to expand our consciousness and provide meaningful insight? Or are they nothing more than a route to empty delirium? Ken and guest co-host Alison Gopnik take a trip with artist, scientist, and founder of the Beckley Foundation, Amanda Feilding.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/vU7URMQjQA.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Aldous Huxley explains his conception of the brain as a &#8220;reducing valve&#8221; of consciousness in his provocative book, The Doors of Perception. His famous experiment with the psychedelic substance mescaline was an attempt to open this valve and expand his capacity for knowledge. However, many drugs and psychedelics today are seen as simply tools for pleasure or the source of bad habits. Do drugs possess the capability to expand our consciousness and provide meaningful insight? Or are they nothing more than a route to empty delirium? Ken and guest co-host Alison Gopnik take a trip with artist, scientist, and founder of the Beckley Foundation, Amanda Feilding.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/vU7URMQjQA.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Affirmative Action: Too Little or Too Much?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/affirmative-action-too-little-or-too-much/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 08 May 2016 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/affirmative-action-too-little-or-too-much/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Addressing our nation’s history of racial injustice can be a truly backbreaking endeavor. Race-based affirmative action is usually thought of as one such effort, and colleges and universities often use it in their admissions process. However, affirmative action does seem to lower standards for certain under-represented minorities like Blacks and Hispanics. Should we think of affirmative action as patronizing those minorities, or rectifying the injustices they face? Is affirmative action enough to redress racial injustice, or is it simply the best we can do for the time being? John and Ken welcome Glenn Loury from Brown University, author of The Anatomy of Racial Inequality.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Addressing our nation’s history of racial injustice can be a truly backbreaking endeavor. Race-based affirmative action is usually thought of as one such effort, and colleges and universities often use it in their admissions process. However, affirmative]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Addressing our nation’s history of racial injustice can be a truly backbreaking endeavor. Race-based affirmative action is usually thought of as one such effort, and colleges and universities often use it in their admissions process. However, affirmative action does seem to lower standards for certain under-represented minorities like Blacks and Hispanics. Should we think of affirmative action as patronizing those minorities, or rectifying the injustices they face? Is affirmative action enough to redress racial injustice, or is it simply the best we can do for the time being? John and Ken welcome Glenn Loury from Brown University, author of The Anatomy of Racial Inequality.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/310/affirmative-action-too-little-or-too-much.mp3" length="23952384" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Addressing our nation’s history of racial injustice can be a truly backbreaking endeavor. Race-based affirmative action is usually thought of as one such effort, and colleges and universities often use it in their admissions process. However, affirmative action does seem to lower standards for certain under-represented minorities like Blacks and Hispanics. Should we think of affirmative action as patronizing those minorities, or rectifying the injustices they face? Is affirmative action enough to redress racial injustice, or is it simply the best we can do for the time being? John and Ken welcome Glenn Loury from Brown University, author of The Anatomy of Racial Inequality.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Glenn_Loury.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Addressing our nation’s history of racial injustice can be a truly backbreaking endeavor. Race-based affirmative action is usually thought of as one such effort, and colleges and universities often use it in their admissions process. However, affirmative action does seem to lower standards for certain under-represented minorities like Blacks and Hispanics. Should we think of affirmative action as patronizing those minorities, or rectifying the injustices they face? Is affirmative action enough to redress racial injustice, or is it simply the best we can do for the time being? John and Ken welcome Glenn Loury from Brown University, author of The Anatomy of Racial Inequality.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Glenn_Loury.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>One Child Too Many</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/one-child-too-many/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 01 May 2016 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/one-child-too-many/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The United Nations predicts human population growth will surpass 9 billion around 2050. We know the consequences of overpopulation have the potential to be catastrophic in terms of our continued existence on the planet, with negative environmental effects already visible. Limiting the number of children we have seems like one obvious way to tackle the problem. But is there a moral imperative to limit reproduction? Is having multiple children a right, and if so is it one we should give up for the greater good? What can we do ethically about controlling population? John and Ken have more than a word with Sarah Conly from Bowdoin College, author of One Child: Do We Have a Right to More?]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The United Nations predicts human population growth will surpass 9 billion around 2050. We know the consequences of overpopulation have the potential to be catastrophic in terms of our continued existence on the planet, with negative environmental effect]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The United Nations predicts human population growth will surpass 9 billion around 2050. We know the consequences of overpopulation have the potential to be catastrophic in terms of our continued existence on the planet, with negative environmental effects already visible. Limiting the number of children we have seems like one obvious way to tackle the problem. But is there a moral imperative to limit reproduction? Is having multiple children a right, and if so is it one we should give up for the greater good? What can we do ethically about controlling population? John and Ken have more than a word with Sarah Conly from Bowdoin College, author of One Child: Do We Have a Right to More?]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/304/one-child-too-many.mp3" length="48351608" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The United Nations predicts human population growth will surpass 9 billion around 2050. We know the consequences of overpopulation have the potential to be catastrophic in terms of our continued existence on the planet, with negative environmental effects already visible. Limiting the number of children we have seems like one obvious way to tackle the problem. But is there a moral imperative to limit reproduction? Is having multiple children a right, and if so is it one we should give up for the greater good? What can we do ethically about controlling population? John and Ken have more than a word with Sarah Conly from Bowdoin College, author of One Child: Do We Have a Right to More?]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/rB6epiCTTmw.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The United Nations predicts human population growth will surpass 9 billion around 2050. We know the consequences of overpopulation have the potential to be catastrophic in terms of our continued existence on the planet, with negative environmental effects already visible. Limiting the number of children we have seems like one obvious way to tackle the problem. But is there a moral imperative to limit reproduction? Is having multiple children a right, and if so is it one we should give up for the greater good? What can we do ethically about controlling population? John and Ken have more than a word with Sarah Conly from Bowdoin College, author of One Child: Do We Have a Right to More?]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/rB6epiCTTmw.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/why-something/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 10 Apr 2016 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/why-something/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The old metaphysical question – why anything exists at all – has perplexed and intrigued humankind for ages. It has long been a question reserved for philosophers, but now some physicists claim to have answered it. Yet these attempts have raised questions of their own: is this even a meaningful question in the first place? Can it be answered by science alone, or is philosophy necessary? And what will answering the question mean for us? John and Ken find something to talk about with Jim Holt, author of Why Does The World Exist: An Existential Detective Story.
Part of our series A Philosophical Guide to the Cosmos.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The old metaphysical question – why anything exists at all – has perplexed and intrigued humankind for ages. It has long been a question reserved for philosophers, but now some physicists claim to have answered it. Yet these attempts have raised question]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The old metaphysical question – why anything exists at all – has perplexed and intrigued humankind for ages. It has long been a question reserved for philosophers, but now some physicists claim to have answered it. Yet these attempts have raised questions of their own: is this even a meaningful question in the first place? Can it be answered by science alone, or is philosophy necessary? And what will answering the question mean for us? John and Ken find something to talk about with Jim Holt, author of Why Does The World Exist: An Existential Detective Story.
Part of our series A Philosophical Guide to the Cosmos.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/302/why-something.mp3" length="49612847" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The old metaphysical question – why anything exists at all – has perplexed and intrigued humankind for ages. It has long been a question reserved for philosophers, but now some physicists claim to have answered it. Yet these attempts have raised questions of their own: is this even a meaningful question in the first place? Can it be answered by science alone, or is philosophy necessary? And what will answering the question mean for us? John and Ken find something to talk about with Jim Holt, author of Why Does The World Exist: An Existential Detective Story.
Part of our series A Philosophical Guide to the Cosmos.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/3KuJWzVpskw.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The old metaphysical question – why anything exists at all – has perplexed and intrigued humankind for ages. It has long been a question reserved for philosophers, but now some physicists claim to have answered it. Yet these attempts have raised questions of their own: is this even a meaningful question in the first place? Can it be answered by science alone, or is philosophy necessary? And what will answering the question mean for us? John and Ken find something to talk about with Jim Holt, author of Why Does The World Exist: An Existential Detective Story.
Part of our series A Philosophical Guide to the Cosmos.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/3KuJWzVpskw.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Extreme Altruism</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/extreme-altruism/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 03 Apr 2016 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/extreme-altruism/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[We can all agree that helping others is great, a deed worth doing. But devoting too much to helping others – too much time, too many resources – may get you labelled an oddity, a freak. How much can morality demand of us? Is it good to live as moral a life as possible, or do we lose something – devotion to one’s family, for example – by adhering to extreme moral principles? Can somebody be both fully rational and also a saintly type? John and Ken lend a hand to New Yorker writer Larissa MacFarquhar, author of Strangers Drowning: Grappling with Impossible Idealism, Drastic Choices, and the Overpowering Urge to Help.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[We can all agree that helping others is great, a deed worth doing. But devoting too much to helping others – too much time, too many resources – may get you labelled an oddity, a freak. How much can morality demand of us? Is it good to live as moral a li]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[We can all agree that helping others is great, a deed worth doing. But devoting too much to helping others – too much time, too many resources – may get you labelled an oddity, a freak. How much can morality demand of us? Is it good to live as moral a life as possible, or do we lose something – devotion to one’s family, for example – by adhering to extreme moral principles? Can somebody be both fully rational and also a saintly type? John and Ken lend a hand to New Yorker writer Larissa MacFarquhar, author of Strangers Drowning: Grappling with Impossible Idealism, Drastic Choices, and the Overpowering Urge to Help.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/298/extreme-altruism.mp3" length="49110460" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[We can all agree that helping others is great, a deed worth doing. But devoting too much to helping others – too much time, too many resources – may get you labelled an oddity, a freak. How much can morality demand of us? Is it good to live as moral a life as possible, or do we lose something – devotion to one’s family, for example – by adhering to extreme moral principles? Can somebody be both fully rational and also a saintly type? John and Ken lend a hand to New Yorker writer Larissa MacFarquhar, author of Strangers Drowning: Grappling with Impossible Idealism, Drastic Choices, and the Overpowering Urge to Help.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/h-ogVCUvP6w.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[We can all agree that helping others is great, a deed worth doing. But devoting too much to helping others – too much time, too many resources – may get you labelled an oddity, a freak. How much can morality demand of us? Is it good to live as moral a life as possible, or do we lose something – devotion to one’s family, for example – by adhering to extreme moral principles? Can somebody be both fully rational and also a saintly type? John and Ken lend a hand to New Yorker writer Larissa MacFarquhar, author of Strangers Drowning: Grappling with Impossible Idealism, Drastic Choices, and the Overpowering Urge to Help.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/h-ogVCUvP6w.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Gun Control</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/gun-control/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 27 Mar 2016 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6985</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The right to bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, is at once both distinctly American and highly controversial. Incidents such as the Sandy Hook school shooting force the nation to think hard about how the law should balance gun ownership with the risk these deadly weapons present to society. What kind of right is the right to bear arms, if it is a right at all? What responsibilities ought to come with gun ownership? And what can philosophical thinking contribute to such delicate policy decisions? John and Ken stand their ground with Hugh LaFollette from the University of South Florida, author of In Defense of Gun Control.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The right to bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, is at once both distinctly American and highly controversial. Incidents such as the Sandy Hook school shooting force the nation to think hard about how the law should balance gun ownership wi]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The right to bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, is at once both distinctly American and highly controversial. Incidents such as the Sandy Hook school shooting force the nation to think hard about how the law should balance gun ownership with the risk these deadly weapons present to society. What kind of right is the right to bear arms, if it is a right at all? What responsibilities ought to come with gun ownership? And what can philosophical thinking contribute to such delicate policy decisions? John and Ken stand their ground with Hugh LaFollette from the University of South Florida, author of In Defense of Gun Control.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6985/gun-control.mp3" length="48470146" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The right to bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, is at once both distinctly American and highly controversial. Incidents such as the Sandy Hook school shooting force the nation to think hard about how the law should balance gun ownership with the risk these deadly weapons present to society. What kind of right is the right to bear arms, if it is a right at all? What responsibilities ought to come with gun ownership? And what can philosophical thinking contribute to such delicate policy decisions? John and Ken stand their ground with Hugh LaFollette from the University of South Florida, author of In Defense of Gun Control.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/c3qZC9I6P2U.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:29</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The right to bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, is at once both distinctly American and highly controversial. Incidents such as the Sandy Hook school shooting force the nation to think hard about how the law should balance gun ownership with the risk these deadly weapons present to society. What kind of right is the right to bear arms, if it is a right at all? What responsibilities ought to come with gun ownership? And what can philosophical thinking contribute to such delicate policy decisions? John and Ken stand their ground with Hugh LaFollette from the University of South Florida, author of In Defense of Gun Control.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/c3qZC9I6P2U.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Science of Happiness</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/science-happiness/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 20 Mar 2016 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/science-happiness/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Positive psychology is an emerging science that investigates the qualities, attitudes, and practices that enable people to thrive and be happy. So what does this research reveal about human happiness? Are some of us just born with happier dispositions than others? How (if at all) do health, wealth, family relations, and community ties affect our happiness? Do happy people have a better or worse grip on reality than unhappy people? And is happiness something really worth pursuing? John and Ken get happy (scientifically) with Emiliana Simon-Thomas, Science Director of the Greater Good Science Center at UC Berkeley.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Positive psychology is an emerging science that investigates the qualities, attitudes, and practices that enable people to thrive and be happy. So what does this research reveal about human happiness? Are some of us just born with happier dispositions th]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Positive psychology is an emerging science that investigates the qualities, attitudes, and practices that enable people to thrive and be happy. So what does this research reveal about human happiness? Are some of us just born with happier dispositions than others? How (if at all) do health, wealth, family relations, and community ties affect our happiness? Do happy people have a better or worse grip on reality than unhappy people? And is happiness something really worth pursuing? John and Ken get happy (scientifically) with Emiliana Simon-Thomas, Science Director of the Greater Good Science Center at UC Berkeley.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/300/science-happiness.mp3" length="48891867" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Positive psychology is an emerging science that investigates the qualities, attitudes, and practices that enable people to thrive and be happy. So what does this research reveal about human happiness? Are some of us just born with happier dispositions than others? How (if at all) do health, wealth, family relations, and community ties affect our happiness? Do happy people have a better or worse grip on reality than unhappy people? And is happiness something really worth pursuing? John and Ken get happy (scientifically) with Emiliana Simon-Thomas, Science Director of the Greater Good Science Center at UC Berkeley.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/DPyUnkCDtVY.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Positive psychology is an emerging science that investigates the qualities, attitudes, and practices that enable people to thrive and be happy. So what does this research reveal about human happiness? Are some of us just born with happier dispositions than others? How (if at all) do health, wealth, family relations, and community ties affect our happiness? Do happy people have a better or worse grip on reality than unhappy people? And is happiness something really worth pursuing? John and Ken get happy (scientifically) with Emiliana Simon-Thomas, Science Director of the Greater Good Science Center at UC Berkeley.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/DPyUnkCDtVY.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Ancient Cosmos &#8211; When the Earth Stood Still</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/ancient-cosmos/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 13 Mar 2016 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/ancient-cosmos/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Even in ancient Greek society, philosopher-scientists engaged in heated debate about the origin, composition, and structure of our universe. Tracking our understanding of cosmology from then until now shows monumental shifts in thinking. So what did the Ancients think was the fundamental nature of the cosmos, and what kind of evidence did they use to support their theories? How did Copernicus provoke such a radical shift in cosmology? And what should we think about the status of scientific theories if they can be subject to such massive conceptual shifts? John and Ken ponder the cosmos with Carlo Rovelli from Aix-Marseille University, author of Seven Brief Lessons on Physics.
Part of our series A Philosophical Guide to the Cosmos]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Even in ancient Greek society, philosopher-scientists engaged in heated debate about the origin, composition, and structure of our universe. Tracking our understanding of cosmology from then until now shows monumental shifts in thinking. So what did the ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Even in ancient Greek society, philosopher-scientists engaged in heated debate about the origin, composition, and structure of our universe. Tracking our understanding of cosmology from then until now shows monumental shifts in thinking. So what did the Ancients think was the fundamental nature of the cosmos, and what kind of evidence did they use to support their theories? How did Copernicus provoke such a radical shift in cosmology? And what should we think about the status of scientific theories if they can be subject to such massive conceptual shifts? John and Ken ponder the cosmos with Carlo Rovelli from Aix-Marseille University, author of Seven Brief Lessons on Physics.
Part of our series A Philosophical Guide to the Cosmos]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/296/ancient-cosmos.mp3" length="48152241" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Even in ancient Greek society, philosopher-scientists engaged in heated debate about the origin, composition, and structure of our universe. Tracking our understanding of cosmology from then until now shows monumental shifts in thinking. So what did the Ancients think was the fundamental nature of the cosmos, and what kind of evidence did they use to support their theories? How did Copernicus provoke such a radical shift in cosmology? And what should we think about the status of scientific theories if they can be subject to such massive conceptual shifts? John and Ken ponder the cosmos with Carlo Rovelli from Aix-Marseille University, author of Seven Brief Lessons on Physics.
Part of our series A Philosophical Guide to the Cosmos]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ftrU9ZrA6jM.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Even in ancient Greek society, philosopher-scientists engaged in heated debate about the origin, composition, and structure of our universe. Tracking our understanding of cosmology from then until now shows monumental shifts in thinking. So what did the Ancients think was the fundamental nature of the cosmos, and what kind of evidence did they use to support their theories? How did Copernicus provoke such a radical shift in cosmology? And what should we think about the status of scientific theories if they can be subject to such massive conceptual shifts? John and Ken ponder the cosmos with Carlo Rovelli from Aix-Marseille University, author of Seven Brief Lessons on Physics.
Part of our series A Philosophical Guide to the Cosmos]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ftrU9ZrA6jM.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>&#8220;Ethics of Whistleblowing&#8221; wins Bronze Award for Social Impact at the New York Festivals</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/ethics-whistleblowing-wins-bronze-award-social-impact-new-york-festivals/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2016 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5480</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Public Radio Show ‘Philosophy Talk’ Wins Bronze at the 2016 New York Festivals® International Radio Program Awards
Nationally Syndicated show “Edward Snowden and the Ethics of Whistleblowing” is recognized in the Social Issues category for its insight, creativity and engagement.
Philosophy Talk, “the program that questions everything… except your intelligence” received a 2016 Bronze award from the New York Festivals® International Radio Program Awards in the category of Social Issues.
The specific episode, “Edward Snowden and the Ethics of Whistleblowing” was Snowden’s first radio interview and was recorded as part of the Stanford Symbolic Systems Program Distinguished Speaker series. In this first national radio appearance, Edward Snowden, turned inward to reveal the process of becoming a whistleblower. First aired on July 12th, 2015, the show’s in-depth investigation into the ethics of whistleblowing with the most renowned whistleblower of our era created lively discussion on this topic, which continues today.
Excerpts from the winning episode can be found at http://j.mp/Snowden_and_Ethics.
Philosophy Talk was selected as one of the 296 Finalists from submissions from 30 countries around the world by the New York Festivals Grand Jury. As one of 12 Social Issues Finalists, Philosophy Talk is pleased to be recognized for its conversations on a wide variety of issues ranging from popular culture to our most deeply-held beliefs about science, morality, and the human condition.
The hosts of Philosophy Talk, Stanford Professors Ken Taylor and John Perry, challenge listeners to identify and question their assumptions and to think about things in new ways.
More on the award winning Philosophy Talk programs can be found at http://www.philosophytalk.org/.
PHILOSOPHY TALK, “The program that questions everything… except your intelligence,” is now in its 12th season and can be heard weekly in over 350 regions nationwide. Broadcast from the studios of KALW 91.7 FM in San Francisco, the program is produced by Ben Manilla Productions on behalf of Stanford University as part of its Humanities Outreach Initiative.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Contact: Dave McAllister, Director of Marketing
Email: davemc@philosophytalk.org
Phone: 408-239-7117
Host Bios:
Ken Taylor is the current Henry Waldgrave Stuart Professor of Philosophy at Stanford University. He is also director of Stanford&#8217;s interdisciplinary program in Symbolic Systems. His work lies at the intersection of the philosophy of language and the philosophy of mind, with an occasional foray into the history of philosophy. (Photo: http://www.philosophytalk.org/sites/default/files/Taylor%20bio%20pic-1.jpg)
John Perry is Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the University of California at Riverside, and Henry Waldgrave Stuart Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Stanford University. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a recipient of many honors and awards, including the Nicod and Humboldt Prizes. A popular lecturer, in 1990 he was awarded the Dinkelspiel Award for undergraduate teaching. (Photo: http://www.philosophytalk.org/sites/default/files/Perry%20bio%20pic-1.jpg)]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Public Radio Show ‘Philosophy Talk’ Wins Bronze at the 2016 New York Festivals® International Radio Program Awards
Nationally Syndicated show “Edward Snowden and the Ethics of Whistleblowing” is recognized in the Social Issues category for its insight, c]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Public Radio Show ‘Philosophy Talk’ Wins Bronze at the 2016 New York Festivals® International Radio Program Awards
Nationally Syndicated show “Edward Snowden and the Ethics of Whistleblowing” is recognized in the Social Issues category for its insight, creativity and engagement.
Philosophy Talk, “the program that questions everything… except your intelligence” received a 2016 Bronze award from the New York Festivals® International Radio Program Awards in the category of Social Issues.
The specific episode, “Edward Snowden and the Ethics of Whistleblowing” was Snowden’s first radio interview and was recorded as part of the Stanford Symbolic Systems Program Distinguished Speaker series. In this first national radio appearance, Edward Snowden, turned inward to reveal the process of becoming a whistleblower. First aired on July 12th, 2015, the show’s in-depth investigation into the ethics of whistleblowing with the most renowned whistleblower of our era created lively discussion on this topic, which continues today.
Excerpts from the winning episode can be found at http://j.mp/Snowden_and_Ethics.
Philosophy Talk was selected as one of the 296 Finalists from submissions from 30 countries around the world by the New York Festivals Grand Jury. As one of 12 Social Issues Finalists, Philosophy Talk is pleased to be recognized for its conversations on a wide variety of issues ranging from popular culture to our most deeply-held beliefs about science, morality, and the human condition.
The hosts of Philosophy Talk, Stanford Professors Ken Taylor and John Perry, challenge listeners to identify and question their assumptions and to think about things in new ways.
More on the award winning Philosophy Talk programs can be found at http://www.philosophytalk.org/.
PHILOSOPHY TALK, “The program that questions everything… except your intelligence,” is now in its 12th season and can be heard weekly in over 350 regions nationwide. Broadcast from the studios of KALW 91.7 FM in San Francisco, the program is produced by Ben Manilla Productions on behalf of Stanford University as part of its Humanities Outreach Initiative.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Contact: Dave McAllister, Director of Marketing
Email: davemc@philosophytalk.org
Phone: 408-239-7117
Host Bios:
Ken Taylor is the current Henry Waldgrave Stuart Professor of Philosophy at Stanford University. He is also director of Stanford&#8217;s interdisciplinary program in Symbolic Systems. His work lies at the intersection of the philosophy of language and the philosophy of mind, with an occasional foray into the history of philosophy. (Photo: http://www.philosophytalk.org/sites/default/files/Taylor%20bio%20pic-1.jpg)
John Perry is Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the University of California at Riverside, and Henry Waldgrave Stuart Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Stanford University. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a recipient of many honors and awards, including the Nicod and Humboldt Prizes. A popular lecturer, in 1990 he was awarded the Dinkelspiel Award for undergraduate teaching. (Photo: http://www.philosophytalk.org/sites/default/files/Perry%20bio%20pic-1.jpg)]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5480/ethics-whistleblowing-wins-bronze-award-social-impact-new-york-festivals.mp3" length="49931331" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Public Radio Show ‘Philosophy Talk’ Wins Bronze at the 2016 New York Festivals® International Radio Program Awards
Nationally Syndicated show “Edward Snowden and the Ethics of Whistleblowing” is recognized in the Social Issues category for its insight, creativity and engagement.
Philosophy Talk, “the program that questions everything… except your intelligence” received a 2016 Bronze award from the New York Festivals® International Radio Program Awards in the category of Social Issues.
The specific episode, “Edward Snowden and the Ethics of Whistleblowing” was Snowden’s first radio interview and was recorded as part of the Stanford Symbolic Systems Program Distinguished Speaker series. In this first national radio appearance, Edward Snowden, turned inward to reveal the process of becoming a whistleblower. First aired on July 12th, 2015, the show’s in-depth investigation into the ethics of whistleblowing with the most renowned whistleblower of our era created lively discussion on this topic, which continues today.
Excerpts from the winning episode can be found at http://j.mp/Snowden_and_Ethics.
Philosophy Talk was selected as one of the 296 Finalists from submissions from 30 countries around the world by the New York Festivals Grand Jury. As one of 12 Social Issues Finalists, Philosophy Talk is pleased to be recognized for its conversations on a wide variety of issues ranging from popular culture to our most deeply-held beliefs about science, morality, and the human condition.
The hosts of Philosophy Talk, Stanford Professors Ken Taylor and John Perry, challenge listeners to identify and question their assumptions and to think about things in new ways.
More on the award winning Philosophy Talk programs can be found at http://www.philosophytalk.org/.
PHILOSOPHY TALK, “The program that questions everything… except your intelligence,” is now in its 12th season and can be heard weekly in over 350 regions nationwide. Broadcast from the studios of KALW 91.7 FM in San Francisco, the program is produced by Ben Manilla Productions on behalf of Stanford University as part of its Humanities Outreach Initiative.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Contact: Dave McAllister, Director of Marketing
Email: davemc@philosophytalk.org
Phone: 408-239-7117
Host Bios:
Ken Taylor is the current Henry Waldgrave Stuart Professor of Philosophy at Stanford University. He is also director of Stanford&#8217;s interdisciplinary program in Symbolic Systems. His work lies at the intersection of the philosophy of language and the philosophy of mind, with an occasional foray into the history of philosophy. (Photo: http://www.philosophytalk.org/sites/default/files/Taylor%20bio%20pic-1.jpg)
John Perry is Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the University of California at Riverside, and Henry Waldgrave Stuart Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Stanford University. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a recipient of many honors and awards, including the Nicod and Humboldt Prizes. A popular lecturer, in 1990 he was awarded the Dinkelspiel Award for undergraduate teaching. (Photo: http://www.philosophytalk.org/sites/default/files/Perry%20bio%20pic-1.jpg)]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/13442399_10154329011832472_387326394083690706_n.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Public Radio Show ‘Philosophy Talk’ Wins Bronze at the 2016 New York Festivals® International Radio Program Awards
Nationally Syndicated show “Edward Snowden and the Ethics of Whistleblowing” is recognized in the Social Issues category for its insight, creativity and engagement.
Philosophy Talk, “the program that questions everything… except your intelligence” received a 2016 Bronze award from the New York Festivals® International Radio Program Awards in the category of Social Issues.
The specific episode, “Edward Snowden and the Ethics of Whistleblowing” was Snowden’s first radio interview and was recorded as part of the Stanford Symbolic Systems Program Distinguished Speaker series. In this first national radio appearance, Edward Snowden, turned inward to reveal the process of becoming a whistleblower. First aired on July 12th, 2015, the show’s in-depth investigation into the ethics of whistleblowing with the most renowned whistleblower of our era created lively discussion on this t]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/13442399_10154329011832472_387326394083690706_n.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Ethics of Debt</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/ethics-debt/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 21 Feb 2016 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/ethics-debt/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[According to a report from the Jubilee Debt Campaign, there are currently 24 countries facing a full-blown debt crisis, with 14 more on the verge. Globally, there is about $200 trillion of debt on the books. Although the poor and disenfranchised of the world play no role in negotiating these loans, in debt crises they usually end up paying the price. So when a country borrows money, who or what is the “economic agent” responsible for taking on the debt? Can traditional economic theory explain why we face debt crises and how we can get out of them? Or do we need a new economic model that dispels some of the myths of the traditional model and offers a more ethical solution to the global debt crisis? John and Ken are held to account with Julie Nelson from the University of Massachusetts Boston, author of Economics For Humans.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[According to a report from the Jubilee Debt Campaign, there are currently 24 countries facing a full-blown debt crisis, with 14 more on the verge. Globally, there is about $200 trillion of debt on the books. Although the poor and disenfranchised of the w]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[According to a report from the Jubilee Debt Campaign, there are currently 24 countries facing a full-blown debt crisis, with 14 more on the verge. Globally, there is about $200 trillion of debt on the books. Although the poor and disenfranchised of the world play no role in negotiating these loans, in debt crises they usually end up paying the price. So when a country borrows money, who or what is the “economic agent” responsible for taking on the debt? Can traditional economic theory explain why we face debt crises and how we can get out of them? Or do we need a new economic model that dispels some of the myths of the traditional model and offers a more ethical solution to the global debt crisis? John and Ken are held to account with Julie Nelson from the University of Massachusetts Boston, author of Economics For Humans.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/294/ethics-debt.mp3" length="48471562" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[According to a report from the Jubilee Debt Campaign, there are currently 24 countries facing a full-blown debt crisis, with 14 more on the verge. Globally, there is about $200 trillion of debt on the books. Although the poor and disenfranchised of the world play no role in negotiating these loans, in debt crises they usually end up paying the price. So when a country borrows money, who or what is the “economic agent” responsible for taking on the debt? Can traditional economic theory explain why we face debt crises and how we can get out of them? Or do we need a new economic model that dispels some of the myths of the traditional model and offers a more ethical solution to the global debt crisis? John and Ken are held to account with Julie Nelson from the University of Massachusetts Boston, author of Economics For Humans.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/zui6btgnJYc.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[According to a report from the Jubilee Debt Campaign, there are currently 24 countries facing a full-blown debt crisis, with 14 more on the verge. Globally, there is about $200 trillion of debt on the books. Although the poor and disenfranchised of the world play no role in negotiating these loans, in debt crises they usually end up paying the price. So when a country borrows money, who or what is the “economic agent” responsible for taking on the debt? Can traditional economic theory explain why we face debt crises and how we can get out of them? Or do we need a new economic model that dispels some of the myths of the traditional model and offers a more ethical solution to the global debt crisis? John and Ken are held to account with Julie Nelson from the University of Massachusetts Boston, author of Economics For Humans.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/zui6btgnJYc.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>White Privilege and Racial Injustice</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/white-privilege-and-racial-injustice/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 14 Feb 2016 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/white-privilege-and-racial-injustice/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[“White privilege” has become a buzzword in discussions about racial inequality and racial justice. The call to “check your privilege” appeals to those privileged to acknowledge the various ways they receive special treatment that others don’t. But when white people explicitly acknowledge their privilege, does this do anything to further racial equality? Is talking about “white privilege” just a way to assuage white liberal guilt? Instead of unequal privilege, should we be more focused on equal rights? What kind of theory of justice is required to improve black lives? John and Ken check their privilege with Naomi Zack from the University of Oregon, author of White Privilege and Black Rights: The Injustice of U.S. Police Racial Profiling and Homicide.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[“White privilege” has become a buzzword in discussions about racial inequality and racial justice. The call to “check your privilege” appeals to those privileged to acknowledge the various ways they receive special treatment that others don’t. But when w]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[“White privilege” has become a buzzword in discussions about racial inequality and racial justice. The call to “check your privilege” appeals to those privileged to acknowledge the various ways they receive special treatment that others don’t. But when white people explicitly acknowledge their privilege, does this do anything to further racial equality? Is talking about “white privilege” just a way to assuage white liberal guilt? Instead of unequal privilege, should we be more focused on equal rights? What kind of theory of justice is required to improve black lives? John and Ken check their privilege with Naomi Zack from the University of Oregon, author of White Privilege and Black Rights: The Injustice of U.S. Police Racial Profiling and Homicide.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/292/white-privilege-and-racial-injustice.mp3" length="47910243" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[“White privilege” has become a buzzword in discussions about racial inequality and racial justice. The call to “check your privilege” appeals to those privileged to acknowledge the various ways they receive special treatment that others don’t. But when white people explicitly acknowledge their privilege, does this do anything to further racial equality? Is talking about “white privilege” just a way to assuage white liberal guilt? Instead of unequal privilege, should we be more focused on equal rights? What kind of theory of justice is required to improve black lives? John and Ken check their privilege with Naomi Zack from the University of Oregon, author of White Privilege and Black Rights: The Injustice of U.S. Police Racial Profiling and Homicide.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/RYZzo9Z3fA.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[“White privilege” has become a buzzword in discussions about racial inequality and racial justice. The call to “check your privilege” appeals to those privileged to acknowledge the various ways they receive special treatment that others don’t. But when white people explicitly acknowledge their privilege, does this do anything to further racial equality? Is talking about “white privilege” just a way to assuage white liberal guilt? Instead of unequal privilege, should we be more focused on equal rights? What kind of theory of justice is required to improve black lives? John and Ken check their privilege with Naomi Zack from the University of Oregon, author of White Privilege and Black Rights: The Injustice of U.S. Police Racial Profiling and Homicide.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/RYZzo9Z3fA.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Jean-Paul Sartre</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/jean-paul-sartre/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 17 Jan 2016 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/jean-paul-sartre/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Jean-Paul Sartre was one of the first global public intellectuals, famous for his popular existentialist philosophy, his works of fiction, and his rivalry with Albert Camus. His existentialism was also adopted by Simone de Beauvoir, who used it as a foundation for modern theoretical feminism. So what exactly is existentialism? How is man condemned to be free, as Sartre claimed? And what’s so hellish about other people? John and Ken speak in good faith with Thomas Flynn from Emory University, author of Sartre: A Philosophical Biography.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Jean-Paul Sartre was one of the first global public intellectuals, famous for his popular existentialist philosophy, his works of fiction, and his rivalry with Albert Camus. His existentialism was also adopted by Simone de Beauvoir, who used it as a foun]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Jean-Paul Sartre was one of the first global public intellectuals, famous for his popular existentialist philosophy, his works of fiction, and his rivalry with Albert Camus. His existentialism was also adopted by Simone de Beauvoir, who used it as a foundation for modern theoretical feminism. So what exactly is existentialism? How is man condemned to be free, as Sartre claimed? And what’s so hellish about other people? John and Ken speak in good faith with Thomas Flynn from Emory University, author of Sartre: A Philosophical Biography.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/290/jean-paul-sartre.mp3" length="47765467" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Jean-Paul Sartre was one of the first global public intellectuals, famous for his popular existentialist philosophy, his works of fiction, and his rivalry with Albert Camus. His existentialism was also adopted by Simone de Beauvoir, who used it as a foundation for modern theoretical feminism. So what exactly is existentialism? How is man condemned to be free, as Sartre claimed? And what’s so hellish about other people? John and Ken speak in good faith with Thomas Flynn from Emory University, author of Sartre: A Philosophical Biography.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/YS5gZJCCf5Y-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Jean-Paul Sartre was one of the first global public intellectuals, famous for his popular existentialist philosophy, his works of fiction, and his rivalry with Albert Camus. His existentialism was also adopted by Simone de Beauvoir, who used it as a foundation for modern theoretical feminism. So what exactly is existentialism? How is man condemned to be free, as Sartre claimed? And what’s so hellish about other people? John and Ken speak in good faith with Thomas Flynn from Emory University, author of Sartre: A Philosophical Biography.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/YS5gZJCCf5Y-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Dignity Denied: Life and Death in Prison</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/dignity-denied-life-and-death-prison/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jan 2016 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/dignity-denied-life-and-death-prison/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[According to the Treatment Advocacy Center, there are more people living with mental illness in prisons than in psychiatric hospitals across the country. Despite the fact that prisoners can have significant medical needs, healthcare services are often woefully inadequate, which can turn a minor sentence into a death sentence. And for those dying in prison, few receive any hospice or palliative care. So what kinds of patients’ rights should prisoners have? Could improved healthcare in prisons actually reduce recidivism rates? How can we ensure dignity for prisoners in the age of for-profit prisons? John and Ken maintain their dignity with filmmaker Edgar Barens, whose documentary Prison Terminal: The Last Days of Private Jack Hall was nominated for an Academy Award.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[According to the Treatment Advocacy Center, there are more people living with mental illness in prisons than in psychiatric hospitals across the country. Despite the fact that prisoners can have significant medical needs, healthcare services are often wo]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[According to the Treatment Advocacy Center, there are more people living with mental illness in prisons than in psychiatric hospitals across the country. Despite the fact that prisoners can have significant medical needs, healthcare services are often woefully inadequate, which can turn a minor sentence into a death sentence. And for those dying in prison, few receive any hospice or palliative care. So what kinds of patients’ rights should prisoners have? Could improved healthcare in prisons actually reduce recidivism rates? How can we ensure dignity for prisoners in the age of for-profit prisons? John and Ken maintain their dignity with filmmaker Edgar Barens, whose documentary Prison Terminal: The Last Days of Private Jack Hall was nominated for an Academy Award.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/288/dignity-denied-life-and-death-prison.mp3" length="48246700" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[According to the Treatment Advocacy Center, there are more people living with mental illness in prisons than in psychiatric hospitals across the country. Despite the fact that prisoners can have significant medical needs, healthcare services are often woefully inadequate, which can turn a minor sentence into a death sentence. And for those dying in prison, few receive any hospice or palliative care. So what kinds of patients’ rights should prisoners have? Could improved healthcare in prisons actually reduce recidivism rates? How can we ensure dignity for prisoners in the age of for-profit prisons? John and Ken maintain their dignity with filmmaker Edgar Barens, whose documentary Prison Terminal: The Last Days of Private Jack Hall was nominated for an Academy Award.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Db3UHsJNgsE-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[According to the Treatment Advocacy Center, there are more people living with mental illness in prisons than in psychiatric hospitals across the country. Despite the fact that prisoners can have significant medical needs, healthcare services are often woefully inadequate, which can turn a minor sentence into a death sentence. And for those dying in prison, few receive any hospice or palliative care. So what kinds of patients’ rights should prisoners have? Could improved healthcare in prisons actually reduce recidivism rates? How can we ensure dignity for prisoners in the age of for-profit prisons? John and Ken maintain their dignity with filmmaker Edgar Barens, whose documentary Prison Terminal: The Last Days of Private Jack Hall was nominated for an Academy Award.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Db3UHsJNgsE-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Examined Year &#8211; 2015</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/examined-year-2015/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 03 Jan 2016 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/examined-year-2015/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[A new year offers an opportunity to reflect on the significant events of the previous year. But what ideas and events took shape over the past twelve months that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Join John, Ken, and their special guests as they celebrate the examined year with a philosophical look back at the year that was 2015:
• The Year in Campus Culture Wars with Kate Manne from Cornell University, co-author of &#8220;When Free Speech Becomes a Political Weapon&#8221;
• The Year in Refugees and Migration with Beverly Crawford from UC Berkeley, author of Power and German Foreign Policy: Embedded Hegemony in Europe 
• The Year in Science and Climate Change with Allen Thompson from Oregon State University, co-editor of The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Ethics (forthcoming)]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[A new year offers an opportunity to reflect on the significant events of the previous year. But what ideas and events took shape over the past twelve months that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Join John, Ken, and t]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[A new year offers an opportunity to reflect on the significant events of the previous year. But what ideas and events took shape over the past twelve months that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Join John, Ken, and their special guests as they celebrate the examined year with a philosophical look back at the year that was 2015:
• The Year in Campus Culture Wars with Kate Manne from Cornell University, co-author of &#8220;When Free Speech Becomes a Political Weapon&#8221;
• The Year in Refugees and Migration with Beverly Crawford from UC Berkeley, author of Power and German Foreign Policy: Embedded Hegemony in Europe 
• The Year in Science and Climate Change with Allen Thompson from Oregon State University, co-editor of The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Ethics (forthcoming)]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/286/examined-year-2015.mp3" length="50102695" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[A new year offers an opportunity to reflect on the significant events of the previous year. But what ideas and events took shape over the past twelve months that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Join John, Ken, and their special guests as they celebrate the examined year with a philosophical look back at the year that was 2015:
• The Year in Campus Culture Wars with Kate Manne from Cornell University, co-author of &#8220;When Free Speech Becomes a Political Weapon&#8221;
• The Year in Refugees and Migration with Beverly Crawford from UC Berkeley, author of Power and German Foreign Policy: Embedded Hegemony in Europe 
• The Year in Science and Climate Change with Allen Thompson from Oregon State University, co-editor of The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Ethics (forthcoming)]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/LGilbwojTbs-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[A new year offers an opportunity to reflect on the significant events of the previous year. But what ideas and events took shape over the past twelve months that challenged our assumptions and made us think about things in new ways? Join John, Ken, and their special guests as they celebrate the examined year with a philosophical look back at the year that was 2015:
• The Year in Campus Culture Wars with Kate Manne from Cornell University, co-author of &#8220;When Free Speech Becomes a Political Weapon&#8221;
• The Year in Refugees and Migration with Beverly Crawford from UC Berkeley, author of Power and German Foreign Policy: Embedded Hegemony in Europe 
• The Year in Science and Climate Change with Allen Thompson from Oregon State University, co-editor of The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Ethics (forthcoming)]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/LGilbwojTbs-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Taoism: Following the Way</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/taoism-following-way/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 13 Dec 2015 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/taoism-following-way/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Taoism (sometimes Daoism) is one of the great philosophical traditions of China. Lao-Tzu, who is commonly regarded as its founder, said that “Those who know, do not speak; those who speak, do not know.” The arguments that Taoist texts offer for skepticism may seem surprisingly modern. Yet these same texts also offer recommendations for certain ways of life over others. So what exactly is Taoism, and what are its main tenets? Is it a religion, a philosophy, or a way of life? How do Taoists reconcile endorsing a specific way of life with skepticism about human thinking? John and Ken go east with Bryan Van Norden from Vassar College, author of numerous translations and books on Chinese thought, including Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Taoism (sometimes Daoism) is one of the great philosophical traditions of China. Lao-Tzu, who is commonly regarded as its founder, said that “Those who know, do not speak; those who speak, do not know.” The arguments that Taoist texts offer for skepticis]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Taoism (sometimes Daoism) is one of the great philosophical traditions of China. Lao-Tzu, who is commonly regarded as its founder, said that “Those who know, do not speak; those who speak, do not know.” The arguments that Taoist texts offer for skepticism may seem surprisingly modern. Yet these same texts also offer recommendations for certain ways of life over others. So what exactly is Taoism, and what are its main tenets? Is it a religion, a philosophy, or a way of life? How do Taoists reconcile endorsing a specific way of life with skepticism about human thinking? John and Ken go east with Bryan Van Norden from Vassar College, author of numerous translations and books on Chinese thought, including Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/282/taoism-following-way.mp3" length="48275121" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Taoism (sometimes Daoism) is one of the great philosophical traditions of China. Lao-Tzu, who is commonly regarded as its founder, said that “Those who know, do not speak; those who speak, do not know.” The arguments that Taoist texts offer for skepticism may seem surprisingly modern. Yet these same texts also offer recommendations for certain ways of life over others. So what exactly is Taoism, and what are its main tenets? Is it a religion, a philosophy, or a way of life? How do Taoists reconcile endorsing a specific way of life with skepticism about human thinking? John and Ken go east with Bryan Van Norden from Vassar College, author of numerous translations and books on Chinese thought, including Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/SL3P22zzfqk.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Taoism (sometimes Daoism) is one of the great philosophical traditions of China. Lao-Tzu, who is commonly regarded as its founder, said that “Those who know, do not speak; those who speak, do not know.” The arguments that Taoist texts offer for skepticism may seem surprisingly modern. Yet these same texts also offer recommendations for certain ways of life over others. So what exactly is Taoism, and what are its main tenets? Is it a religion, a philosophy, or a way of life? How do Taoists reconcile endorsing a specific way of life with skepticism about human thinking? John and Ken go east with Bryan Van Norden from Vassar College, author of numerous translations and books on Chinese thought, including Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/SL3P22zzfqk.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Self and Self-Presentation</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/self-and-self-presentation/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 06 Dec 2015 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/self-and-self-presentation/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[We craft personal brands or images to accompany or represent ourselves in various situations. These personas are malleable – how we portray ourselves online differs from how we act at an event, which differs from the workplace or in the privacy of the home. Social media and the possibility of creating an online &#8216;self&#8217; exacerbate this situation. We may wonder: who is the true self if we have the power change selves given various circumstances? Is there such a thing as &#8216;one true self&#8217;, or is the self merely a conglomerate of &#8216;mini-selves&#8217; shaped by cultural and societal forces? Could it be detrimental to think of a self as socially constructed? John and Ken put their best face on for Susan Hekman from the University of Texas at Arlington, author of Private Selves, Public Identities: Reconsidering Identity Politics.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[We craft personal brands or images to accompany or represent ourselves in various situations. These personas are malleable – how we portray ourselves online differs from how we act at an event, which differs from the workplace or in the privacy of the ho]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[We craft personal brands or images to accompany or represent ourselves in various situations. These personas are malleable – how we portray ourselves online differs from how we act at an event, which differs from the workplace or in the privacy of the home. Social media and the possibility of creating an online &#8216;self&#8217; exacerbate this situation. We may wonder: who is the true self if we have the power change selves given various circumstances? Is there such a thing as &#8216;one true self&#8217;, or is the self merely a conglomerate of &#8216;mini-selves&#8217; shaped by cultural and societal forces? Could it be detrimental to think of a self as socially constructed? John and Ken put their best face on for Susan Hekman from the University of Texas at Arlington, author of Private Selves, Public Identities: Reconsidering Identity Politics.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/280/self-and-self-presentation.mp3" length="47913586" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[We craft personal brands or images to accompany or represent ourselves in various situations. These personas are malleable – how we portray ourselves online differs from how we act at an event, which differs from the workplace or in the privacy of the home. Social media and the possibility of creating an online &#8216;self&#8217; exacerbate this situation. We may wonder: who is the true self if we have the power change selves given various circumstances? Is there such a thing as &#8216;one true self&#8217;, or is the self merely a conglomerate of &#8216;mini-selves&#8217; shaped by cultural and societal forces? Could it be detrimental to think of a self as socially constructed? John and Ken put their best face on for Susan Hekman from the University of Texas at Arlington, author of Private Selves, Public Identities: Reconsidering Identity Politics.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/qH5otZ_i9l8.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[We craft personal brands or images to accompany or represent ourselves in various situations. These personas are malleable – how we portray ourselves online differs from how we act at an event, which differs from the workplace or in the privacy of the home. Social media and the possibility of creating an online &#8216;self&#8217; exacerbate this situation. We may wonder: who is the true self if we have the power change selves given various circumstances? Is there such a thing as &#8216;one true self&#8217;, or is the self merely a conglomerate of &#8216;mini-selves&#8217; shaped by cultural and societal forces? Could it be detrimental to think of a self as socially constructed? John and Ken put their best face on for Susan Hekman from the University of Texas at Arlington, author of Private Selves, Public Identities: Reconsidering Identity Politics.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/qH5otZ_i9l8.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Your Lying Eyes – Perception, Memory, and Justice</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/your-lying-eyes/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 29 Nov 2015 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/your-lying-eyes/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The criminal justice system often relies on the testimony of eyewitnesses to get convictions. Yet more and more, psychological science demonstrates how unreliable eyewitness reports can be. Moreover, jurors have all kinds of cognitive biases and unconscious influences, and they rely on dubious folk psychological theories when assessing evidence. So, how should psychological science be used to improve our justice system? Is there a way to figure out whether a particular eye witness report is reliable? Or for a truly just system, must we forbid all testimony that depends on the capricious faculty of memory? John and Ken take the stand with Daniel Reisberg from Reed College, author of The Science of Perception and Memory: A Pragmatic Guide for the Justice System.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The criminal justice system often relies on the testimony of eyewitnesses to get convictions. Yet more and more, psychological science demonstrates how unreliable eyewitness reports can be. Moreover, jurors have all kinds of cognitive biases and unconsci]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The criminal justice system often relies on the testimony of eyewitnesses to get convictions. Yet more and more, psychological science demonstrates how unreliable eyewitness reports can be. Moreover, jurors have all kinds of cognitive biases and unconscious influences, and they rely on dubious folk psychological theories when assessing evidence. So, how should psychological science be used to improve our justice system? Is there a way to figure out whether a particular eye witness report is reliable? Or for a truly just system, must we forbid all testimony that depends on the capricious faculty of memory? John and Ken take the stand with Daniel Reisberg from Reed College, author of The Science of Perception and Memory: A Pragmatic Guide for the Justice System.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/274/your-lying-eyes.mp3" length="49033137" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The criminal justice system often relies on the testimony of eyewitnesses to get convictions. Yet more and more, psychological science demonstrates how unreliable eyewitness reports can be. Moreover, jurors have all kinds of cognitive biases and unconscious influences, and they rely on dubious folk psychological theories when assessing evidence. So, how should psychological science be used to improve our justice system? Is there a way to figure out whether a particular eye witness report is reliable? Or for a truly just system, must we forbid all testimony that depends on the capricious faculty of memory? John and Ken take the stand with Daniel Reisberg from Reed College, author of The Science of Perception and Memory: A Pragmatic Guide for the Justice System.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/S_kZWLM_mTc.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The criminal justice system often relies on the testimony of eyewitnesses to get convictions. Yet more and more, psychological science demonstrates how unreliable eyewitness reports can be. Moreover, jurors have all kinds of cognitive biases and unconscious influences, and they rely on dubious folk psychological theories when assessing evidence. So, how should psychological science be used to improve our justice system? Is there a way to figure out whether a particular eye witness report is reliable? Or for a truly just system, must we forbid all testimony that depends on the capricious faculty of memory? John and Ken take the stand with Daniel Reisberg from Reed College, author of The Science of Perception and Memory: A Pragmatic Guide for the Justice System.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/S_kZWLM_mTc.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Will Innovation Kill Us?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/will-innovation-kill-us/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 15 Nov 2015 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/will-innovation-kill-us/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Innovation, be it social, economic, or technological, is often hailed as the panacea for all our troubles. Our obsession with innovation leads us to constantly want new things and to want them now. But past innovations are arguably the main reason for many of our current predicaments, which in turn creates a further need to innovate to solve those problems. So is innovation – and our obsession with it – ultimately a force for good or ill? Is our constant need to innovate a function of our biology, or just a product of various cultural forces? Can we ever escape the innovation loop? Should we try before it kills us? John and Ken find new ways to talk to Christian Seelos, co-author of Innovation and Scaling for Impact: How Effective Social Enterprises Do It.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Innovation, be it social, economic, or technological, is often hailed as the panacea for all our troubles. Our obsession with innovation leads us to constantly want new things and to want them now. But past innovations are arguably the main reason for ma]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Innovation, be it social, economic, or technological, is often hailed as the panacea for all our troubles. Our obsession with innovation leads us to constantly want new things and to want them now. But past innovations are arguably the main reason for many of our current predicaments, which in turn creates a further need to innovate to solve those problems. So is innovation – and our obsession with it – ultimately a force for good or ill? Is our constant need to innovate a function of our biology, or just a product of various cultural forces? Can we ever escape the innovation loop? Should we try before it kills us? John and Ken find new ways to talk to Christian Seelos, co-author of Innovation and Scaling for Impact: How Effective Social Enterprises Do It.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/284/will-innovation-kill-us.mp3" length="47897542" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Innovation, be it social, economic, or technological, is often hailed as the panacea for all our troubles. Our obsession with innovation leads us to constantly want new things and to want them now. But past innovations are arguably the main reason for many of our current predicaments, which in turn creates a further need to innovate to solve those problems. So is innovation – and our obsession with it – ultimately a force for good or ill? Is our constant need to innovate a function of our biology, or just a product of various cultural forces? Can we ever escape the innovation loop? Should we try before it kills us? John and Ken find new ways to talk to Christian Seelos, co-author of Innovation and Scaling for Impact: How Effective Social Enterprises Do It.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/iCHOupuZhVU.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Innovation, be it social, economic, or technological, is often hailed as the panacea for all our troubles. Our obsession with innovation leads us to constantly want new things and to want them now. But past innovations are arguably the main reason for many of our current predicaments, which in turn creates a further need to innovate to solve those problems. So is innovation – and our obsession with it – ultimately a force for good or ill? Is our constant need to innovate a function of our biology, or just a product of various cultural forces? Can we ever escape the innovation loop? Should we try before it kills us? John and Ken find new ways to talk to Christian Seelos, co-author of Innovation and Scaling for Impact: How Effective Social Enterprises Do It.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/iCHOupuZhVU.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Spinoza</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/spinoza/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2015 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/spinoza/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Baruch Spinoza was a 17th century Dutch philosopher who laid the foundations for the Enlightenment. He made the controversial claim that there is only one substance in the universe, which led him to the pantheistic belief in an abstract, impersonal God. What effect did Spinoza have on Enlightenment thinkers? What are the philosophical – and religious – consequences of believing that there is only one substance in the universe? And why do scientists today still take him seriously? John and Ken welcome back Rebecca Goldstein, author of Betraying Spinoza: The Renegade Jew Who Gave Us Modernity.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Baruch Spinoza was a 17th century Dutch philosopher who laid the foundations for the Enlightenment. He made the controversial claim that there is only one substance in the universe, which led him to the pantheistic belief in an abstract, impersonal God. ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Baruch Spinoza was a 17th century Dutch philosopher who laid the foundations for the Enlightenment. He made the controversial claim that there is only one substance in the universe, which led him to the pantheistic belief in an abstract, impersonal God. What effect did Spinoza have on Enlightenment thinkers? What are the philosophical – and religious – consequences of believing that there is only one substance in the universe? And why do scientists today still take him seriously? John and Ken welcome back Rebecca Goldstein, author of Betraying Spinoza: The Renegade Jew Who Gave Us Modernity.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/278/spinoza.mp3" length="47604714" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Baruch Spinoza was a 17th century Dutch philosopher who laid the foundations for the Enlightenment. He made the controversial claim that there is only one substance in the universe, which led him to the pantheistic belief in an abstract, impersonal God. What effect did Spinoza have on Enlightenment thinkers? What are the philosophical – and religious – consequences of believing that there is only one substance in the universe? And why do scientists today still take him seriously? John and Ken welcome back Rebecca Goldstein, author of Betraying Spinoza: The Renegade Jew Who Gave Us Modernity.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/9jVr9aeIizA.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Baruch Spinoza was a 17th century Dutch philosopher who laid the foundations for the Enlightenment. He made the controversial claim that there is only one substance in the universe, which led him to the pantheistic belief in an abstract, impersonal God. What effect did Spinoza have on Enlightenment thinkers? What are the philosophical – and religious – consequences of believing that there is only one substance in the universe? And why do scientists today still take him seriously? John and Ken welcome back Rebecca Goldstein, author of Betraying Spinoza: The Renegade Jew Who Gave Us Modernity.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/9jVr9aeIizA.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Living On Through Others</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/living-through-others/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 01 Nov 2015 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/living-through-others/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Imagine that the world will end in thirty days. Would your life have meaning anymore? Would anyone’s? It seems that there would no longer be any point to making technological or medical advances, developing new forms of art, or even taking good care of ourselves. Imagining the doomsday scenario shows that there is something particularly disturbing about the prospect that not only we, but also everyone else, will die. Why is this? Would our lives be nearly as meaningful if others did not live on after our death? Could our “collective afterlife” through the lives of others actually be more important than the “personal afterlife” with which we are so often preoccupied? John and Ken live on through Samuel Scheffler from NYU, author of Death &#38; the Afterlife. This program is part of our series Visions of Immortality.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Imagine that the world will end in thirty days. Would your life have meaning anymore? Would anyone’s? It seems that there would no longer be any point to making technological or medical advances, developing new forms of art, or even taking good care of o]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Imagine that the world will end in thirty days. Would your life have meaning anymore? Would anyone’s? It seems that there would no longer be any point to making technological or medical advances, developing new forms of art, or even taking good care of ourselves. Imagining the doomsday scenario shows that there is something particularly disturbing about the prospect that not only we, but also everyone else, will die. Why is this? Would our lives be nearly as meaningful if others did not live on after our death? Could our “collective afterlife” through the lives of others actually be more important than the “personal afterlife” with which we are so often preoccupied? John and Ken live on through Samuel Scheffler from NYU, author of Death &#38; the Afterlife. This program is part of our series Visions of Immortality.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/276/living-through-others.mp3" length="48284734" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Imagine that the world will end in thirty days. Would your life have meaning anymore? Would anyone’s? It seems that there would no longer be any point to making technological or medical advances, developing new forms of art, or even taking good care of ourselves. Imagining the doomsday scenario shows that there is something particularly disturbing about the prospect that not only we, but also everyone else, will die. Why is this? Would our lives be nearly as meaningful if others did not live on after our death? Could our “collective afterlife” through the lives of others actually be more important than the “personal afterlife” with which we are so often preoccupied? John and Ken live on through Samuel Scheffler from NYU, author of Death &#38; the Afterlife. This program is part of our series Visions of Immortality.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/nP2ynDc3Q48.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Imagine that the world will end in thirty days. Would your life have meaning anymore? Would anyone’s? It seems that there would no longer be any point to making technological or medical advances, developing new forms of art, or even taking good care of ourselves. Imagining the doomsday scenario shows that there is something particularly disturbing about the prospect that not only we, but also everyone else, will die. Why is this? Would our lives be nearly as meaningful if others did not live on after our death? Could our “collective afterlife” through the lives of others actually be more important than the “personal afterlife” with which we are so often preoccupied? John and Ken live on through Samuel Scheffler from NYU, author of Death &#38; the Afterlife. This program is part of our series Visions of Immortality.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/nP2ynDc3Q48.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>In Praise of Love: Plato&#8217;s Symposium Meets Bernstein&#8217;s Serenade</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/praise-love/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 25 Oct 2015 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/praise-love/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Plato’s Symposium is arguably the most memorable philosophical work ever written on the subject of love. It is also the inspiration for Leonard Bernstein’s gorgeous violin concerto, the Serenade. What would Plato think of Bernstein’s Serenade, especially given his criticism of art and poetry? Is Bernstein more interested in what one of Plato’s drunken characters calls “vulgar love”? Or is he inspired by Platonic love – the highest form of love? How does Bernstein explore these themes through his music? In this special episode featuring violin virtuoso Anne Akiko Meyers and the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra, John and Ken talk to Brandi Parisi from All Classical Portland radio about love – its nature, its origin and its purpose – and music.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Plato’s Symposium is arguably the most memorable philosophical work ever written on the subject of love. It is also the inspiration for Leonard Bernstein’s gorgeous violin concerto, the Serenade. What would Plato think of Bernstein’s Serenade, especially]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Plato’s Symposium is arguably the most memorable philosophical work ever written on the subject of love. It is also the inspiration for Leonard Bernstein’s gorgeous violin concerto, the Serenade. What would Plato think of Bernstein’s Serenade, especially given his criticism of art and poetry? Is Bernstein more interested in what one of Plato’s drunken characters calls “vulgar love”? Or is he inspired by Platonic love – the highest form of love? How does Bernstein explore these themes through his music? In this special episode featuring violin virtuoso Anne Akiko Meyers and the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra, John and Ken talk to Brandi Parisi from All Classical Portland radio about love – its nature, its origin and its purpose – and music.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/272/praise-love.mp3" length="47454087" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Plato’s Symposium is arguably the most memorable philosophical work ever written on the subject of love. It is also the inspiration for Leonard Bernstein’s gorgeous violin concerto, the Serenade. What would Plato think of Bernstein’s Serenade, especially given his criticism of art and poetry? Is Bernstein more interested in what one of Plato’s drunken characters calls “vulgar love”? Or is he inspired by Platonic love – the highest form of love? How does Bernstein explore these themes through his music? In this special episode featuring violin virtuoso Anne Akiko Meyers and the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra, John and Ken talk to Brandi Parisi from All Classical Portland radio about love – its nature, its origin and its purpose – and music.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/9aqd9GcNlG4-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Plato’s Symposium is arguably the most memorable philosophical work ever written on the subject of love. It is also the inspiration for Leonard Bernstein’s gorgeous violin concerto, the Serenade. What would Plato think of Bernstein’s Serenade, especially given his criticism of art and poetry? Is Bernstein more interested in what one of Plato’s drunken characters calls “vulgar love”? Or is he inspired by Platonic love – the highest form of love? How does Bernstein explore these themes through his music? In this special episode featuring violin virtuoso Anne Akiko Meyers and the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra, John and Ken talk to Brandi Parisi from All Classical Portland radio about love – its nature, its origin and its purpose – and music.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/9aqd9GcNlG4-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Logic of Regret</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/logic-regret/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 18 Oct 2015 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/logic-regret/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[A teenager decides, on a whim, to conceive a child. Even though we might say that this decision was irrational, she cannot regret it later, because raising the child eventually becomes the most important part of her life. Cases like this show how complicated regret is: that an action was irrational or wrong doesn’t necessarily imply that we should regret it. When, then, should we regret? For that matter, why should we regret anything at all? Doesn’t the feeling of regret just add more pain to circumstances that are already unfortunate? How can it possibly be rational to affirm actions that one knows were wrong? John and Ken don&#8217;t regret talking to Jay Wallace from UC Berkeley, author of The View From Here: On Affirmation, Attachment, and the Limits of Regret.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[A teenager decides, on a whim, to conceive a child. Even though we might say that this decision was irrational, she cannot regret it later, because raising the child eventually becomes the most important part of her life. Cases like this show how complic]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[A teenager decides, on a whim, to conceive a child. Even though we might say that this decision was irrational, she cannot regret it later, because raising the child eventually becomes the most important part of her life. Cases like this show how complicated regret is: that an action was irrational or wrong doesn’t necessarily imply that we should regret it. When, then, should we regret? For that matter, why should we regret anything at all? Doesn’t the feeling of regret just add more pain to circumstances that are already unfortunate? How can it possibly be rational to affirm actions that one knows were wrong? John and Ken don&#8217;t regret talking to Jay Wallace from UC Berkeley, author of The View From Here: On Affirmation, Attachment, and the Limits of Regret.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/263/logic-regret.mp3" length="48717322" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[A teenager decides, on a whim, to conceive a child. Even though we might say that this decision was irrational, she cannot regret it later, because raising the child eventually becomes the most important part of her life. Cases like this show how complicated regret is: that an action was irrational or wrong doesn’t necessarily imply that we should regret it. When, then, should we regret? For that matter, why should we regret anything at all? Doesn’t the feeling of regret just add more pain to circumstances that are already unfortunate? How can it possibly be rational to affirm actions that one knows were wrong? John and Ken don&#8217;t regret talking to Jay Wallace from UC Berkeley, author of The View From Here: On Affirmation, Attachment, and the Limits of Regret.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/OU4JSGpebjU-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[A teenager decides, on a whim, to conceive a child. Even though we might say that this decision was irrational, she cannot regret it later, because raising the child eventually becomes the most important part of her life. Cases like this show how complicated regret is: that an action was irrational or wrong doesn’t necessarily imply that we should regret it. When, then, should we regret? For that matter, why should we regret anything at all? Doesn’t the feeling of regret just add more pain to circumstances that are already unfortunate? How can it possibly be rational to affirm actions that one knows were wrong? John and Ken don&#8217;t regret talking to Jay Wallace from UC Berkeley, author of The View From Here: On Affirmation, Attachment, and the Limits of Regret.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/OU4JSGpebjU-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Technology of Immortality</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/technology-immortality/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 27 Sep 2015 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/technology-immortality/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Some futurists believe we are not far from a time when technology and medicine will be so advanced that humans need no longer die of old age or other natural causes. Eventually, not only will we be able to replace our natural body parts, but we might even be able to “download” our selves into a new cybernetic body. But is this a realistic possibility or just a confused fantasy? Is the self the kind of thing that can be downloaded and persist through radical changes in its “hardware”? And if it were possible for people to indefinitely extend their biological lives, what would the moral implications be for social inequality and distribution of the planet’s finite resources? John and Ken look beyond the mortal coil with Kevin O&#8217;Neill from the University of Redlands, author of Internet Afterlife: Virtual Salvation in the Twenty-First Century (forthcoming).
Part of our series Visions of Immortality.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Some futurists believe we are not far from a time when technology and medicine will be so advanced that humans need no longer die of old age or other natural causes. Eventually, not only will we be able to replace our natural body parts, but we might eve]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Some futurists believe we are not far from a time when technology and medicine will be so advanced that humans need no longer die of old age or other natural causes. Eventually, not only will we be able to replace our natural body parts, but we might even be able to “download” our selves into a new cybernetic body. But is this a realistic possibility or just a confused fantasy? Is the self the kind of thing that can be downloaded and persist through radical changes in its “hardware”? And if it were possible for people to indefinitely extend their biological lives, what would the moral implications be for social inequality and distribution of the planet’s finite resources? John and Ken look beyond the mortal coil with Kevin O&#8217;Neill from the University of Redlands, author of Internet Afterlife: Virtual Salvation in the Twenty-First Century (forthcoming).
Part of our series Visions of Immortality.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/259/technology-immortality.mp3" length="49174151" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Some futurists believe we are not far from a time when technology and medicine will be so advanced that humans need no longer die of old age or other natural causes. Eventually, not only will we be able to replace our natural body parts, but we might even be able to “download” our selves into a new cybernetic body. But is this a realistic possibility or just a confused fantasy? Is the self the kind of thing that can be downloaded and persist through radical changes in its “hardware”? And if it were possible for people to indefinitely extend their biological lives, what would the moral implications be for social inequality and distribution of the planet’s finite resources? John and Ken look beyond the mortal coil with Kevin O&#8217;Neill from the University of Redlands, author of Internet Afterlife: Virtual Salvation in the Twenty-First Century (forthcoming).
Part of our series Visions of Immortality.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/AO1hITDajp0.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Some futurists believe we are not far from a time when technology and medicine will be so advanced that humans need no longer die of old age or other natural causes. Eventually, not only will we be able to replace our natural body parts, but we might even be able to “download” our selves into a new cybernetic body. But is this a realistic possibility or just a confused fantasy? Is the self the kind of thing that can be downloaded and persist through radical changes in its “hardware”? And if it were possible for people to indefinitely extend their biological lives, what would the moral implications be for social inequality and distribution of the planet’s finite resources? John and Ken look beyond the mortal coil with Kevin O&#8217;Neill from the University of Redlands, author of Internet Afterlife: Virtual Salvation in the Twenty-First Century (forthcoming).
Part of our series Visions of Immortality.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/AO1hITDajp0.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Changing Face of Feminism</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/changing-face-feminism/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 20 Sep 2015 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/changing-face-feminism/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Reactions to the word ‘feminist’ today range from staunch rejection or ambivalence to fervent endorsement and activism. While many young women claim not to need feminism in their lives, others believe these women are simply confused about the meaning of the term. So is feminism as we knew it dead? Have women already achieved equal rights? What are the basic tenets of the most recent wave of feminism, and how does it differ from the previous waves? And given current reactions to the term ‘feminism,’ how can we create greater unity in defending women’s rights? John and Ken peer through the glass ceiling with Christina Hoff Sommers, author of Freedom Feminism: Its Surprising History and Why It Matters Today.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Reactions to the word ‘feminist’ today range from staunch rejection or ambivalence to fervent endorsement and activism. While many young women claim not to need feminism in their lives, others believe these women are simply confused about the meaning of ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Reactions to the word ‘feminist’ today range from staunch rejection or ambivalence to fervent endorsement and activism. While many young women claim not to need feminism in their lives, others believe these women are simply confused about the meaning of the term. So is feminism as we knew it dead? Have women already achieved equal rights? What are the basic tenets of the most recent wave of feminism, and how does it differ from the previous waves? And given current reactions to the term ‘feminism,’ how can we create greater unity in defending women’s rights? John and Ken peer through the glass ceiling with Christina Hoff Sommers, author of Freedom Feminism: Its Surprising History and Why It Matters Today.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/265/changing-face-feminism.mp3" length="24140416" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Reactions to the word ‘feminist’ today range from staunch rejection or ambivalence to fervent endorsement and activism. While many young women claim not to need feminism in their lives, others believe these women are simply confused about the meaning of the term. So is feminism as we knew it dead? Have women already achieved equal rights? What are the basic tenets of the most recent wave of feminism, and how does it differ from the previous waves? And given current reactions to the term ‘feminism,’ how can we create greater unity in defending women’s rights? John and Ken peer through the glass ceiling with Christina Hoff Sommers, author of Freedom Feminism: Its Surprising History and Why It Matters Today.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Pv_sBshKrCU.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Reactions to the word ‘feminist’ today range from staunch rejection or ambivalence to fervent endorsement and activism. While many young women claim not to need feminism in their lives, others believe these women are simply confused about the meaning of the term. So is feminism as we knew it dead? Have women already achieved equal rights? What are the basic tenets of the most recent wave of feminism, and how does it differ from the previous waves? And given current reactions to the term ‘feminism,’ how can we create greater unity in defending women’s rights? John and Ken peer through the glass ceiling with Christina Hoff Sommers, author of Freedom Feminism: Its Surprising History and Why It Matters Today.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Pv_sBshKrCU.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Ethics of Drone Warfare</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/ethics-drone-warfare/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 13 Sep 2015 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/ethics-drone-warfare/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, aka ‘drone,’ is increasingly the weapon of choice in America&#8217;s military operations. Many laud its ability to maintain our global power while reducing human and financial costs. By the same token, however, this safe and secretive weapon may in turn cause civilians to disengage ever more from the politics of war. Are drones the herald of a more sanitized and efficient form of war, or do they represent the dystopian reign of uncaring technologies? What are the responsibilities of civilians in the face of this &#8216;Revolution in Military Affairs&#8217;? And how have drones transformed the face of battles for soldiers themselves? John and Ken ask about war in the age of intelligent machines with Bradley Strawser from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, editor of Killing By Remote Control: The Ethics of an Unmanned Military.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, aka ‘drone,’ is increasingly the weapon of choice in America&#8217;s military operations. Many laud its ability to maintain our global power while reducing human and financial costs. By the same token, however, this safe and ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, aka ‘drone,’ is increasingly the weapon of choice in America&#8217;s military operations. Many laud its ability to maintain our global power while reducing human and financial costs. By the same token, however, this safe and secretive weapon may in turn cause civilians to disengage ever more from the politics of war. Are drones the herald of a more sanitized and efficient form of war, or do they represent the dystopian reign of uncaring technologies? What are the responsibilities of civilians in the face of this &#8216;Revolution in Military Affairs&#8217;? And how have drones transformed the face of battles for soldiers themselves? John and Ken ask about war in the age of intelligent machines with Bradley Strawser from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, editor of Killing By Remote Control: The Ethics of an Unmanned Military.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/267/ethics-drone-warfare.mp3" length="48555828" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, aka ‘drone,’ is increasingly the weapon of choice in America&#8217;s military operations. Many laud its ability to maintain our global power while reducing human and financial costs. By the same token, however, this safe and secretive weapon may in turn cause civilians to disengage ever more from the politics of war. Are drones the herald of a more sanitized and efficient form of war, or do they represent the dystopian reign of uncaring technologies? What are the responsibilities of civilians in the face of this &#8216;Revolution in Military Affairs&#8217;? And how have drones transformed the face of battles for soldiers themselves? John and Ken ask about war in the age of intelligent machines with Bradley Strawser from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, editor of Killing By Remote Control: The Ethics of an Unmanned Military.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/gNryAVVhqqY.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, aka ‘drone,’ is increasingly the weapon of choice in America&#8217;s military operations. Many laud its ability to maintain our global power while reducing human and financial costs. By the same token, however, this safe and secretive weapon may in turn cause civilians to disengage ever more from the politics of war. Are drones the herald of a more sanitized and efficient form of war, or do they represent the dystopian reign of uncaring technologies? What are the responsibilities of civilians in the face of this &#8216;Revolution in Military Affairs&#8217;? And how have drones transformed the face of battles for soldiers themselves? John and Ken ask about war in the age of intelligent machines with Bradley Strawser from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, editor of Killing By Remote Control: The Ethics of an Unmanned Military.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/gNryAVVhqqY.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Leibniz</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/leibniz/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 16 Aug 2015 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/leibniz/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The intellectual domain of Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz cannot be captured in a single word. For most of his life, he was a jurist, a courtier, a diplomat, and a librarian; he also made huge contributions to the study of logic, geometry, physics, botany, physiology, linguistics, and of course, the infinitesimal calculus. And yet, many of his ideas remain obscure to the modern reader. What in the world is a Monad? Why does Leibniz care so much about the so-called Principle of Sufficient Reason? And how could he claim that this is the Best of all Possible Worlds? John and Ken discuss the most important philosopher you know the least about with Daniel Garber from Princeton University, author of Leibniz: Body, Substance, Monad.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The intellectual domain of Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz cannot be captured in a single word. For most of his life, he was a jurist, a courtier, a diplomat, and a librarian; he also made huge contributions to the study of logic, geometry, physics, botany]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The intellectual domain of Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz cannot be captured in a single word. For most of his life, he was a jurist, a courtier, a diplomat, and a librarian; he also made huge contributions to the study of logic, geometry, physics, botany, physiology, linguistics, and of course, the infinitesimal calculus. And yet, many of his ideas remain obscure to the modern reader. What in the world is a Monad? Why does Leibniz care so much about the so-called Principle of Sufficient Reason? And how could he claim that this is the Best of all Possible Worlds? John and Ken discuss the most important philosopher you know the least about with Daniel Garber from Princeton University, author of Leibniz: Body, Substance, Monad.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/261/leibniz.mp3" length="49695408" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The intellectual domain of Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz cannot be captured in a single word. For most of his life, he was a jurist, a courtier, a diplomat, and a librarian; he also made huge contributions to the study of logic, geometry, physics, botany, physiology, linguistics, and of course, the infinitesimal calculus. And yet, many of his ideas remain obscure to the modern reader. What in the world is a Monad? Why does Leibniz care so much about the so-called Principle of Sufficient Reason? And how could he claim that this is the Best of all Possible Worlds? John and Ken discuss the most important philosopher you know the least about with Daniel Garber from Princeton University, author of Leibniz: Body, Substance, Monad.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/3_H8xlaR_ZY.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The intellectual domain of Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz cannot be captured in a single word. For most of his life, he was a jurist, a courtier, a diplomat, and a librarian; he also made huge contributions to the study of logic, geometry, physics, botany, physiology, linguistics, and of course, the infinitesimal calculus. And yet, many of his ideas remain obscure to the modern reader. What in the world is a Monad? Why does Leibniz care so much about the so-called Principle of Sufficient Reason? And how could he claim that this is the Best of all Possible Worlds? John and Ken discuss the most important philosopher you know the least about with Daniel Garber from Princeton University, author of Leibniz: Body, Substance, Monad.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/3_H8xlaR_ZY.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Power and Peril of Satire</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/power-and-peril-satire/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 26 Jul 2015 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/power-and-peril-satire/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Satire is everywhere – in conversations with friends, in books, on television, and online. When used effectively, it can be a very powerful form of social commentary. But what happens when someone goes too far, or even worse, when some publication repeatedly goes too far? Aside from taking offense, can we reasonably demand that they pull their article from publication or issue an apology? Are there topics we should never satirize? Is there a well-defined line between satire and hate speech? John and Ken resist parody with Jane Kirtley, Director of the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law at the University of Minnesota.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Satire is everywhere – in conversations with friends, in books, on television, and online. When used effectively, it can be a very powerful form of social commentary. But what happens when someone goes too far, or even worse, when some publication repeat]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Satire is everywhere – in conversations with friends, in books, on television, and online. When used effectively, it can be a very powerful form of social commentary. But what happens when someone goes too far, or even worse, when some publication repeatedly goes too far? Aside from taking offense, can we reasonably demand that they pull their article from publication or issue an apology? Are there topics we should never satirize? Is there a well-defined line between satire and hate speech? John and Ken resist parody with Jane Kirtley, Director of the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law at the University of Minnesota.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/257/power-and-peril-satire.mp3" length="48221878" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Satire is everywhere – in conversations with friends, in books, on television, and online. When used effectively, it can be a very powerful form of social commentary. But what happens when someone goes too far, or even worse, when some publication repeatedly goes too far? Aside from taking offense, can we reasonably demand that they pull their article from publication or issue an apology? Are there topics we should never satirize? Is there a well-defined line between satire and hate speech? John and Ken resist parody with Jane Kirtley, Director of the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law at the University of Minnesota.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/UHabD2tAymU-2.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Satire is everywhere – in conversations with friends, in books, on television, and online. When used effectively, it can be a very powerful form of social commentary. But what happens when someone goes too far, or even worse, when some publication repeatedly goes too far? Aside from taking offense, can we reasonably demand that they pull their article from publication or issue an apology? Are there topics we should never satirize? Is there a well-defined line between satire and hate speech? John and Ken resist parody with Jane Kirtley, Director of the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law at the University of Minnesota.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/UHabD2tAymU-2.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Neuroscience and Free Will</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/neuroscience-and-free-will/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2015 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/neuroscience-and-free-will/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[We like to think of ourselves as rational agents who exercise conscious control over most of our actions and decisions. Yet in recent years, neuroscientists have claimed to prove that free will is simply an illusion, that our brains decide for us before our conscious minds even become aware. But what kind of evidence do these scientists rely on to support their sweeping conclusions? Is the &#8220;free will&#8221; they talk about the same kind of free will that philosophers have puzzled about for millennia? And could science ever prove that we lack the kind of freedom needed for moral responsibility? John and Ken free their minds with Daniel Dennett from Tufts University, author of Freedom Evolves and Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking. This program was recorded live at the 19th annual Undergraduate Philosophy Conference at Pacific University in Forest Grove, Oregon.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[We like to think of ourselves as rational agents who exercise conscious control over most of our actions and decisions. Yet in recent years, neuroscientists have claimed to prove that free will is simply an illusion, that our brains decide for us before ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[We like to think of ourselves as rational agents who exercise conscious control over most of our actions and decisions. Yet in recent years, neuroscientists have claimed to prove that free will is simply an illusion, that our brains decide for us before our conscious minds even become aware. But what kind of evidence do these scientists rely on to support their sweeping conclusions? Is the &#8220;free will&#8221; they talk about the same kind of free will that philosophers have puzzled about for millennia? And could science ever prove that we lack the kind of freedom needed for moral responsibility? John and Ken free their minds with Daniel Dennett from Tufts University, author of Freedom Evolves and Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking. This program was recorded live at the 19th annual Undergraduate Philosophy Conference at Pacific University in Forest Grove, Oregon.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/255/neuroscience-and-free-will.mp3" length="48689737" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[We like to think of ourselves as rational agents who exercise conscious control over most of our actions and decisions. Yet in recent years, neuroscientists have claimed to prove that free will is simply an illusion, that our brains decide for us before our conscious minds even become aware. But what kind of evidence do these scientists rely on to support their sweeping conclusions? Is the &#8220;free will&#8221; they talk about the same kind of free will that philosophers have puzzled about for millennia? And could science ever prove that we lack the kind of freedom needed for moral responsibility? John and Ken free their minds with Daniel Dennett from Tufts University, author of Freedom Evolves and Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking. This program was recorded live at the 19th annual Undergraduate Philosophy Conference at Pacific University in Forest Grove, Oregon.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/LxwWiHxU1Bo.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[We like to think of ourselves as rational agents who exercise conscious control over most of our actions and decisions. Yet in recent years, neuroscientists have claimed to prove that free will is simply an illusion, that our brains decide for us before our conscious minds even become aware. But what kind of evidence do these scientists rely on to support their sweeping conclusions? Is the &#8220;free will&#8221; they talk about the same kind of free will that philosophers have puzzled about for millennia? And could science ever prove that we lack the kind of freedom needed for moral responsibility? John and Ken free their minds with Daniel Dennett from Tufts University, author of Freedom Evolves and Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking. This program was recorded live at the 19th annual Undergraduate Philosophy Conference at Pacific University in Forest Grove, Oregon.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/LxwWiHxU1Bo.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Edward Snowden and the Ethics of Whistleblowing</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/edward-snowden-and-ethics-whistleblowing/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2015 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/edward-snowden-and-ethics-whistleblowing/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[You might think we each have a moral duty to expose any serious misconduct, dishonesty, or illegal activity we discover in an organization, especially when such conduct directly threatens the public interest. However, increasingly we are seeing whistleblowers punished more harshly than the alleged wrongdoers, who often seem to get off scot-free. Given the possibility of harsh retaliation, how should we understand our moral duty to tell the truth and reveal wrongdoing? Should we think of whistleblowers as selfless martyrs, as traitors, or as something else? Do we need to change the laws to provide greater protection for whistleblowers? John and Ken welcome our era&#8217;s most renowned whistleblower, former CIA analyst Edward Snowden, for a program recorded as part of the Stanford Symbolic Systems Program Distinguished Speaker series.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[You might think we each have a moral duty to expose any serious misconduct, dishonesty, or illegal activity we discover in an organization, especially when such conduct directly threatens the public interest. However, increasingly we are seeing whistlebl]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[You might think we each have a moral duty to expose any serious misconduct, dishonesty, or illegal activity we discover in an organization, especially when such conduct directly threatens the public interest. However, increasingly we are seeing whistleblowers punished more harshly than the alleged wrongdoers, who often seem to get off scot-free. Given the possibility of harsh retaliation, how should we understand our moral duty to tell the truth and reveal wrongdoing? Should we think of whistleblowers as selfless martyrs, as traitors, or as something else? Do we need to change the laws to provide greater protection for whistleblowers? John and Ken welcome our era&#8217;s most renowned whistleblower, former CIA analyst Edward Snowden, for a program recorded as part of the Stanford Symbolic Systems Program Distinguished Speaker series.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/253/edward-snowden-and-ethics-whistleblowing.mp3" length="49931331" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[You might think we each have a moral duty to expose any serious misconduct, dishonesty, or illegal activity we discover in an organization, especially when such conduct directly threatens the public interest. However, increasingly we are seeing whistleblowers punished more harshly than the alleged wrongdoers, who often seem to get off scot-free. Given the possibility of harsh retaliation, how should we understand our moral duty to tell the truth and reveal wrongdoing? Should we think of whistleblowers as selfless martyrs, as traitors, or as something else? Do we need to change the laws to provide greater protection for whistleblowers? John and Ken welcome our era&#8217;s most renowned whistleblower, former CIA analyst Edward Snowden, for a program recorded as part of the Stanford Symbolic Systems Program Distinguished Speaker series.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/uvbhAMNnNY-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[You might think we each have a moral duty to expose any serious misconduct, dishonesty, or illegal activity we discover in an organization, especially when such conduct directly threatens the public interest. However, increasingly we are seeing whistleblowers punished more harshly than the alleged wrongdoers, who often seem to get off scot-free. Given the possibility of harsh retaliation, how should we understand our moral duty to tell the truth and reveal wrongdoing? Should we think of whistleblowers as selfless martyrs, as traitors, or as something else? Do we need to change the laws to provide greater protection for whistleblowers? John and Ken welcome our era&#8217;s most renowned whistleblower, former CIA analyst Edward Snowden, for a program recorded as part of the Stanford Symbolic Systems Program Distinguished Speaker series.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/uvbhAMNnNY-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Heidegger</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/heidegger/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2015 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/heidegger/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Best known for his work Being and Time, Martin Heidegger has been hailed by many as the greatest philosopher of the twentieth century. He has also been criticized for being both nearly unreadable and a Nazi. Yet there is no disputing his seminal place in the history of Western thought. So what did Heidegger mean when he wrote about world, being, and time? What significance does he still hold as a thinker today, especially as a philosopher of modern technology? Should we even read the works of a Nazi? John and Ken are present and ready with Thomas Sheehan from Stanford University, author of Making Sense of Heidegger: A Paradigm Shift.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Best known for his work Being and Time, Martin Heidegger has been hailed by many as the greatest philosopher of the twentieth century. He has also been criticized for being both nearly unreadable and a Nazi. Yet there is no disputing his seminal place in]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Best known for his work Being and Time, Martin Heidegger has been hailed by many as the greatest philosopher of the twentieth century. He has also been criticized for being both nearly unreadable and a Nazi. Yet there is no disputing his seminal place in the history of Western thought. So what did Heidegger mean when he wrote about world, being, and time? What significance does he still hold as a thinker today, especially as a philosopher of modern technology? Should we even read the works of a Nazi? John and Ken are present and ready with Thomas Sheehan from Stanford University, author of Making Sense of Heidegger: A Paradigm Shift.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/245/heidegger.mp3" length="48271777" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Best known for his work Being and Time, Martin Heidegger has been hailed by many as the greatest philosopher of the twentieth century. He has also been criticized for being both nearly unreadable and a Nazi. Yet there is no disputing his seminal place in the history of Western thought. So what did Heidegger mean when he wrote about world, being, and time? What significance does he still hold as a thinker today, especially as a philosopher of modern technology? Should we even read the works of a Nazi? John and Ken are present and ready with Thomas Sheehan from Stanford University, author of Making Sense of Heidegger: A Paradigm Shift.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/XxdEAMERj0I-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Best known for his work Being and Time, Martin Heidegger has been hailed by many as the greatest philosopher of the twentieth century. He has also been criticized for being both nearly unreadable and a Nazi. Yet there is no disputing his seminal place in the history of Western thought. So what did Heidegger mean when he wrote about world, being, and time? What significance does he still hold as a thinker today, especially as a philosopher of modern technology? Should we even read the works of a Nazi? John and Ken are present and ready with Thomas Sheehan from Stanford University, author of Making Sense of Heidegger: A Paradigm Shift.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/XxdEAMERj0I-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Summer Reading List 2015</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/summer-reading-list-2015/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 21 Jun 2015 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/summer-reading-list-2015/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Summer is here – what philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues do you want to read up on? Heidegger&#8217;s Being and Time may not be the obvious choice to take on vacation, but there are lots of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your summer reading. John and Ken take suggestions from listeners and special guests: Lars Iyer, author of Wittgenstein Jr (A Novel); Berit Brogaard, author of On Romantic Love: Simple Truth About a Complex Emotion; and Jane Hirshfield, author of The Beauty and Ten Windows: How Great Poems Transform the World.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Summer is here – what philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues do you want to read up on? Heidegger&#8217;s Being and Time may not be the obvious choice to take on vacation, but there are lots of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-class]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Summer is here – what philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues do you want to read up on? Heidegger&#8217;s Being and Time may not be the obvious choice to take on vacation, but there are lots of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your summer reading. John and Ken take suggestions from listeners and special guests: Lars Iyer, author of Wittgenstein Jr (A Novel); Berit Brogaard, author of On Romantic Love: Simple Truth About a Complex Emotion; and Jane Hirshfield, author of The Beauty and Ten Windows: How Great Poems Transform the World.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/247/summer-reading-list-2015.mp3" length="49272210" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Summer is here – what philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues do you want to read up on? Heidegger&#8217;s Being and Time may not be the obvious choice to take on vacation, but there are lots of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your summer reading. John and Ken take suggestions from listeners and special guests: Lars Iyer, author of Wittgenstein Jr (A Novel); Berit Brogaard, author of On Romantic Love: Simple Truth About a Complex Emotion; and Jane Hirshfield, author of The Beauty and Ten Windows: How Great Poems Transform the World.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/jTliWvkoFw8.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Summer is here – what philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues do you want to read up on? Heidegger&#8217;s Being and Time may not be the obvious choice to take on vacation, but there are lots of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your summer reading. John and Ken take suggestions from listeners and special guests: Lars Iyer, author of Wittgenstein Jr (A Novel); Berit Brogaard, author of On Romantic Love: Simple Truth About a Complex Emotion; and Jane Hirshfield, author of The Beauty and Ten Windows: How Great Poems Transform the World.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/jTliWvkoFw8.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Science and Politics &#8211; Friends or Foes?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/science-and-politics-friends-or-foes/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 14 Jun 2015 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/science-and-politics-friends-or-foes/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The ideal of science is objectivity in the service of advancing knowledge. We tend to assume that to be objective, scientists must keep their politics from influencing their work. But time and time again we see that science, even some of our best science, is awash in political influences. Could politics sometimes have a positive effect on objectivity in science? If so, which kinds of politics might have a positive effect and which might not? What criteria could we use to make the distinction? And does &#8216;objectivity&#8217; still have meaning in this context? John and Ken take all sides with Sharyn Clough from Oregon State University, author of Beyond Epistemology: A Pragmatist Approach to Feminist Science Studies.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The ideal of science is objectivity in the service of advancing knowledge. We tend to assume that to be objective, scientists must keep their politics from influencing their work. But time and time again we see that science, even some of our best science]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The ideal of science is objectivity in the service of advancing knowledge. We tend to assume that to be objective, scientists must keep their politics from influencing their work. But time and time again we see that science, even some of our best science, is awash in political influences. Could politics sometimes have a positive effect on objectivity in science? If so, which kinds of politics might have a positive effect and which might not? What criteria could we use to make the distinction? And does &#8216;objectivity&#8217; still have meaning in this context? John and Ken take all sides with Sharyn Clough from Oregon State University, author of Beyond Epistemology: A Pragmatist Approach to Feminist Science Studies.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/243/science-and-politics-friends-or-foes.mp3" length="48903314" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The ideal of science is objectivity in the service of advancing knowledge. We tend to assume that to be objective, scientists must keep their politics from influencing their work. But time and time again we see that science, even some of our best science, is awash in political influences. Could politics sometimes have a positive effect on objectivity in science? If so, which kinds of politics might have a positive effect and which might not? What criteria could we use to make the distinction? And does &#8216;objectivity&#8217; still have meaning in this context? John and Ken take all sides with Sharyn Clough from Oregon State University, author of Beyond Epistemology: A Pragmatist Approach to Feminist Science Studies.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/si_DE-mnWPg.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The ideal of science is objectivity in the service of advancing knowledge. We tend to assume that to be objective, scientists must keep their politics from influencing their work. But time and time again we see that science, even some of our best science, is awash in political influences. Could politics sometimes have a positive effect on objectivity in science? If so, which kinds of politics might have a positive effect and which might not? What criteria could we use to make the distinction? And does &#8216;objectivity&#8217; still have meaning in this context? John and Ken take all sides with Sharyn Clough from Oregon State University, author of Beyond Epistemology: A Pragmatist Approach to Feminist Science Studies.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/si_DE-mnWPg.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Why Propaganda Matters</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/why-propaganda-matters/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 31 May 2015 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/why-propaganda-matters/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Governments and other political institutions employ propaganda to sway public opinion, instill ideas, and exert a degree of control over people. While totalitarian regimes have been known to do this explicitly, democratic governments often disguise their propaganda with persuasive rhetoric. So what exactly constitutes propaganda and how does it work? Does it always involve lies or falsehoods? Can propaganda ever be morally justified or is it a pernicious form of communication? John and Ken trade slogans with Jason Stanley from Yale University, author of How Propaganda Works.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Governments and other political institutions employ propaganda to sway public opinion, instill ideas, and exert a degree of control over people. While totalitarian regimes have been known to do this explicitly, democratic governments often disguise their]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Governments and other political institutions employ propaganda to sway public opinion, instill ideas, and exert a degree of control over people. While totalitarian regimes have been known to do this explicitly, democratic governments often disguise their propaganda with persuasive rhetoric. So what exactly constitutes propaganda and how does it work? Does it always involve lies or falsehoods? Can propaganda ever be morally justified or is it a pernicious form of communication? John and Ken trade slogans with Jason Stanley from Yale University, author of How Propaganda Works.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/241/why-propaganda-matters.mp3" length="48183843" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Governments and other political institutions employ propaganda to sway public opinion, instill ideas, and exert a degree of control over people. While totalitarian regimes have been known to do this explicitly, democratic governments often disguise their propaganda with persuasive rhetoric. So what exactly constitutes propaganda and how does it work? Does it always involve lies or falsehoods? Can propaganda ever be morally justified or is it a pernicious form of communication? John and Ken trade slogans with Jason Stanley from Yale University, author of How Propaganda Works.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/0tXAc1t7VLA-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Governments and other political institutions employ propaganda to sway public opinion, instill ideas, and exert a degree of control over people. While totalitarian regimes have been known to do this explicitly, democratic governments often disguise their propaganda with persuasive rhetoric. So what exactly constitutes propaganda and how does it work? Does it always involve lies or falsehoods? Can propaganda ever be morally justified or is it a pernicious form of communication? John and Ken trade slogans with Jason Stanley from Yale University, author of How Propaganda Works.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/0tXAc1t7VLA-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>How Words Work &#8211; From Noise to Meaning</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/how-words-work-noise-meaning/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 17 May 2015 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/how-words-work-noise-meaning/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Humans have an amazing capacity to communicate. By uttering sounds we are able to convey meaning to those around us. These noises we make take on properties – they mean certain things, they are true or false, etc. Some animals also use forms of language: bees, for example, use dances and pheromones to communicate with each other. What gives these signals – words and movements – their linguistic meaning? How is it possible to communicate complex propositions simply by making sound? John and Ken cut through the noise with celebrated philosopher of language John Searle, in a program recorded live at the Marsh Theatre in Berkeley.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Humans have an amazing capacity to communicate. By uttering sounds we are able to convey meaning to those around us. These noises we make take on properties – they mean certain things, they are true or false, etc. Some animals also use forms of language:]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Humans have an amazing capacity to communicate. By uttering sounds we are able to convey meaning to those around us. These noises we make take on properties – they mean certain things, they are true or false, etc. Some animals also use forms of language: bees, for example, use dances and pheromones to communicate with each other. What gives these signals – words and movements – their linguistic meaning? How is it possible to communicate complex propositions simply by making sound? John and Ken cut through the noise with celebrated philosopher of language John Searle, in a program recorded live at the Marsh Theatre in Berkeley.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/237/how-words-work-noise-meaning.mp3" length="48629133" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Humans have an amazing capacity to communicate. By uttering sounds we are able to convey meaning to those around us. These noises we make take on properties – they mean certain things, they are true or false, etc. Some animals also use forms of language: bees, for example, use dances and pheromones to communicate with each other. What gives these signals – words and movements – their linguistic meaning? How is it possible to communicate complex propositions simply by making sound? John and Ken cut through the noise with celebrated philosopher of language John Searle, in a program recorded live at the Marsh Theatre in Berkeley.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/e2L6GijsXt8.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Humans have an amazing capacity to communicate. By uttering sounds we are able to convey meaning to those around us. These noises we make take on properties – they mean certain things, they are true or false, etc. Some animals also use forms of language: bees, for example, use dances and pheromones to communicate with each other. What gives these signals – words and movements – their linguistic meaning? How is it possible to communicate complex propositions simply by making sound? John and Ken cut through the noise with celebrated philosopher of language John Searle, in a program recorded live at the Marsh Theatre in Berkeley.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/e2L6GijsXt8.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Reincarnation &#8211; Past Lives, Future Selves</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/reincarnation-past-lives-future-selves/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 03 May 2015 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/reincarnation-past-lives-future-selves/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[According to Buddhist tradition, all people must suffer illness, aging, and death. Yet the universe is seen as a vast living entity, in which cycles of individual life and death are repeated without cease. Therefore death is a necessary part of the process of life, making renewal and new growth possible. So what does this view mean about the eternality of the self? Is there a single subject or consciousness that persists through all the cycles of death and rebirth? What are the karmic consequences of one’s moral acts for future lives? And how can the view of endless death and rebirth lead to greater compassion for all life? John and Ken revisit their past with Robert Thurman from Columbia University, author of Infinite Life: Awakening to Bliss Within.
Part of our series Visions of Immortality.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[According to Buddhist tradition, all people must suffer illness, aging, and death. Yet the universe is seen as a vast living entity, in which cycles of individual life and death are repeated without cease. Therefore death is a necessary part of the proce]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[According to Buddhist tradition, all people must suffer illness, aging, and death. Yet the universe is seen as a vast living entity, in which cycles of individual life and death are repeated without cease. Therefore death is a necessary part of the process of life, making renewal and new growth possible. So what does this view mean about the eternality of the self? Is there a single subject or consciousness that persists through all the cycles of death and rebirth? What are the karmic consequences of one’s moral acts for future lives? And how can the view of endless death and rebirth lead to greater compassion for all life? John and Ken revisit their past with Robert Thurman from Columbia University, author of Infinite Life: Awakening to Bliss Within.
Part of our series Visions of Immortality.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/235/reincarnation-past-lives-future-selves.mp3" length="45985445" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[According to Buddhist tradition, all people must suffer illness, aging, and death. Yet the universe is seen as a vast living entity, in which cycles of individual life and death are repeated without cease. Therefore death is a necessary part of the process of life, making renewal and new growth possible. So what does this view mean about the eternality of the self? Is there a single subject or consciousness that persists through all the cycles of death and rebirth? What are the karmic consequences of one’s moral acts for future lives? And how can the view of endless death and rebirth lead to greater compassion for all life? John and Ken revisit their past with Robert Thurman from Columbia University, author of Infinite Life: Awakening to Bliss Within.
Part of our series Visions of Immortality.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/EGyPc_sVQYM.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[According to Buddhist tradition, all people must suffer illness, aging, and death. Yet the universe is seen as a vast living entity, in which cycles of individual life and death are repeated without cease. Therefore death is a necessary part of the process of life, making renewal and new growth possible. So what does this view mean about the eternality of the self? Is there a single subject or consciousness that persists through all the cycles of death and rebirth? What are the karmic consequences of one’s moral acts for future lives? And how can the view of endless death and rebirth lead to greater compassion for all life? John and Ken revisit their past with Robert Thurman from Columbia University, author of Infinite Life: Awakening to Bliss Within.
Part of our series Visions of Immortality.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/EGyPc_sVQYM.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>When Democracies Torture</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/when-democracies-torture/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2015 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/when-democracies-torture/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Torture is prohibited under international law and is widely considered a human rights violation. But despite the fact that 157 countries ratified the UN Convention Against Torture, it is still practiced in many states to this day. Moreover, while we might associate torture with dictatorships, liberal democracies pioneered the modern techniques that leave no physical trace. So why do democracies torture? Can calling torture by other names, such as “enhanced interrogation,” really resolve the deep conflict between what we say and what we do? Or has the taboo against torture finally been broken? John and Ken enhance their interrogation of Darius Rejali from Reed College, author of Torture and Democracy.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Torture is prohibited under international law and is widely considered a human rights violation. But despite the fact that 157 countries ratified the UN Convention Against Torture, it is still practiced in many states to this day. Moreover, while we migh]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Torture is prohibited under international law and is widely considered a human rights violation. But despite the fact that 157 countries ratified the UN Convention Against Torture, it is still practiced in many states to this day. Moreover, while we might associate torture with dictatorships, liberal democracies pioneered the modern techniques that leave no physical trace. So why do democracies torture? Can calling torture by other names, such as “enhanced interrogation,” really resolve the deep conflict between what we say and what we do? Or has the taboo against torture finally been broken? John and Ken enhance their interrogation of Darius Rejali from Reed College, author of Torture and Democracy.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/239/when-democracies-torture.mp3" length="48330547" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Torture is prohibited under international law and is widely considered a human rights violation. But despite the fact that 157 countries ratified the UN Convention Against Torture, it is still practiced in many states to this day. Moreover, while we might associate torture with dictatorships, liberal democracies pioneered the modern techniques that leave no physical trace. So why do democracies torture? Can calling torture by other names, such as “enhanced interrogation,” really resolve the deep conflict between what we say and what we do? Or has the taboo against torture finally been broken? John and Ken enhance their interrogation of Darius Rejali from Reed College, author of Torture and Democracy.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/DUCOdw5Axh4.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Torture is prohibited under international law and is widely considered a human rights violation. But despite the fact that 157 countries ratified the UN Convention Against Torture, it is still practiced in many states to this day. Moreover, while we might associate torture with dictatorships, liberal democracies pioneered the modern techniques that leave no physical trace. So why do democracies torture? Can calling torture by other names, such as “enhanced interrogation,” really resolve the deep conflict between what we say and what we do? Or has the taboo against torture finally been broken? John and Ken enhance their interrogation of Darius Rejali from Reed College, author of Torture and Democracy.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/DUCOdw5Axh4.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Art of Non-Violence</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/art-non-violence/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Apr 2015 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/art-non-violence/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[We all hope for peace. Yet in the face of violence, it often seems the only recourse is more violence. Advocates of non-violence claim it’s not necessary to respond to war in kind, and that responding violently, even in self-defense, just perpetuates the cycle of violence. So how can we practice non-violence under the direct threat of violence? Can non-violent acts be spread to stop aggression and war? And are there times when violence is, in fact, necessary? John and Ken keep the peace with Judith Butler from UC Berkeley, author of The Force of Non-Violence: An Ethico-Political Bind.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[We all hope for peace. Yet in the face of violence, it often seems the only recourse is more violence. Advocates of non-violence claim it’s not necessary to respond to war in kind, and that responding violently, even in self-defense, just perpetuates the]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[We all hope for peace. Yet in the face of violence, it often seems the only recourse is more violence. Advocates of non-violence claim it’s not necessary to respond to war in kind, and that responding violently, even in self-defense, just perpetuates the cycle of violence. So how can we practice non-violence under the direct threat of violence? Can non-violent acts be spread to stop aggression and war? And are there times when violence is, in fact, necessary? John and Ken keep the peace with Judith Butler from UC Berkeley, author of The Force of Non-Violence: An Ethico-Political Bind.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/231/art-non-violence.mp3" length="49143478" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[We all hope for peace. Yet in the face of violence, it often seems the only recourse is more violence. Advocates of non-violence claim it’s not necessary to respond to war in kind, and that responding violently, even in self-defense, just perpetuates the cycle of violence. So how can we practice non-violence under the direct threat of violence? Can non-violent acts be spread to stop aggression and war? And are there times when violence is, in fact, necessary? John and Ken keep the peace with Judith Butler from UC Berkeley, author of The Force of Non-Violence: An Ethico-Political Bind.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/JudithButler2013.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[We all hope for peace. Yet in the face of violence, it often seems the only recourse is more violence. Advocates of non-violence claim it’s not necessary to respond to war in kind, and that responding violently, even in self-defense, just perpetuates the cycle of violence. So how can we practice non-violence under the direct threat of violence? Can non-violent acts be spread to stop aggression and war? And are there times when violence is, in fact, necessary? John and Ken keep the peace with Judith Butler from UC Berkeley, author of The Force of Non-Violence: An Ethico-Political Bind.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/JudithButler2013.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Morality in a Godless World</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/morality-godless-world/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2015 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/morality-godless-world/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Belief in God is thought by many to be the only possible source of morality, such that without a God, “everything is permitted.” Yet godlessness is on the rise in the West, with figures like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Lawrence Krauss leading the “New Atheism” movement. But if atheism is defined by its lack of belief, where do these non-believers find their guiding moral principles? Are there any positive beliefs or values that atheists have in common? If so, are they based on a rational, scientific framework, or must non-believers, like believers, ultimately rely on faith? John and Ken welcome John Figdor, a Humanist chaplain at Stanford University and co-author of Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart: Rewriting the Ten Commandments for the Twenty-First Century, for a program recorded live on campus.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Belief in God is thought by many to be the only possible source of morality, such that without a God, “everything is permitted.” Yet godlessness is on the rise in the West, with figures like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Lawrence Krauss leading the “N]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Belief in God is thought by many to be the only possible source of morality, such that without a God, “everything is permitted.” Yet godlessness is on the rise in the West, with figures like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Lawrence Krauss leading the “New Atheism” movement. But if atheism is defined by its lack of belief, where do these non-believers find their guiding moral principles? Are there any positive beliefs or values that atheists have in common? If so, are they based on a rational, scientific framework, or must non-believers, like believers, ultimately rely on faith? John and Ken welcome John Figdor, a Humanist chaplain at Stanford University and co-author of Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart: Rewriting the Ten Commandments for the Twenty-First Century, for a program recorded live on campus.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/209/morality-godless-world.mp3" length="48142628" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Belief in God is thought by many to be the only possible source of morality, such that without a God, “everything is permitted.” Yet godlessness is on the rise in the West, with figures like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Lawrence Krauss leading the “New Atheism” movement. But if atheism is defined by its lack of belief, where do these non-believers find their guiding moral principles? Are there any positive beliefs or values that atheists have in common? If so, are they based on a rational, scientific framework, or must non-believers, like believers, ultimately rely on faith? John and Ken welcome John Figdor, a Humanist chaplain at Stanford University and co-author of Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart: Rewriting the Ten Commandments for the Twenty-First Century, for a program recorded live on campus.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/hK5Vhk7gx90-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Belief in God is thought by many to be the only possible source of morality, such that without a God, “everything is permitted.” Yet godlessness is on the rise in the West, with figures like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Lawrence Krauss leading the “New Atheism” movement. But if atheism is defined by its lack of belief, where do these non-believers find their guiding moral principles? Are there any positive beliefs or values that atheists have in common? If so, are they based on a rational, scientific framework, or must non-believers, like believers, ultimately rely on faith? John and Ken welcome John Figdor, a Humanist chaplain at Stanford University and co-author of Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart: Rewriting the Ten Commandments for the Twenty-First Century, for a program recorded live on campus.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/hK5Vhk7gx90-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Democracy in Crisis</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/democracy-crisis/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 22 Mar 2015 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/democracy-crisis/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Democratic systems of government are supposed to reflect the interests of ordinary citizens, and not some shadowy political elite. But more and more, we see the influence of big money and special interest groups in so-called democratic politics, while income inequality and voter suppression grow. With millions convinced that politicians don’t speak for them, is there a &#8220;crisis of representation&#8221; in the US? Are these problems a result of political decay in our institutions, or is democracy in trouble everywhere? How can we achieve an efficient and prosperous democracy in which the average citizen is truly represented? Should we consider a radically different system of government? John and Ken keep calm with renowned political scientist Francis Fukuyama, author of Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. This program was recorded live on the Stanford University campus.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Democratic systems of government are supposed to reflect the interests of ordinary citizens, and not some shadowy political elite. But more and more, we see the influence of big money and special interest groups in so-called democratic politics, while in]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Democratic systems of government are supposed to reflect the interests of ordinary citizens, and not some shadowy political elite. But more and more, we see the influence of big money and special interest groups in so-called democratic politics, while income inequality and voter suppression grow. With millions convinced that politicians don’t speak for them, is there a &#8220;crisis of representation&#8221; in the US? Are these problems a result of political decay in our institutions, or is democracy in trouble everywhere? How can we achieve an efficient and prosperous democracy in which the average citizen is truly represented? Should we consider a radically different system of government? John and Ken keep calm with renowned political scientist Francis Fukuyama, author of Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. This program was recorded live on the Stanford University campus.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/213/democracy-crisis.mp3" length="24319296" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Democratic systems of government are supposed to reflect the interests of ordinary citizens, and not some shadowy political elite. But more and more, we see the influence of big money and special interest groups in so-called democratic politics, while income inequality and voter suppression grow. With millions convinced that politicians don’t speak for them, is there a &#8220;crisis of representation&#8221; in the US? Are these problems a result of political decay in our institutions, or is democracy in trouble everywhere? How can we achieve an efficient and prosperous democracy in which the average citizen is truly represented? Should we consider a radically different system of government? John and Ken keep calm with renowned political scientist Francis Fukuyama, author of Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. This program was recorded live on the Stanford University campus.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/68a_BArIqpw-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Democratic systems of government are supposed to reflect the interests of ordinary citizens, and not some shadowy political elite. But more and more, we see the influence of big money and special interest groups in so-called democratic politics, while income inequality and voter suppression grow. With millions convinced that politicians don’t speak for them, is there a &#8220;crisis of representation&#8221; in the US? Are these problems a result of political decay in our institutions, or is democracy in trouble everywhere? How can we achieve an efficient and prosperous democracy in which the average citizen is truly represented? Should we consider a radically different system of government? John and Ken keep calm with renowned political scientist Francis Fukuyama, author of Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. This program was recorded live on the Stanford University campus.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/68a_BArIqpw-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Diseases of the Mind: Philosophy of Psychiatry</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/diseases-mind-philosophy-psychiatry/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2015 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/diseases-mind-philosophy-psychiatry/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual is the primary reference catalog for mental health illnesses. But whereas a medical textbook will show you the picture of a broken bone or a tumor, leaf through the DSM and you will find just one thing: lists of symptoms. Who creates these lists, and based on what criteria? Do such lists really capture the nature of a mental illness? What does it mean to be a disease of the mind versus a disease of the body? Does our classification system construct mental illness, or does it reveal underlying facts from genetics or neuroscience? John and Ken diagnose the issues with Jerome Wakefield from NYU, co-author of The Loss of Sadness: How Psychiatry Transformed Normal Sorrow Into Depressive Disorder.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual is the primary reference catalog for mental health illnesses. But whereas a medical textbook will show you the picture of a broken bone or a tumor, leaf through the DSM and you will find just one thing: lists of symp]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual is the primary reference catalog for mental health illnesses. But whereas a medical textbook will show you the picture of a broken bone or a tumor, leaf through the DSM and you will find just one thing: lists of symptoms. Who creates these lists, and based on what criteria? Do such lists really capture the nature of a mental illness? What does it mean to be a disease of the mind versus a disease of the body? Does our classification system construct mental illness, or does it reveal underlying facts from genetics or neuroscience? John and Ken diagnose the issues with Jerome Wakefield from NYU, co-author of The Loss of Sadness: How Psychiatry Transformed Normal Sorrow Into Depressive Disorder.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/221/diseases-mind-philosophy-psychiatry.mp3" length="48151405" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual is the primary reference catalog for mental health illnesses. But whereas a medical textbook will show you the picture of a broken bone or a tumor, leaf through the DSM and you will find just one thing: lists of symptoms. Who creates these lists, and based on what criteria? Do such lists really capture the nature of a mental illness? What does it mean to be a disease of the mind versus a disease of the body? Does our classification system construct mental illness, or does it reveal underlying facts from genetics or neuroscience? John and Ken diagnose the issues with Jerome Wakefield from NYU, co-author of The Loss of Sadness: How Psychiatry Transformed Normal Sorrow Into Depressive Disorder.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/e6O4EFNVN38.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual is the primary reference catalog for mental health illnesses. But whereas a medical textbook will show you the picture of a broken bone or a tumor, leaf through the DSM and you will find just one thing: lists of symptoms. Who creates these lists, and based on what criteria? Do such lists really capture the nature of a mental illness? What does it mean to be a disease of the mind versus a disease of the body? Does our classification system construct mental illness, or does it reveal underlying facts from genetics or neuroscience? John and Ken diagnose the issues with Jerome Wakefield from NYU, co-author of The Loss of Sadness: How Psychiatry Transformed Normal Sorrow Into Depressive Disorder.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/e6O4EFNVN38.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Camus and the Absurd</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/camus-and-absurd/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 01 Mar 2015 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/camus-and-absurd/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Albert Camus is most famous for his existential works of fiction including The Stranger as well as his philosophical essay The Myth of Sisyphus. He led the French resistance press during Nazi Occupation and became one of the youngest Nobel laureates in literature. His contemporary, Hannah Arendt, described him as “head and shoulders above the other intellectuals.” How does Camus&#8217; philosophy of Absurdism compare and contrast with Sartre’s popular existentialism, especially in their conceptions of freedom? What political and philosophical issues of his time were he deeply involved in, and what relevance does his thinking still hold for the problems of contemporary life? John and Ken remain sensible with Robert Zaretsky from the University of Houston, author of A Life Worth Living: Albert Camus and the Quest for Meaning.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Albert Camus is most famous for his existential works of fiction including The Stranger as well as his philosophical essay The Myth of Sisyphus. He led the French resistance press during Nazi Occupation and became one of the youngest Nobel laureates in l]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Albert Camus is most famous for his existential works of fiction including The Stranger as well as his philosophical essay The Myth of Sisyphus. He led the French resistance press during Nazi Occupation and became one of the youngest Nobel laureates in literature. His contemporary, Hannah Arendt, described him as “head and shoulders above the other intellectuals.” How does Camus&#8217; philosophy of Absurdism compare and contrast with Sartre’s popular existentialism, especially in their conceptions of freedom? What political and philosophical issues of his time were he deeply involved in, and what relevance does his thinking still hold for the problems of contemporary life? John and Ken remain sensible with Robert Zaretsky from the University of Houston, author of A Life Worth Living: Albert Camus and the Quest for Meaning.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/227/camus-and-absurd.mp3" length="47770900" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Albert Camus is most famous for his existential works of fiction including The Stranger as well as his philosophical essay The Myth of Sisyphus. He led the French resistance press during Nazi Occupation and became one of the youngest Nobel laureates in literature. His contemporary, Hannah Arendt, described him as “head and shoulders above the other intellectuals.” How does Camus&#8217; philosophy of Absurdism compare and contrast with Sartre’s popular existentialism, especially in their conceptions of freedom? What political and philosophical issues of his time were he deeply involved in, and what relevance does his thinking still hold for the problems of contemporary life? John and Ken remain sensible with Robert Zaretsky from the University of Houston, author of A Life Worth Living: Albert Camus and the Quest for Meaning.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/9e45UT8-ToQ.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Albert Camus is most famous for his existential works of fiction including The Stranger as well as his philosophical essay The Myth of Sisyphus. He led the French resistance press during Nazi Occupation and became one of the youngest Nobel laureates in literature. His contemporary, Hannah Arendt, described him as “head and shoulders above the other intellectuals.” How does Camus&#8217; philosophy of Absurdism compare and contrast with Sartre’s popular existentialism, especially in their conceptions of freedom? What political and philosophical issues of his time were he deeply involved in, and what relevance does his thinking still hold for the problems of contemporary life? John and Ken remain sensible with Robert Zaretsky from the University of Houston, author of A Life Worth Living: Albert Camus and the Quest for Meaning.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/9e45UT8-ToQ.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Cyber-Activism</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/cyber-activism/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 15 Feb 2015 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/cyber-activism/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Whether it&#8217;s making donations and signing petitions online, or using social media to highlight political causes, cyber-activism has never been easier. With a few clicks, we can make our voices heard around the globe. But who&#8217;s listening, and is anything actually changing? Does cyber-activism mobilize real-world action on the ground, or does it reduce political engagement to simple mouse-clicking and ultimately threaten the subversive nature of change? John and Ken get active with Lucy Bernolz from the Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society, co-author of Disrupting Philanthropy: Technology and the Future of the Social Sector. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in San Francisco.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Whether it&#8217;s making donations and signing petitions online, or using social media to highlight political causes, cyber-activism has never been easier. With a few clicks, we can make our voices heard around the globe. But who&#8217;s listening, and ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Whether it&#8217;s making donations and signing petitions online, or using social media to highlight political causes, cyber-activism has never been easier. With a few clicks, we can make our voices heard around the globe. But who&#8217;s listening, and is anything actually changing? Does cyber-activism mobilize real-world action on the ground, or does it reduce political engagement to simple mouse-clicking and ultimately threaten the subversive nature of change? John and Ken get active with Lucy Bernolz from the Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society, co-author of Disrupting Philanthropy: Technology and the Future of the Social Sector. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in San Francisco.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/217/cyber-activism.mp3" length="48404271" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Whether it&#8217;s making donations and signing petitions online, or using social media to highlight political causes, cyber-activism has never been easier. With a few clicks, we can make our voices heard around the globe. But who&#8217;s listening, and is anything actually changing? Does cyber-activism mobilize real-world action on the ground, or does it reduce political engagement to simple mouse-clicking and ultimately threaten the subversive nature of change? John and Ken get active with Lucy Bernolz from the Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society, co-author of Disrupting Philanthropy: Technology and the Future of the Social Sector. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in San Francisco.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/wg9g2HH-09o.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Whether it&#8217;s making donations and signing petitions online, or using social media to highlight political causes, cyber-activism has never been easier. With a few clicks, we can make our voices heard around the globe. But who&#8217;s listening, and is anything actually changing? Does cyber-activism mobilize real-world action on the ground, or does it reduce political engagement to simple mouse-clicking and ultimately threaten the subversive nature of change? John and Ken get active with Lucy Bernolz from the Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society, co-author of Disrupting Philanthropy: Technology and the Future of the Social Sector. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in San Francisco.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/wg9g2HH-09o.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Food Justice</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/food-justice/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 01 Feb 2015 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/food-justice/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The number of chronically hungry people in the world is over 800 million, yet developed countries are facing health challenges from rising rates of obesity. The growing problems of food security and water scarcity seem an issue of distribution rather than availability. But other factors also influence the status of food and water security worldwide. So where does the problem with food and water security lie? Do developed countries – or any other entities or individuals – have any moral obligations to ensure a global network of water and food security? What practical, policy-oriented action can fulfill any moral obligations that might exist? John and Ken grab a bite with Tim Benton, Professor of Population Ecology at the University of Leeds and UK Champion for Global Food Security.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The number of chronically hungry people in the world is over 800 million, yet developed countries are facing health challenges from rising rates of obesity. The growing problems of food security and water scarcity seem an issue of distribution rather tha]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The number of chronically hungry people in the world is over 800 million, yet developed countries are facing health challenges from rising rates of obesity. The growing problems of food security and water scarcity seem an issue of distribution rather than availability. But other factors also influence the status of food and water security worldwide. So where does the problem with food and water security lie? Do developed countries – or any other entities or individuals – have any moral obligations to ensure a global network of water and food security? What practical, policy-oriented action can fulfill any moral obligations that might exist? John and Ken grab a bite with Tim Benton, Professor of Population Ecology at the University of Leeds and UK Champion for Global Food Security.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/223/food-justice.mp3" length="25530515" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The number of chronically hungry people in the world is over 800 million, yet developed countries are facing health challenges from rising rates of obesity. The growing problems of food security and water scarcity seem an issue of distribution rather than availability. But other factors also influence the status of food and water security worldwide. So where does the problem with food and water security lie? Do developed countries – or any other entities or individuals – have any moral obligations to ensure a global network of water and food security? What practical, policy-oriented action can fulfill any moral obligations that might exist? John and Ken grab a bite with Tim Benton, Professor of Population Ecology at the University of Leeds and UK Champion for Global Food Security.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/dRLP0Vkt_mI-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The number of chronically hungry people in the world is over 800 million, yet developed countries are facing health challenges from rising rates of obesity. The growing problems of food security and water scarcity seem an issue of distribution rather than availability. But other factors also influence the status of food and water security worldwide. So where does the problem with food and water security lie? Do developed countries – or any other entities or individuals – have any moral obligations to ensure a global network of water and food security? What practical, policy-oriented action can fulfill any moral obligations that might exist? John and Ken grab a bite with Tim Benton, Professor of Population Ecology at the University of Leeds and UK Champion for Global Food Security.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/dRLP0Vkt_mI-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Anarchy: Utopian Dream or Dystopian Nightmare?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/anarchy-utopian-dream-or-dystopian-nightmare/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2015 16:29:12 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=12125</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Anarchism says there&#8217;s no need for a state, that it would be better to have a society without central government. Anarchists dislike the often heavy-handed authority that government brings. Yet the dream of the stateless society is not a simple one. How can we have law and order without government? What&#8217;s involved in a self-governed society, free from authority? And how could we ever peacefully transition from central governance to anarchy? John and Ken question authority with James Martel from San Francisco State University, editor of How Not To Be Governed: Readings and Interpretations from a Critical Anarchist Left. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in San Francisco.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Anarchism says there&#8217;s no need for a state, that it would be better to have a society without central government. Anarchists dislike the often heavy-handed authority that government brings. Yet the dream of the stateless society is not a simple one]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Anarchism says there&#8217;s no need for a state, that it would be better to have a society without central government. Anarchists dislike the often heavy-handed authority that government brings. Yet the dream of the stateless society is not a simple one. How can we have law and order without government? What&#8217;s involved in a self-governed society, free from authority? And how could we ever peacefully transition from central governance to anarchy? John and Ken question authority with James Martel from San Francisco State University, editor of How Not To Be Governed: Readings and Interpretations from a Critical Anarchist Left. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in San Francisco.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/12125/anarchy-utopian-dream-or-dystopian-nightmare.mp3" length="24187392" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Anarchism says there&#8217;s no need for a state, that it would be better to have a society without central government. Anarchists dislike the often heavy-handed authority that government brings. Yet the dream of the stateless society is not a simple one. How can we have law and order without government? What&#8217;s involved in a self-governed society, free from authority? And how could we ever peacefully transition from central governance to anarchy? John and Ken question authority with James Martel from San Francisco State University, editor of How Not To Be Governed: Readings and Interpretations from a Critical Anarchist Left. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in San Francisco.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/EcYAGWkjjw8.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Anarchism says there&#8217;s no need for a state, that it would be better to have a society without central government. Anarchists dislike the often heavy-handed authority that government brings. Yet the dream of the stateless society is not a simple one. How can we have law and order without government? What&#8217;s involved in a self-governed society, free from authority? And how could we ever peacefully transition from central governance to anarchy? John and Ken question authority with James Martel from San Francisco State University, editor of How Not To Be Governed: Readings and Interpretations from a Critical Anarchist Left. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in San Francisco.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/EcYAGWkjjw8.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>What&#8217;s Next? Death and the Afterlife</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/whats-next-death-and-afterlife/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jan 2015 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/whats-next-death-and-afterlife/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The question of what happens to us after we die remains as mysterious now as it always was. Some think that death amounts to total annihilation of the self; others adhere to certain religious traditions, which teach that the immaterial soul (and, in some traditions, the resurrected body) can ultimately survive death. So how are we to judge between these radically different views of what happens to us in death? What would it mean for the self to persist beyond the destruction of the body? Is there room in a scientific account of the mind for the existence of an immaterial soul? John and Ken see the light with Richard Swinburne from the University of Oxford, author of Mind, Brain, and Free Will.
Part of our series Visions of Immortality.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The question of what happens to us after we die remains as mysterious now as it always was. Some think that death amounts to total annihilation of the self; others adhere to certain religious traditions, which teach that the immaterial soul (and, in some]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The question of what happens to us after we die remains as mysterious now as it always was. Some think that death amounts to total annihilation of the self; others adhere to certain religious traditions, which teach that the immaterial soul (and, in some traditions, the resurrected body) can ultimately survive death. So how are we to judge between these radically different views of what happens to us in death? What would it mean for the self to persist beyond the destruction of the body? Is there room in a scientific account of the mind for the existence of an immaterial soul? John and Ken see the light with Richard Swinburne from the University of Oxford, author of Mind, Brain, and Free Will.
Part of our series Visions of Immortality.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/207/whats-next-death-and-afterlife.mp3" length="48819560" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The question of what happens to us after we die remains as mysterious now as it always was. Some think that death amounts to total annihilation of the self; others adhere to certain religious traditions, which teach that the immaterial soul (and, in some traditions, the resurrected body) can ultimately survive death. So how are we to judge between these radically different views of what happens to us in death? What would it mean for the self to persist beyond the destruction of the body? Is there room in a scientific account of the mind for the existence of an immaterial soul? John and Ken see the light with Richard Swinburne from the University of Oxford, author of Mind, Brain, and Free Will.
Part of our series Visions of Immortality.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/NsbDUzh1bWI-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The question of what happens to us after we die remains as mysterious now as it always was. Some think that death amounts to total annihilation of the self; others adhere to certain religious traditions, which teach that the immaterial soul (and, in some traditions, the resurrected body) can ultimately survive death. So how are we to judge between these radically different views of what happens to us in death? What would it mean for the self to persist beyond the destruction of the body? Is there room in a scientific account of the mind for the existence of an immaterial soul? John and Ken see the light with Richard Swinburne from the University of Oxford, author of Mind, Brain, and Free Will.
Part of our series Visions of Immortality.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/NsbDUzh1bWI-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Examined Year &#8211; 2014</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/examined-year-2014/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 04 Jan 2015 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/examined-year-2014/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The unexamined year is not worth reviewing. But what ideas and events that took shape over the past year have prompted us to question our assumptions and to think about things in new ways? What significant events – in politics, in science, and in philosophy itself – have called into question our most deeply-held beliefs? John and Ken celebrate the examined year with a philosophical look back at the year that was 2014:
• The Year in Academic Freedom with Katherine Franke, Professor of Law at Columbia University and Director of the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law
• The Year in Race and Justice with Chris Lebron, Professor of Philosophy and African-American Studies at Yale University and author of The Color Of Our Shame: Race and Justice In Our Time
• The Year in Neuroscience and the Brain with Rudolph Tanzi, Professor of Neurology at Harvard University and Director of the Genetics and Aging Research Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The unexamined year is not worth reviewing. But what ideas and events that took shape over the past year have prompted us to question our assumptions and to think about things in new ways? What significant events – in politics, in science, and in philoso]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The unexamined year is not worth reviewing. But what ideas and events that took shape over the past year have prompted us to question our assumptions and to think about things in new ways? What significant events – in politics, in science, and in philosophy itself – have called into question our most deeply-held beliefs? John and Ken celebrate the examined year with a philosophical look back at the year that was 2014:
• The Year in Academic Freedom with Katherine Franke, Professor of Law at Columbia University and Director of the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law
• The Year in Race and Justice with Chris Lebron, Professor of Philosophy and African-American Studies at Yale University and author of The Color Of Our Shame: Race and Justice In Our Time
• The Year in Neuroscience and the Brain with Rudolph Tanzi, Professor of Neurology at Harvard University and Director of the Genetics and Aging Research Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/126/examined-year-2014.mp3" length="50005472" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The unexamined year is not worth reviewing. But what ideas and events that took shape over the past year have prompted us to question our assumptions and to think about things in new ways? What significant events – in politics, in science, and in philosophy itself – have called into question our most deeply-held beliefs? John and Ken celebrate the examined year with a philosophical look back at the year that was 2014:
• The Year in Academic Freedom with Katherine Franke, Professor of Law at Columbia University and Director of the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law
• The Year in Race and Justice with Chris Lebron, Professor of Philosophy and African-American Studies at Yale University and author of The Color Of Our Shame: Race and Justice In Our Time
• The Year in Neuroscience and the Brain with Rudolph Tanzi, Professor of Neurology at Harvard University and Director of the Genetics and Aging Research Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/LhXNBTxZFgE.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The unexamined year is not worth reviewing. But what ideas and events that took shape over the past year have prompted us to question our assumptions and to think about things in new ways? What significant events – in politics, in science, and in philosophy itself – have called into question our most deeply-held beliefs? John and Ken celebrate the examined year with a philosophical look back at the year that was 2014:
• The Year in Academic Freedom with Katherine Franke, Professor of Law at Columbia University and Director of the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law
• The Year in Race and Justice with Chris Lebron, Professor of Philosophy and African-American Studies at Yale University and author of The Color Of Our Shame: Race and Justice In Our Time
• The Year in Neuroscience and the Brain with Rudolph Tanzi, Professor of Neurology at Harvard University and Director of the Genetics and Aging Research Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/LhXNBTxZFgE.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Humanity Violated</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/humanity-violated/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 21 Dec 2014 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6997</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[People tend to treat other people who differ from them, even in seemingly small and insignificant ways, as less than fully human. Our tendency to dehumanize the &#8220;other&#8221; has sometimes led to great atrocities like the Holocaust, the genocide in Rwanda, and the slave trade. It is arguably responsible for such widespread social ills as racism, sexism, and xenophobia. Where does our tendency to dehumanize others come from? Is it based on bad arguments hat can be rationally refuted, or are its origins deeper in the human psyche? Are we bound to see the &#8220;other&#8221; as less than fully human? John and Ken take a human approach with David Livingstone Smith from the University of New England, author of Less Than Human: Why We Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[People tend to treat other people who differ from them, even in seemingly small and insignificant ways, as less than fully human. Our tendency to dehumanize the &#8220;other&#8221; has sometimes led to great atrocities like the Holocaust, the genocide in]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[People tend to treat other people who differ from them, even in seemingly small and insignificant ways, as less than fully human. Our tendency to dehumanize the &#8220;other&#8221; has sometimes led to great atrocities like the Holocaust, the genocide in Rwanda, and the slave trade. It is arguably responsible for such widespread social ills as racism, sexism, and xenophobia. Where does our tendency to dehumanize others come from? Is it based on bad arguments hat can be rationally refuted, or are its origins deeper in the human psyche? Are we bound to see the &#8220;other&#8221; as less than fully human? John and Ken take a human approach with David Livingstone Smith from the University of New England, author of Less Than Human: Why We Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6997/humanity-violated.mp3" length="48372761" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[People tend to treat other people who differ from them, even in seemingly small and insignificant ways, as less than fully human. Our tendency to dehumanize the &#8220;other&#8221; has sometimes led to great atrocities like the Holocaust, the genocide in Rwanda, and the slave trade. It is arguably responsible for such widespread social ills as racism, sexism, and xenophobia. Where does our tendency to dehumanize others come from? Is it based on bad arguments hat can be rationally refuted, or are its origins deeper in the human psyche? Are we bound to see the &#8220;other&#8221; as less than fully human? John and Ken take a human approach with David Livingstone Smith from the University of New England, author of Less Than Human: Why We Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ZZy_bQNG4cU.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[People tend to treat other people who differ from them, even in seemingly small and insignificant ways, as less than fully human. Our tendency to dehumanize the &#8220;other&#8221; has sometimes led to great atrocities like the Holocaust, the genocide in Rwanda, and the slave trade. It is arguably responsible for such widespread social ills as racism, sexism, and xenophobia. Where does our tendency to dehumanize others come from? Is it based on bad arguments hat can be rationally refuted, or are its origins deeper in the human psyche? Are we bound to see the &#8220;other&#8221; as less than fully human? John and Ken take a human approach with David Livingstone Smith from the University of New England, author of Less Than Human: Why We Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ZZy_bQNG4cU.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Lure of Immortality</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-lure-of-immortality/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 07 Dec 2014 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6994</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Would you want to live forever? It&#8217;s a tempting notion that has been explored and imagined for centuries. Immortality may be desirable, but it may also be that death is a significant part of what gives meaning to life. So what would a society of immortal individuals look like? What might some of the challenges or rewards of an immortal life be? How would living forever affect our relationships with one another, our life goals, or simply the way we perceive time? Would the impacts of immortality ultimately be beneficial or detrimental to us? John and Ken tempt fate with John Fischer from UC Riverside, author of Our Stories: Essays on Life, Death, and Free Will.
Part of our series Visions of Immortality.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Would you want to live forever? It&#8217;s a tempting notion that has been explored and imagined for centuries. Immortality may be desirable, but it may also be that death is a significant part of what gives meaning to life. So what would a society of im]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Would you want to live forever? It&#8217;s a tempting notion that has been explored and imagined for centuries. Immortality may be desirable, but it may also be that death is a significant part of what gives meaning to life. So what would a society of immortal individuals look like? What might some of the challenges or rewards of an immortal life be? How would living forever affect our relationships with one another, our life goals, or simply the way we perceive time? Would the impacts of immortality ultimately be beneficial or detrimental to us? John and Ken tempt fate with John Fischer from UC Riverside, author of Our Stories: Essays on Life, Death, and Free Will.
Part of our series Visions of Immortality.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6994/the-lure-of-immortality.mp3" length="47480836" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Would you want to live forever? It&#8217;s a tempting notion that has been explored and imagined for centuries. Immortality may be desirable, but it may also be that death is a significant part of what gives meaning to life. So what would a society of immortal individuals look like? What might some of the challenges or rewards of an immortal life be? How would living forever affect our relationships with one another, our life goals, or simply the way we perceive time? Would the impacts of immortality ultimately be beneficial or detrimental to us? John and Ken tempt fate with John Fischer from UC Riverside, author of Our Stories: Essays on Life, Death, and Free Will.
Part of our series Visions of Immortality.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/iBvpKvKRg4c.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Would you want to live forever? It&#8217;s a tempting notion that has been explored and imagined for centuries. Immortality may be desirable, but it may also be that death is a significant part of what gives meaning to life. So what would a society of immortal individuals look like? What might some of the challenges or rewards of an immortal life be? How would living forever affect our relationships with one another, our life goals, or simply the way we perceive time? Would the impacts of immortality ultimately be beneficial or detrimental to us? John and Ken tempt fate with John Fischer from UC Riverside, author of Our Stories: Essays on Life, Death, and Free Will.
Part of our series Visions of Immortality.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/iBvpKvKRg4c.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Transformative Experiences</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/transformative-experiences/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 16 Nov 2014 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7000</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[We are faced with decisions all the time in life. Normally, we think about the possible outcomes and choose a course of action that matches what we take to be of most value to us. However, one might think that some decisions—like whether or not to have a child—can so profoundly transform our lives that we cannot possibly know what the outcome will be like until it actually happens. Are these the kind of decisions in which our regular approach to decision-making becomes useless? Can life-changing decisions ever be made rationally? If not, can we still make good choices? John and Ken make some major decisions with Laurie Paul from UNC Chapel Hill, author of Transformative Experience.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[We are faced with decisions all the time in life. Normally, we think about the possible outcomes and choose a course of action that matches what we take to be of most value to us. However, one might think that some decisions—like whether or not to have a]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[We are faced with decisions all the time in life. Normally, we think about the possible outcomes and choose a course of action that matches what we take to be of most value to us. However, one might think that some decisions—like whether or not to have a child—can so profoundly transform our lives that we cannot possibly know what the outcome will be like until it actually happens. Are these the kind of decisions in which our regular approach to decision-making becomes useless? Can life-changing decisions ever be made rationally? If not, can we still make good choices? John and Ken make some major decisions with Laurie Paul from UNC Chapel Hill, author of Transformative Experience.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7000/transformative-experiences.mp3" length="47984222" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[We are faced with decisions all the time in life. Normally, we think about the possible outcomes and choose a course of action that matches what we take to be of most value to us. However, one might think that some decisions—like whether or not to have a child—can so profoundly transform our lives that we cannot possibly know what the outcome will be like until it actually happens. Are these the kind of decisions in which our regular approach to decision-making becomes useless? Can life-changing decisions ever be made rationally? If not, can we still make good choices? John and Ken make some major decisions with Laurie Paul from UNC Chapel Hill, author of Transformative Experience.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/vjwTuJG6JE4.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[We are faced with decisions all the time in life. Normally, we think about the possible outcomes and choose a course of action that matches what we take to be of most value to us. However, one might think that some decisions—like whether or not to have a child—can so profoundly transform our lives that we cannot possibly know what the outcome will be like until it actually happens. Are these the kind of decisions in which our regular approach to decision-making becomes useless? Can life-changing decisions ever be made rationally? If not, can we still make good choices? John and Ken make some major decisions with Laurie Paul from UNC Chapel Hill, author of Transformative Experience.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/vjwTuJG6JE4.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Fairness Fixation</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-fairness-fixation/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 02 Nov 2014 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7002</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Imagine that your eight-year-old son arrives home boasting that he won the race that day in gym class. Right as your heart begins to swell with pride, he reveals that he wasn’t the only winner—the whole class won the race. The gym teacher, it turns out, thought that naming just one winner would be unfair. If our obsession with fairness leads to absurdities like this, why should we be so committed to being fair? Why not reserve the best we have to offer for those who actually deserve it? Can there be justice, kindness, and compassion in a world without fairness? John and Ken play favorites with Stephen Asma from Columbia College Chicago, author of Against Fairness: In Favor of Favoritism.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Imagine that your eight-year-old son arrives home boasting that he won the race that day in gym class. Right as your heart begins to swell with pride, he reveals that he wasn’t the only winner—the whole class won the race. The gym teacher, it turns out, ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Imagine that your eight-year-old son arrives home boasting that he won the race that day in gym class. Right as your heart begins to swell with pride, he reveals that he wasn’t the only winner—the whole class won the race. The gym teacher, it turns out, thought that naming just one winner would be unfair. If our obsession with fairness leads to absurdities like this, why should we be so committed to being fair? Why not reserve the best we have to offer for those who actually deserve it? Can there be justice, kindness, and compassion in a world without fairness? John and Ken play favorites with Stephen Asma from Columbia College Chicago, author of Against Fairness: In Favor of Favoritism.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7002/the-fairness-fixation.mp3" length="47854449" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Imagine that your eight-year-old son arrives home boasting that he won the race that day in gym class. Right as your heart begins to swell with pride, he reveals that he wasn’t the only winner—the whole class won the race. The gym teacher, it turns out, thought that naming just one winner would be unfair. If our obsession with fairness leads to absurdities like this, why should we be so committed to being fair? Why not reserve the best we have to offer for those who actually deserve it? Can there be justice, kindness, and compassion in a world without fairness? John and Ken play favorites with Stephen Asma from Columbia College Chicago, author of Against Fairness: In Favor of Favoritism.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2wX6dsGgh7w.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Imagine that your eight-year-old son arrives home boasting that he won the race that day in gym class. Right as your heart begins to swell with pride, he reveals that he wasn’t the only winner—the whole class won the race. The gym teacher, it turns out, thought that naming just one winner would be unfair. If our obsession with fairness leads to absurdities like this, why should we be so committed to being fair? Why not reserve the best we have to offer for those who actually deserve it? Can there be justice, kindness, and compassion in a world without fairness? John and Ken play favorites with Stephen Asma from Columbia College Chicago, author of Against Fairness: In Favor of Favoritism.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2wX6dsGgh7w.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Philosophy as Therapy</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/philosophy-as-therapy/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 26 Oct 2014 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7004</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[From Plato and Sextus Empiricus to Wittgenstein, many important thinkers have thought of philosophy as a type of therapy. By looking at our way of life through a philosophical lens, we can achieve a particular kind of understanding that can bring us peace of mind. But can philosophy really help those who experience mental anguish? Don’t we have shrinks and medication for that? If philosophy is more likely to raise more questions than it offers answers, how could it help us overcome suffering? What would it mean for an emotional or psychological problem to have a philosophical cure? John and Ken seek solace with David Konstan from NYU, author of The Emotions of the Ancient Greeks: Studies in Aristotle and Classical Literature.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[From Plato and Sextus Empiricus to Wittgenstein, many important thinkers have thought of philosophy as a type of therapy. By looking at our way of life through a philosophical lens, we can achieve a particular kind of understanding that can bring us peac]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[From Plato and Sextus Empiricus to Wittgenstein, many important thinkers have thought of philosophy as a type of therapy. By looking at our way of life through a philosophical lens, we can achieve a particular kind of understanding that can bring us peace of mind. But can philosophy really help those who experience mental anguish? Don’t we have shrinks and medication for that? If philosophy is more likely to raise more questions than it offers answers, how could it help us overcome suffering? What would it mean for an emotional or psychological problem to have a philosophical cure? John and Ken seek solace with David Konstan from NYU, author of The Emotions of the Ancient Greeks: Studies in Aristotle and Classical Literature.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7004/philosophy-as-therapy.mp3" length="48104013" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[From Plato and Sextus Empiricus to Wittgenstein, many important thinkers have thought of philosophy as a type of therapy. By looking at our way of life through a philosophical lens, we can achieve a particular kind of understanding that can bring us peace of mind. But can philosophy really help those who experience mental anguish? Don’t we have shrinks and medication for that? If philosophy is more likely to raise more questions than it offers answers, how could it help us overcome suffering? What would it mean for an emotional or psychological problem to have a philosophical cure? John and Ken seek solace with David Konstan from NYU, author of The Emotions of the Ancient Greeks: Studies in Aristotle and Classical Literature.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/F-l-Dps7EHs.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[From Plato and Sextus Empiricus to Wittgenstein, many important thinkers have thought of philosophy as a type of therapy. By looking at our way of life through a philosophical lens, we can achieve a particular kind of understanding that can bring us peace of mind. But can philosophy really help those who experience mental anguish? Don’t we have shrinks and medication for that? If philosophy is more likely to raise more questions than it offers answers, how could it help us overcome suffering? What would it mean for an emotional or psychological problem to have a philosophical cure? John and Ken seek solace with David Konstan from NYU, author of The Emotions of the Ancient Greeks: Studies in Aristotle and Classical Literature.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/F-l-Dps7EHs.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Racial Profiling and Implicit Bias</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/racial-profiling-and-implicit-bias/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 05 Oct 2014 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7007</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Whether for counterterrorism measures, street level crime, or immigration, racial profiling of minorities occurs frequently. However, racial profiling is illegal under many jurisdictions and many might say ineffective. Is racial profiling ever moral or is it always an unjustified form of racism? Is there any evidence that certain races or ethnic groups have a tendency to behave in particular ways? Or is racial stereotyping a result of deeply-held biases we&#8217;re not even aware of? Ken and guest host Jenann Ismael share their profiles with Linda Alcoff from the City University of New York, author of Visible Identities: Race, Gender, and the Self.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Whether for counterterrorism measures, street level crime, or immigration, racial profiling of minorities occurs frequently. However, racial profiling is illegal under many jurisdictions and many might say ineffective. Is racial profiling ever moral or i]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Whether for counterterrorism measures, street level crime, or immigration, racial profiling of minorities occurs frequently. However, racial profiling is illegal under many jurisdictions and many might say ineffective. Is racial profiling ever moral or is it always an unjustified form of racism? Is there any evidence that certain races or ethnic groups have a tendency to behave in particular ways? Or is racial stereotyping a result of deeply-held biases we&#8217;re not even aware of? Ken and guest host Jenann Ismael share their profiles with Linda Alcoff from the City University of New York, author of Visible Identities: Race, Gender, and the Self.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7007/racial-profiling-and-implicit-bias.mp3" length="48734876" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Whether for counterterrorism measures, street level crime, or immigration, racial profiling of minorities occurs frequently. However, racial profiling is illegal under many jurisdictions and many might say ineffective. Is racial profiling ever moral or is it always an unjustified form of racism? Is there any evidence that certain races or ethnic groups have a tendency to behave in particular ways? Or is racial stereotyping a result of deeply-held biases we&#8217;re not even aware of? Ken and guest host Jenann Ismael share their profiles with Linda Alcoff from the City University of New York, author of Visible Identities: Race, Gender, and the Self.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2CGtJscpT3g.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Whether for counterterrorism measures, street level crime, or immigration, racial profiling of minorities occurs frequently. However, racial profiling is illegal under many jurisdictions and many might say ineffective. Is racial profiling ever moral or is it always an unjustified form of racism? Is there any evidence that certain races or ethnic groups have a tendency to behave in particular ways? Or is racial stereotyping a result of deeply-held biases we&#8217;re not even aware of? Ken and guest host Jenann Ismael share their profiles with Linda Alcoff from the City University of New York, author of Visible Identities: Race, Gender, and the Self.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2CGtJscpT3g.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Second-Guessing Ourselves</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/second-guessing-ourselves/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 28 Sep 2014 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7011</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[We like to think of ourselves as self-aware, reflective beings, but psychological studies demonstrate that we’re usually overconfident in the accuracy of our own beliefs. Memory, for example, can be extremely unreliable, even when we feel certain we know what happened. Surprisingly, when we’re made aware of this, we adjust our level of confidence in ourselves only slightly. How, then, can we doubt ourselves in a rational and efficient manner to bring our beliefs closer to reality? And, just as importantly, how do we prevent ourselves from falling into the other extreme of constant second guessing? John and Ken don&#8217;t think twice with Sherri Roush from UC Berkeley, author of Tracking Truth: Knowledge, Evidence, and Science. ]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[We like to think of ourselves as self-aware, reflective beings, but psychological studies demonstrate that we’re usually overconfident in the accuracy of our own beliefs. Memory, for example, can be extremely unreliable, even when we feel certain we know]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[We like to think of ourselves as self-aware, reflective beings, but psychological studies demonstrate that we’re usually overconfident in the accuracy of our own beliefs. Memory, for example, can be extremely unreliable, even when we feel certain we know what happened. Surprisingly, when we’re made aware of this, we adjust our level of confidence in ourselves only slightly. How, then, can we doubt ourselves in a rational and efficient manner to bring our beliefs closer to reality? And, just as importantly, how do we prevent ourselves from falling into the other extreme of constant second guessing? John and Ken don&#8217;t think twice with Sherri Roush from UC Berkeley, author of Tracking Truth: Knowledge, Evidence, and Science. ]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7011/second-guessing-ourselves.mp3" length="49208424" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[We like to think of ourselves as self-aware, reflective beings, but psychological studies demonstrate that we’re usually overconfident in the accuracy of our own beliefs. Memory, for example, can be extremely unreliable, even when we feel certain we know what happened. Surprisingly, when we’re made aware of this, we adjust our level of confidence in ourselves only slightly. How, then, can we doubt ourselves in a rational and efficient manner to bring our beliefs closer to reality? And, just as importantly, how do we prevent ourselves from falling into the other extreme of constant second guessing? John and Ken don&#8217;t think twice with Sherri Roush from UC Berkeley, author of Tracking Truth: Knowledge, Evidence, and Science. ]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/3eqEtiJYaAU.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[We like to think of ourselves as self-aware, reflective beings, but psychological studies demonstrate that we’re usually overconfident in the accuracy of our own beliefs. Memory, for example, can be extremely unreliable, even when we feel certain we know what happened. Surprisingly, when we’re made aware of this, we adjust our level of confidence in ourselves only slightly. How, then, can we doubt ourselves in a rational and efficient manner to bring our beliefs closer to reality? And, just as importantly, how do we prevent ourselves from falling into the other extreme of constant second guessing? John and Ken don&#8217;t think twice with Sherri Roush from UC Berkeley, author of Tracking Truth: Knowledge, Evidence, and Science. ]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/3eqEtiJYaAU.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Machiavelli</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/machiavelli/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 21 Sep 2014 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6968</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Niccolò Machiavelli is best known for arguing that people in power should use deception, force, and manipulation if those tactics are necessary to achieve their ends. In an age of unscrupulous politics and ruthless business practice, shouldn&#8217;t we be encouraging a move away from Machiavellian thinking? Then again, are we even sure that those &#8220;Machiavellian&#8221; views were really Machiavelli&#8217;s? If not, what did he really think, and what might we learn from him? John and Ken plot and scheme with Maurizio Viroli from Princeton University, author of Redeeming the Prince: The Meaning of Machiavelli&#8217;s Masterpiece.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Niccolò Machiavelli is best known for arguing that people in power should use deception, force, and manipulation if those tactics are necessary to achieve their ends. In an age of unscrupulous politics and ruthless business practice, shouldn&#8217;t we b]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Niccolò Machiavelli is best known for arguing that people in power should use deception, force, and manipulation if those tactics are necessary to achieve their ends. In an age of unscrupulous politics and ruthless business practice, shouldn&#8217;t we be encouraging a move away from Machiavellian thinking? Then again, are we even sure that those &#8220;Machiavellian&#8221; views were really Machiavelli&#8217;s? If not, what did he really think, and what might we learn from him? John and Ken plot and scheme with Maurizio Viroli from Princeton University, author of Redeeming the Prince: The Meaning of Machiavelli&#8217;s Masterpiece.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6968/machiavelli.mp3" length="46874377" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Niccolò Machiavelli is best known for arguing that people in power should use deception, force, and manipulation if those tactics are necessary to achieve their ends. In an age of unscrupulous politics and ruthless business practice, shouldn&#8217;t we be encouraging a move away from Machiavellian thinking? Then again, are we even sure that those &#8220;Machiavellian&#8221; views were really Machiavelli&#8217;s? If not, what did he really think, and what might we learn from him? John and Ken plot and scheme with Maurizio Viroli from Princeton University, author of Redeeming the Prince: The Meaning of Machiavelli&#8217;s Masterpiece.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/WvPCD2FZmIk.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Niccolò Machiavelli is best known for arguing that people in power should use deception, force, and manipulation if those tactics are necessary to achieve their ends. In an age of unscrupulous politics and ruthless business practice, shouldn&#8217;t we be encouraging a move away from Machiavellian thinking? Then again, are we even sure that those &#8220;Machiavellian&#8221; views were really Machiavelli&#8217;s? If not, what did he really think, and what might we learn from him? John and Ken plot and scheme with Maurizio Viroli from Princeton University, author of Redeeming the Prince: The Meaning of Machiavelli&#8217;s Masterpiece.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/WvPCD2FZmIk.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Babies and the Birth of Morality</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/babies-and-the-birth-of-morality/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 14 Sep 2014 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7014</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Doing the right thing is often an extremely difficult task. Yet psychological research indicates that infants as young as 21 months old have a crude sense of what is right and wrong. This capacity is reflected by infants&#8217; decisions to reward or punish characters in social scenarios. But surely a genuine, robust, mature moral compass is much more complicated than that. So what can babies tell us about adult morality? How much of morality is innate, and how much must we develop as moral thinkers? John and Ken talk infant morality with Paul Bloom from Yale University, author of Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Doing the right thing is often an extremely difficult task. Yet psychological research indicates that infants as young as 21 months old have a crude sense of what is right and wrong. This capacity is reflected by infants&#8217; decisions to reward or pun]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Doing the right thing is often an extremely difficult task. Yet psychological research indicates that infants as young as 21 months old have a crude sense of what is right and wrong. This capacity is reflected by infants&#8217; decisions to reward or punish characters in social scenarios. But surely a genuine, robust, mature moral compass is much more complicated than that. So what can babies tell us about adult morality? How much of morality is innate, and how much must we develop as moral thinkers? John and Ken talk infant morality with Paul Bloom from Yale University, author of Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7014/babies-and-the-birth-of-morality.mp3" length="24293632" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Doing the right thing is often an extremely difficult task. Yet psychological research indicates that infants as young as 21 months old have a crude sense of what is right and wrong. This capacity is reflected by infants&#8217; decisions to reward or punish characters in social scenarios. But surely a genuine, robust, mature moral compass is much more complicated than that. So what can babies tell us about adult morality? How much of morality is innate, and how much must we develop as moral thinkers? John and Ken talk infant morality with Paul Bloom from Yale University, author of Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/5_stegq-Du0.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Doing the right thing is often an extremely difficult task. Yet psychological research indicates that infants as young as 21 months old have a crude sense of what is right and wrong. This capacity is reflected by infants&#8217; decisions to reward or punish characters in social scenarios. But surely a genuine, robust, mature moral compass is much more complicated than that. So what can babies tell us about adult morality? How much of morality is innate, and how much must we develop as moral thinkers? John and Ken talk infant morality with Paul Bloom from Yale University, author of Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/5_stegq-Du0.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Intuition a Guide to Truth?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/intuition-guide-truth/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 31 Aug 2014 17:17:24 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=12138</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Turns out that Galileo was right and Aristotle was wrong: in a vacuum, a feather and a bowling ball will fall from a tall building at exactly the same speed. This is not to say that Aristotle wasn’t a brilliant thinker; empirical evidence shows he just had a wrong intuition. Even the most powerful intuitions we have can be misleading. Why is it, then, that many philosophers treat them as crucial when arguing for a conclusion? Can intuitions lead us to important truths about the world, or do they merely teach us about ourselves? John and Ken trust their instincts with Alvin Goldman from Rutgers University, author of Pathways to Knowledge: Private and Public.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Turns out that Galileo was right and Aristotle was wrong: in a vacuum, a feather and a bowling ball will fall from a tall building at exactly the same speed. This is not to say that Aristotle wasn’t a brilliant thinker; empirical evidence shows he just h]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Turns out that Galileo was right and Aristotle was wrong: in a vacuum, a feather and a bowling ball will fall from a tall building at exactly the same speed. This is not to say that Aristotle wasn’t a brilliant thinker; empirical evidence shows he just had a wrong intuition. Even the most powerful intuitions we have can be misleading. Why is it, then, that many philosophers treat them as crucial when arguing for a conclusion? Can intuitions lead us to important truths about the world, or do they merely teach us about ourselves? John and Ken trust their instincts with Alvin Goldman from Rutgers University, author of Pathways to Knowledge: Private and Public.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/12138/intuition-guide-truth.mp3" length="24455680" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Turns out that Galileo was right and Aristotle was wrong: in a vacuum, a feather and a bowling ball will fall from a tall building at exactly the same speed. This is not to say that Aristotle wasn’t a brilliant thinker; empirical evidence shows he just had a wrong intuition. Even the most powerful intuitions we have can be misleading. Why is it, then, that many philosophers treat them as crucial when arguing for a conclusion? Can intuitions lead us to important truths about the world, or do they merely teach us about ourselves? John and Ken trust their instincts with Alvin Goldman from Rutgers University, author of Pathways to Knowledge: Private and Public.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/michael-carruth-m_tnGfoHeko-unsplash.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Turns out that Galileo was right and Aristotle was wrong: in a vacuum, a feather and a bowling ball will fall from a tall building at exactly the same speed. This is not to say that Aristotle wasn’t a brilliant thinker; empirical evidence shows he just had a wrong intuition. Even the most powerful intuitions we have can be misleading. Why is it, then, that many philosophers treat them as crucial when arguing for a conclusion? Can intuitions lead us to important truths about the world, or do they merely teach us about ourselves? John and Ken trust their instincts with Alvin Goldman from Rutgers University, author of Pathways to Knowledge: Private and Public.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/michael-carruth-m_tnGfoHeko-unsplash.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Remixing Reality &#8211; Art and Literature for the 21st Century</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/remixing-reality-art-and-literature-for-the-21st-century/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 17 Aug 2014 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7017</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[For decades, literary critics have been questioning the relevance of the novel as a literary form, with some going so far as to declare its death. But if the novel is dead, it’s not clear what new form can take its place. Should we treat the popularity of the memoir as a sign that what readers want is more truth, less fiction? Or is the memoir, like ‘reality TV,’ mostly just fiction dressed up as fact? In these fragmented times, when everything has already been said or done before, can there be any truly original innovations in art and literature? Or is the demand for originality itself an antiquated idea? John and Ken mix it up with David Shields, author of Reality Hunger: A Manifesto. This program was recorded live at the First Congregational Church in Portland, Oregon.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[For decades, literary critics have been questioning the relevance of the novel as a literary form, with some going so far as to declare its death. But if the novel is dead, it’s not clear what new form can take its place. Should we treat the popularity o]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[For decades, literary critics have been questioning the relevance of the novel as a literary form, with some going so far as to declare its death. But if the novel is dead, it’s not clear what new form can take its place. Should we treat the popularity of the memoir as a sign that what readers want is more truth, less fiction? Or is the memoir, like ‘reality TV,’ mostly just fiction dressed up as fact? In these fragmented times, when everything has already been said or done before, can there be any truly original innovations in art and literature? Or is the demand for originality itself an antiquated idea? John and Ken mix it up with David Shields, author of Reality Hunger: A Manifesto. This program was recorded live at the First Congregational Church in Portland, Oregon.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7017/remixing-reality-art-and-literature-for-the-21st-century.mp3" length="24555904" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[For decades, literary critics have been questioning the relevance of the novel as a literary form, with some going so far as to declare its death. But if the novel is dead, it’s not clear what new form can take its place. Should we treat the popularity of the memoir as a sign that what readers want is more truth, less fiction? Or is the memoir, like ‘reality TV,’ mostly just fiction dressed up as fact? In these fragmented times, when everything has already been said or done before, can there be any truly original innovations in art and literature? Or is the demand for originality itself an antiquated idea? John and Ken mix it up with David Shields, author of Reality Hunger: A Manifesto. This program was recorded live at the First Congregational Church in Portland, Oregon.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/IpQIknNVLBA.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[For decades, literary critics have been questioning the relevance of the novel as a literary form, with some going so far as to declare its death. But if the novel is dead, it’s not clear what new form can take its place. Should we treat the popularity of the memoir as a sign that what readers want is more truth, less fiction? Or is the memoir, like ‘reality TV,’ mostly just fiction dressed up as fact? In these fragmented times, when everything has already been said or done before, can there be any truly original innovations in art and literature? Or is the demand for originality itself an antiquated idea? John and Ken mix it up with David Shields, author of Reality Hunger: A Manifesto. This program was recorded live at the First Congregational Church in Portland, Oregon.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/IpQIknNVLBA.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Captivity</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/captivity/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 10 Aug 2014 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7020</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Whether it&#8217;s people incarcerated in prisons, or animals confined in zoos, aquariums, laboratories, farms, and in our own homes, millions of upon millions of sentient creatures live in captivity. To be held captive, some might say, is to be denied basic rights of autonomy. But physical captivity, others might say, can have significant social benefits. So under what conditions could it be morally justified to hold a creature in captivity? Should we think of humans and animals differently? And in a civil society, is captivity a necessary harm, or should we work towards eradicating it? John and Ken have a captivating conversation with Lori Gruen from Wesleyan University, editor of The Ethics of Captivity.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Whether it&#8217;s people incarcerated in prisons, or animals confined in zoos, aquariums, laboratories, farms, and in our own homes, millions of upon millions of sentient creatures live in captivity. To be held captive, some might say, is to be denied b]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Whether it&#8217;s people incarcerated in prisons, or animals confined in zoos, aquariums, laboratories, farms, and in our own homes, millions of upon millions of sentient creatures live in captivity. To be held captive, some might say, is to be denied basic rights of autonomy. But physical captivity, others might say, can have significant social benefits. So under what conditions could it be morally justified to hold a creature in captivity? Should we think of humans and animals differently? And in a civil society, is captivity a necessary harm, or should we work towards eradicating it? John and Ken have a captivating conversation with Lori Gruen from Wesleyan University, editor of The Ethics of Captivity.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7020/captivity.mp3" length="47561085" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Whether it&#8217;s people incarcerated in prisons, or animals confined in zoos, aquariums, laboratories, farms, and in our own homes, millions of upon millions of sentient creatures live in captivity. To be held captive, some might say, is to be denied basic rights of autonomy. But physical captivity, others might say, can have significant social benefits. So under what conditions could it be morally justified to hold a creature in captivity? Should we think of humans and animals differently? And in a civil society, is captivity a necessary harm, or should we work towards eradicating it? John and Ken have a captivating conversation with Lori Gruen from Wesleyan University, editor of The Ethics of Captivity.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/sf7AXaZ6dOM.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Whether it&#8217;s people incarcerated in prisons, or animals confined in zoos, aquariums, laboratories, farms, and in our own homes, millions of upon millions of sentient creatures live in captivity. To be held captive, some might say, is to be denied basic rights of autonomy. But physical captivity, others might say, can have significant social benefits. So under what conditions could it be morally justified to hold a creature in captivity? Should we think of humans and animals differently? And in a civil society, is captivity a necessary harm, or should we work towards eradicating it? John and Ken have a captivating conversation with Lori Gruen from Wesleyan University, editor of The Ethics of Captivity.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/sf7AXaZ6dOM.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The New Surveillance Society &#8211; Big Brother Grows Up</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-new-surveillance-society-big-brother-grows-up/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jul 2014 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7029</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Recent revelations confirm what many already suspected: not only is Big Brother watching you, he is also potentially reading your emails, listening to your phone calls, mapping your personal networks, and tracking your every move. While many see whistleblowers as heroes, others see them as criminals who ought to be severely punished. So, how should we treat whistleblowers who break the law for moral or political ends? How do we adjudicate between national or corporate security and individual rights? And what kind of rights and responsibilities does a proactive citizenry have when confronted with injustices committed by the state? John and Ken blow the whistle on Christopher McKnight Nichols from Oregon State University, author of Promise and Peril: America at the Dawn of a Global Age. This program was recorded live at OSU in Corvallis.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Recent revelations confirm what many already suspected: not only is Big Brother watching you, he is also potentially reading your emails, listening to your phone calls, mapping your personal networks, and tracking your every move. While many see whistleb]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Recent revelations confirm what many already suspected: not only is Big Brother watching you, he is also potentially reading your emails, listening to your phone calls, mapping your personal networks, and tracking your every move. While many see whistleblowers as heroes, others see them as criminals who ought to be severely punished. So, how should we treat whistleblowers who break the law for moral or political ends? How do we adjudicate between national or corporate security and individual rights? And what kind of rights and responsibilities does a proactive citizenry have when confronted with injustices committed by the state? John and Ken blow the whistle on Christopher McKnight Nichols from Oregon State University, author of Promise and Peril: America at the Dawn of a Global Age. This program was recorded live at OSU in Corvallis.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7029/the-new-surveillance-society-big-brother-grows-up.mp3" length="24577600" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Recent revelations confirm what many already suspected: not only is Big Brother watching you, he is also potentially reading your emails, listening to your phone calls, mapping your personal networks, and tracking your every move. While many see whistleblowers as heroes, others see them as criminals who ought to be severely punished. So, how should we treat whistleblowers who break the law for moral or political ends? How do we adjudicate between national or corporate security and individual rights? And what kind of rights and responsibilities does a proactive citizenry have when confronted with injustices committed by the state? John and Ken blow the whistle on Christopher McKnight Nichols from Oregon State University, author of Promise and Peril: America at the Dawn of a Global Age. This program was recorded live at OSU in Corvallis.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/K_MVHQ-CKyM.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Recent revelations confirm what many already suspected: not only is Big Brother watching you, he is also potentially reading your emails, listening to your phone calls, mapping your personal networks, and tracking your every move. While many see whistleblowers as heroes, others see them as criminals who ought to be severely punished. So, how should we treat whistleblowers who break the law for moral or political ends? How do we adjudicate between national or corporate security and individual rights? And what kind of rights and responsibilities does a proactive citizenry have when confronted with injustices committed by the state? John and Ken blow the whistle on Christopher McKnight Nichols from Oregon State University, author of Promise and Peril: America at the Dawn of a Global Age. This program was recorded live at OSU in Corvallis.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/K_MVHQ-CKyM.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Tainted by the Sins of Our Fathers?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/tainted-by-the-sins-of-our-fathers/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jul 2014 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7032</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Imagine discovering that your grandfather was a serial killer. Would you feel guilty about it? Would you be at all tempted to contact the families of his victims? Philosophers have long thought that we can only be responsible for what is under our voluntary control, but sometimes we feel guilty about events we didn’t bring about, simply because we are connected in some way to those who did. Many Germans, for instance, feel guilty about their ancestors&#8217; participation in the Nazi regime. Can we really be responsible for things outside of our control? Or are these feelings just vestiges of a more primitive moral outlook? John and Ken play innocent with Larry May from Vanderbilt University, author of Sharing Responsiblity.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Imagine discovering that your grandfather was a serial killer. Would you feel guilty about it? Would you be at all tempted to contact the families of his victims? Philosophers have long thought that we can only be responsible for what is under our volunt]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Imagine discovering that your grandfather was a serial killer. Would you feel guilty about it? Would you be at all tempted to contact the families of his victims? Philosophers have long thought that we can only be responsible for what is under our voluntary control, but sometimes we feel guilty about events we didn’t bring about, simply because we are connected in some way to those who did. Many Germans, for instance, feel guilty about their ancestors&#8217; participation in the Nazi regime. Can we really be responsible for things outside of our control? Or are these feelings just vestiges of a more primitive moral outlook? John and Ken play innocent with Larry May from Vanderbilt University, author of Sharing Responsiblity.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7032/tainted-by-the-sins-of-our-fathers.mp3" length="48055530" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Imagine discovering that your grandfather was a serial killer. Would you feel guilty about it? Would you be at all tempted to contact the families of his victims? Philosophers have long thought that we can only be responsible for what is under our voluntary control, but sometimes we feel guilty about events we didn’t bring about, simply because we are connected in some way to those who did. Many Germans, for instance, feel guilty about their ancestors&#8217; participation in the Nazi regime. Can we really be responsible for things outside of our control? Or are these feelings just vestiges of a more primitive moral outlook? John and Ken play innocent with Larry May from Vanderbilt University, author of Sharing Responsiblity.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/u3wsWgqyLK4.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Imagine discovering that your grandfather was a serial killer. Would you feel guilty about it? Would you be at all tempted to contact the families of his victims? Philosophers have long thought that we can only be responsible for what is under our voluntary control, but sometimes we feel guilty about events we didn’t bring about, simply because we are connected in some way to those who did. Many Germans, for instance, feel guilty about their ancestors&#8217; participation in the Nazi regime. Can we really be responsible for things outside of our control? Or are these feelings just vestiges of a more primitive moral outlook? John and Ken play innocent with Larry May from Vanderbilt University, author of Sharing Responsiblity.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/u3wsWgqyLK4.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Anatomy of a Terrorist</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/anatomy-of-a-terrorist/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jun 2014 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7023</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Since George W. Bush first declared a &#8220;war on terror,&#8221; the US has been engaged in a global campaign to rid the world of terrorists. But what exactly is a “terrorist,” and how do we distinguish illicit terrorist organizations from legitimate freedom fighters? Do terrorists exhibit particular psychological patterns of behavior, or are there some tactics that only terrorists use? And what is the most effective way to combat terrorism – by waging war, engaging in &#8220;de-radicalization&#8221; processes, or some other means? John and Ken agree to negotiate with Stanford political scientist Martha Crenshaw, author of Explaining Terrorism: Causes, Processes, and Consequences, for a program recorded live at the Marsh Theatre in Berkeley.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Since George W. Bush first declared a &#8220;war on terror,&#8221; the US has been engaged in a global campaign to rid the world of terrorists. But what exactly is a “terrorist,” and how do we distinguish illicit terrorist organizations from legitimate f]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Since George W. Bush first declared a &#8220;war on terror,&#8221; the US has been engaged in a global campaign to rid the world of terrorists. But what exactly is a “terrorist,” and how do we distinguish illicit terrorist organizations from legitimate freedom fighters? Do terrorists exhibit particular psychological patterns of behavior, or are there some tactics that only terrorists use? And what is the most effective way to combat terrorism – by waging war, engaging in &#8220;de-radicalization&#8221; processes, or some other means? John and Ken agree to negotiate with Stanford political scientist Martha Crenshaw, author of Explaining Terrorism: Causes, Processes, and Consequences, for a program recorded live at the Marsh Theatre in Berkeley.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7023/anatomy-of-a-terrorist.mp3" length="24515584" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Since George W. Bush first declared a &#8220;war on terror,&#8221; the US has been engaged in a global campaign to rid the world of terrorists. But what exactly is a “terrorist,” and how do we distinguish illicit terrorist organizations from legitimate freedom fighters? Do terrorists exhibit particular psychological patterns of behavior, or are there some tactics that only terrorists use? And what is the most effective way to combat terrorism – by waging war, engaging in &#8220;de-radicalization&#8221; processes, or some other means? John and Ken agree to negotiate with Stanford political scientist Martha Crenshaw, author of Explaining Terrorism: Causes, Processes, and Consequences, for a program recorded live at the Marsh Theatre in Berkeley.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/buBfgRgWukc.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Since George W. Bush first declared a &#8220;war on terror,&#8221; the US has been engaged in a global campaign to rid the world of terrorists. But what exactly is a “terrorist,” and how do we distinguish illicit terrorist organizations from legitimate freedom fighters? Do terrorists exhibit particular psychological patterns of behavior, or are there some tactics that only terrorists use? And what is the most effective way to combat terrorism – by waging war, engaging in &#8220;de-radicalization&#8221; processes, or some other means? John and Ken agree to negotiate with Stanford political scientist Martha Crenshaw, author of Explaining Terrorism: Causes, Processes, and Consequences, for a program recorded live at the Marsh Theatre in Berkeley.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/buBfgRgWukc.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Art and Obscenity</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/art-and-obscenity/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 15 Jun 2014 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7026</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What do Marcel Duchamp, Damien Hirst, and Andres Serrano have in common? They’ve all created modern works of art that have shocked and outraged the general public, causing many to question whether these works have any artistic value at all. But isn’t it the purpose of art to incite inquiry and question conventional moral wisdom? If so, then a strong public reaction would seem to prove the artistic merit of these works. So, is there a clear line to be drawn between genuine art and mere obscenity? Or has shock value simply replaced cultural value in the world of contemporary art? John and Ken curate their conversation with Stanford art historian Richard Meyer, author of What Was Contemporary Art? This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theatre in Berkeley.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What do Marcel Duchamp, Damien Hirst, and Andres Serrano have in common? They’ve all created modern works of art that have shocked and outraged the general public, causing many to question whether these works have any artistic value at all. But isn’t it ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What do Marcel Duchamp, Damien Hirst, and Andres Serrano have in common? They’ve all created modern works of art that have shocked and outraged the general public, causing many to question whether these works have any artistic value at all. But isn’t it the purpose of art to incite inquiry and question conventional moral wisdom? If so, then a strong public reaction would seem to prove the artistic merit of these works. So, is there a clear line to be drawn between genuine art and mere obscenity? Or has shock value simply replaced cultural value in the world of contemporary art? John and Ken curate their conversation with Stanford art historian Richard Meyer, author of What Was Contemporary Art? This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theatre in Berkeley.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7026/art-and-obscenity.mp3" length="48455517" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What do Marcel Duchamp, Damien Hirst, and Andres Serrano have in common? They’ve all created modern works of art that have shocked and outraged the general public, causing many to question whether these works have any artistic value at all. But isn’t it the purpose of art to incite inquiry and question conventional moral wisdom? If so, then a strong public reaction would seem to prove the artistic merit of these works. So, is there a clear line to be drawn between genuine art and mere obscenity? Or has shock value simply replaced cultural value in the world of contemporary art? John and Ken curate their conversation with Stanford art historian Richard Meyer, author of What Was Contemporary Art? This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theatre in Berkeley.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/zZs3eoXt5vA.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What do Marcel Duchamp, Damien Hirst, and Andres Serrano have in common? They’ve all created modern works of art that have shocked and outraged the general public, causing many to question whether these works have any artistic value at all. But isn’t it the purpose of art to incite inquiry and question conventional moral wisdom? If so, then a strong public reaction would seem to prove the artistic merit of these works. So, is there a clear line to be drawn between genuine art and mere obscenity? Or has shock value simply replaced cultural value in the world of contemporary art? John and Ken curate their conversation with Stanford art historian Richard Meyer, author of What Was Contemporary Art? This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theatre in Berkeley.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/zZs3eoXt5vA.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Summer Reading List 2014</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/summer-reading-list-2014/</link>
	<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2014 02:24:59 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7338</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues would you like to read up on over the summer? John and Ken discuss one of this year&#8217;s most talked-about books, Capital in the 21st Century by Thomas Piketty, with political scientist Shannon Stimson. They also get summer reading suggestions from author Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, whose new book is Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won&#8217;t Go Away, and Yale University philosopher Jason Stanley, author of the forthcoming Why Propaganda Matters. Plus recommendations from our Community of Thinkers.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues would you like to read up on over the summer? John and Ken discuss one of this year&#8217;s most talked-about books, Capital in the 21st Century by Thomas Piketty, with political scientist Shannon ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues would you like to read up on over the summer? John and Ken discuss one of this year&#8217;s most talked-about books, Capital in the 21st Century by Thomas Piketty, with political scientist Shannon Stimson. They also get summer reading suggestions from author Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, whose new book is Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won&#8217;t Go Away, and Yale University philosopher Jason Stanley, author of the forthcoming Why Propaganda Matters. Plus recommendations from our Community of Thinkers.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7338/summer-reading-list-2014.mp3" length="48822067" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues would you like to read up on over the summer? John and Ken discuss one of this year&#8217;s most talked-about books, Capital in the 21st Century by Thomas Piketty, with political scientist Shannon Stimson. They also get summer reading suggestions from author Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, whose new book is Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won&#8217;t Go Away, and Yale University philosopher Jason Stanley, author of the forthcoming Why Propaganda Matters. Plus recommendations from our Community of Thinkers.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/EW1fOrxlb0A.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues would you like to read up on over the summer? John and Ken discuss one of this year&#8217;s most talked-about books, Capital in the 21st Century by Thomas Piketty, with political scientist Shannon Stimson. They also get summer reading suggestions from author Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, whose new book is Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won&#8217;t Go Away, and Yale University philosopher Jason Stanley, author of the forthcoming Why Propaganda Matters. Plus recommendations from our Community of Thinkers.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/EW1fOrxlb0A.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Am I Alone?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/am-i-alone/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 01 Jun 2014 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/am-i-alone/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[A popular theme in science fiction is the eerily lifelike robot: a piece of machinery so well engineered that its outputs pass for genuinely human behaviors. Technology is not yet so advanced, but these robots might cause us to wonder how we could possibly justify our belief in the minds of others. You’re most likely sure that your family, friends, and boss are really people just like you, with similarly rich inner mental lives. But how can you be so sure? If we only have access to our own private thoughts, can we ever know that our minds are not unique? I think, therefore I exist – but what about everybody else? John and Ken step outside themselves with Anita Avramides from the University of Oxford, author of Other Minds.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[A popular theme in science fiction is the eerily lifelike robot: a piece of machinery so well engineered that its outputs pass for genuinely human behaviors. Technology is not yet so advanced, but these robots might cause us to wonder how we could possib]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[A popular theme in science fiction is the eerily lifelike robot: a piece of machinery so well engineered that its outputs pass for genuinely human behaviors. Technology is not yet so advanced, but these robots might cause us to wonder how we could possibly justify our belief in the minds of others. You’re most likely sure that your family, friends, and boss are really people just like you, with similarly rich inner mental lives. But how can you be so sure? If we only have access to our own private thoughts, can we ever know that our minds are not unique? I think, therefore I exist – but what about everybody else? John and Ken step outside themselves with Anita Avramides from the University of Oxford, author of Other Minds.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/466/am-i-alone.mp3" length="47811443" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[A popular theme in science fiction is the eerily lifelike robot: a piece of machinery so well engineered that its outputs pass for genuinely human behaviors. Technology is not yet so advanced, but these robots might cause us to wonder how we could possibly justify our belief in the minds of others. You’re most likely sure that your family, friends, and boss are really people just like you, with similarly rich inner mental lives. But how can you be so sure? If we only have access to our own private thoughts, can we ever know that our minds are not unique? I think, therefore I exist – but what about everybody else? John and Ken step outside themselves with Anita Avramides from the University of Oxford, author of Other Minds.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/YZXIOe0Rxxk.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[A popular theme in science fiction is the eerily lifelike robot: a piece of machinery so well engineered that its outputs pass for genuinely human behaviors. Technology is not yet so advanced, but these robots might cause us to wonder how we could possibly justify our belief in the minds of others. You’re most likely sure that your family, friends, and boss are really people just like you, with similarly rich inner mental lives. But how can you be so sure? If we only have access to our own private thoughts, can we ever know that our minds are not unique? I think, therefore I exist – but what about everybody else? John and Ken step outside themselves with Anita Avramides from the University of Oxford, author of Other Minds.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/YZXIOe0Rxxk.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Reality of Time</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-reality-of-time/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 18 May 2014 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7034</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[St. Augustine suggested that when we try to grasp the idea of time, it seems to evade us: &#8220;What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know.&#8221; So is time real or merely an artificial construct? Is time a fundamental or emergent property of our universe or a part of our cognitive apparatus? Do we live in a continuum with a definite past and present, or do we live in a succession of ‘Nows’, and if the latter is the case, how does it affect our perception of memory or recollection? John and Ken take their time with Julian Barbour from the University of Oxford, author of The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[St. Augustine suggested that when we try to grasp the idea of time, it seems to evade us: &#8220;What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know.&#8221; So is time real or merely an artifici]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[St. Augustine suggested that when we try to grasp the idea of time, it seems to evade us: &#8220;What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know.&#8221; So is time real or merely an artificial construct? Is time a fundamental or emergent property of our universe or a part of our cognitive apparatus? Do we live in a continuum with a definite past and present, or do we live in a succession of ‘Nows’, and if the latter is the case, how does it affect our perception of memory or recollection? John and Ken take their time with Julian Barbour from the University of Oxford, author of The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7034/the-reality-of-time.mp3" length="24017920" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[St. Augustine suggested that when we try to grasp the idea of time, it seems to evade us: &#8220;What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know.&#8221; So is time real or merely an artificial construct? Is time a fundamental or emergent property of our universe or a part of our cognitive apparatus? Do we live in a continuum with a definite past and present, or do we live in a succession of ‘Nows’, and if the latter is the case, how does it affect our perception of memory or recollection? John and Ken take their time with Julian Barbour from the University of Oxford, author of The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/NOcs7IlkXRM.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[St. Augustine suggested that when we try to grasp the idea of time, it seems to evade us: &#8220;What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know.&#8221; So is time real or merely an artificial construct? Is time a fundamental or emergent property of our universe or a part of our cognitive apparatus? Do we live in a continuum with a definite past and present, or do we live in a succession of ‘Nows’, and if the latter is the case, how does it affect our perception of memory or recollection? John and Ken take their time with Julian Barbour from the University of Oxford, author of The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/NOcs7IlkXRM.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Seeing Red: The World in Color</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/seeing-red-world-color/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 04 May 2014 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/?p=328</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Is the red you see indeed the very same red that anyone else does? What is the redness of red even like? These sorts of questions are not just amusing, if worn-out, popular philosophical ponderings. Thinkers in the philosophy of perception take such questions as serious windows into the nature of the world and of the mind. Although we are constantly surrounded by colors, the experience of perceiving them – what it is like to see red, for example &#8211; remains a mysterious phenomenon. Where are colors: in objects, or in our minds? Could color experiences ever be explainable in terms of raw physical facts? Or is there something about color that goes beyond what science can teach us? John and Ken go full spectrum with Jonathan Cohen from UC San Diego, author of The Red and the Real: An Essay on Color Ontology.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Is the red you see indeed the very same red that anyone else does? What is the redness of red even like? These sorts of questions are not just amusing, if worn-out, popular philosophical ponderings. Thinkers in the philosophy of perception take such ques]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Is the red you see indeed the very same red that anyone else does? What is the redness of red even like? These sorts of questions are not just amusing, if worn-out, popular philosophical ponderings. Thinkers in the philosophy of perception take such questions as serious windows into the nature of the world and of the mind. Although we are constantly surrounded by colors, the experience of perceiving them – what it is like to see red, for example &#8211; remains a mysterious phenomenon. Where are colors: in objects, or in our minds? Could color experiences ever be explainable in terms of raw physical facts? Or is there something about color that goes beyond what science can teach us? John and Ken go full spectrum with Jonathan Cohen from UC San Diego, author of The Red and the Real: An Essay on Color Ontology.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/328/seeing-red-world-color.mp3" length="47486270" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Is the red you see indeed the very same red that anyone else does? What is the redness of red even like? These sorts of questions are not just amusing, if worn-out, popular philosophical ponderings. Thinkers in the philosophy of perception take such questions as serious windows into the nature of the world and of the mind. Although we are constantly surrounded by colors, the experience of perceiving them – what it is like to see red, for example &#8211; remains a mysterious phenomenon. Where are colors: in objects, or in our minds? Could color experiences ever be explainable in terms of raw physical facts? Or is there something about color that goes beyond what science can teach us? John and Ken go full spectrum with Jonathan Cohen from UC San Diego, author of The Red and the Real: An Essay on Color Ontology.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/2UOP-Hz6EAQ.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Is the red you see indeed the very same red that anyone else does? What is the redness of red even like? These sorts of questions are not just amusing, if worn-out, popular philosophical ponderings. Thinkers in the philosophy of perception take such questions as serious windows into the nature of the world and of the mind. Although we are constantly surrounded by colors, the experience of perceiving them – what it is like to see red, for example &#8211; remains a mysterious phenomenon. Where are colors: in objects, or in our minds? Could color experiences ever be explainable in terms of raw physical facts? Or is there something about color that goes beyond what science can teach us? John and Ken go full spectrum with Jonathan Cohen from UC San Diego, author of The Red and the Real: An Essay on Color Ontology.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/2UOP-Hz6EAQ.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Risky Business: The Business of Risk</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/risky-business-the-business-of-risk/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 27 Apr 2014 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7038</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[There is an element of risk – either to ourselves or to others – in almost everything we do. By deciding to go to the grocery store, for example, we take a (very small) risk of getting into a car accident. Many risks are acceptable, of course, but how do we know when a risk is worth taking? The most important decisions, after all, are often risky ones. What about risks to others&#8217; welfare? How do we, and should we, take risk into account when we make decisions? John and Ken take their chances with Lara Buchak from UC Berkeley, author of Risk and Rationality.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[There is an element of risk – either to ourselves or to others – in almost everything we do. By deciding to go to the grocery store, for example, we take a (very small) risk of getting into a car accident. Many risks are acceptable, of course, but how do]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[There is an element of risk – either to ourselves or to others – in almost everything we do. By deciding to go to the grocery store, for example, we take a (very small) risk of getting into a car accident. Many risks are acceptable, of course, but how do we know when a risk is worth taking? The most important decisions, after all, are often risky ones. What about risks to others&#8217; welfare? How do we, and should we, take risk into account when we make decisions? John and Ken take their chances with Lara Buchak from UC Berkeley, author of Risk and Rationality.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7038/risky-business-the-business-of-risk.mp3" length="49200320" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[There is an element of risk – either to ourselves or to others – in almost everything we do. By deciding to go to the grocery store, for example, we take a (very small) risk of getting into a car accident. Many risks are acceptable, of course, but how do we know when a risk is worth taking? The most important decisions, after all, are often risky ones. What about risks to others&#8217; welfare? How do we, and should we, take risk into account when we make decisions? John and Ken take their chances with Lara Buchak from UC Berkeley, author of Risk and Rationality.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/TUWN_G5iub4.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[There is an element of risk – either to ourselves or to others – in almost everything we do. By deciding to go to the grocery store, for example, we take a (very small) risk of getting into a car accident. Many risks are acceptable, of course, but how do we know when a risk is worth taking? The most important decisions, after all, are often risky ones. What about risks to others&#8217; welfare? How do we, and should we, take risk into account when we make decisions? John and Ken take their chances with Lara Buchak from UC Berkeley, author of Risk and Rationality.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/TUWN_G5iub4.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Conspiracy Theories</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/conspiracy-theories/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2014 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7050</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Some claim that the collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 was actually caused by a controlled demolition orchestrated by the U.S. government. Dramatic conspiracy theories of this kind are all over the place, but they are often dismissed as crazy. Sometimes, however, they turn out to be true: the NSA, as we have learned, conducted secret surveillance of millions of people for more than ten years. Does this show that we shouldn’t be so dismissive of conspiracy theories after all, or that we simply refuse to accept the existence of coincidence? What is a conspiracy theory, anyway, and how is it different from other kinds of theories? John and Ken form a cabal with Brian Keeley from Pitzer College, author of &#8220;On Conspiracy Theories.&#8221;]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Some claim that the collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 was actually caused by a controlled demolition orchestrated by the U.S. government. Dramatic conspiracy theories of this kind are all over the place, but they are often dismissed as cr]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Some claim that the collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 was actually caused by a controlled demolition orchestrated by the U.S. government. Dramatic conspiracy theories of this kind are all over the place, but they are often dismissed as crazy. Sometimes, however, they turn out to be true: the NSA, as we have learned, conducted secret surveillance of millions of people for more than ten years. Does this show that we shouldn’t be so dismissive of conspiracy theories after all, or that we simply refuse to accept the existence of coincidence? What is a conspiracy theory, anyway, and how is it different from other kinds of theories? John and Ken form a cabal with Brian Keeley from Pitzer College, author of &#8220;On Conspiracy Theories.&#8221;]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7050/conspiracy-theories.mp3" length="48781107" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Some claim that the collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 was actually caused by a controlled demolition orchestrated by the U.S. government. Dramatic conspiracy theories of this kind are all over the place, but they are often dismissed as crazy. Sometimes, however, they turn out to be true: the NSA, as we have learned, conducted secret surveillance of millions of people for more than ten years. Does this show that we shouldn’t be so dismissive of conspiracy theories after all, or that we simply refuse to accept the existence of coincidence? What is a conspiracy theory, anyway, and how is it different from other kinds of theories? John and Ken form a cabal with Brian Keeley from Pitzer College, author of &#8220;On Conspiracy Theories.&#8221;]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/zRaZmtMQN8A.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Some claim that the collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 was actually caused by a controlled demolition orchestrated by the U.S. government. Dramatic conspiracy theories of this kind are all over the place, but they are often dismissed as crazy. Sometimes, however, they turn out to be true: the NSA, as we have learned, conducted secret surveillance of millions of people for more than ten years. Does this show that we shouldn’t be so dismissive of conspiracy theories after all, or that we simply refuse to accept the existence of coincidence? What is a conspiracy theory, anyway, and how is it different from other kinds of theories? John and Ken form a cabal with Brian Keeley from Pitzer College, author of &#8220;On Conspiracy Theories.&#8221;]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/zRaZmtMQN8A.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Weapons of Mass Destruction</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/weapons-of-mass-destruction/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 30 Mar 2014 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7044</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The United States recently threatened military action against Syria in response to the Syrian government’s alleged use of chemical weapons. Similar threats have been made against states suspected of trying to develop nuclear arsenals such as North Korea and Iran. Yet the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia, and China have thousands of active nuclear weapons of their own. Is there a morally significant difference between nuclear or chemical weapons and conventional weapons? Should we work toward total disarmament, or do we need these weapons as a deterrent to rogue states? What steps must we take to secure peace in a world rife with weapons of mass destruction? John and Ken go nuclear with Stanford political scientist Scott Sagan, co-author of The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: An Enduring Debate, for a program recorded live at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The United States recently threatened military action against Syria in response to the Syrian government’s alleged use of chemical weapons. Similar threats have been made against states suspected of trying to develop nuclear arsenals such as North Korea ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The United States recently threatened military action against Syria in response to the Syrian government’s alleged use of chemical weapons. Similar threats have been made against states suspected of trying to develop nuclear arsenals such as North Korea and Iran. Yet the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia, and China have thousands of active nuclear weapons of their own. Is there a morally significant difference between nuclear or chemical weapons and conventional weapons? Should we work toward total disarmament, or do we need these weapons as a deterrent to rogue states? What steps must we take to secure peace in a world rife with weapons of mass destruction? John and Ken go nuclear with Stanford political scientist Scott Sagan, co-author of The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: An Enduring Debate, for a program recorded live at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7044/weapons-of-mass-destruction.mp3" length="49133029" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The United States recently threatened military action against Syria in response to the Syrian government’s alleged use of chemical weapons. Similar threats have been made against states suspected of trying to develop nuclear arsenals such as North Korea and Iran. Yet the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia, and China have thousands of active nuclear weapons of their own. Is there a morally significant difference between nuclear or chemical weapons and conventional weapons? Should we work toward total disarmament, or do we need these weapons as a deterrent to rogue states? What steps must we take to secure peace in a world rife with weapons of mass destruction? John and Ken go nuclear with Stanford political scientist Scott Sagan, co-author of The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: An Enduring Debate, for a program recorded live at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/FQHpqwDVRGA.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>51:11</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The United States recently threatened military action against Syria in response to the Syrian government’s alleged use of chemical weapons. Similar threats have been made against states suspected of trying to develop nuclear arsenals such as North Korea and Iran. Yet the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia, and China have thousands of active nuclear weapons of their own. Is there a morally significant difference between nuclear or chemical weapons and conventional weapons? Should we work toward total disarmament, or do we need these weapons as a deterrent to rogue states? What steps must we take to secure peace in a world rife with weapons of mass destruction? John and Ken go nuclear with Stanford political scientist Scott Sagan, co-author of The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: An Enduring Debate, for a program recorded live at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/FQHpqwDVRGA.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Acting Together</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/acting-together/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2014 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7059</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Many goals are too complex for one person to accomplish alone. Every day, we pool together our planning abilities with those around us to get things done. It’s clear that without shared agency, none of our familiar social institutions could exist. However, philosophers are in disagreement about what shared agency actually entails. What is it about collective action that&#8217;s unique, and why does it come about? How is acting together sometimes greater than the sum of its parts? John and Ken join forces with Margaret Gilbert from UC Irvine, author of Joint Commitment: How We Make the Social World​.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Many goals are too complex for one person to accomplish alone. Every day, we pool together our planning abilities with those around us to get things done. It’s clear that without shared agency, none of our familiar social institutions could exist. Howeve]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Many goals are too complex for one person to accomplish alone. Every day, we pool together our planning abilities with those around us to get things done. It’s clear that without shared agency, none of our familiar social institutions could exist. However, philosophers are in disagreement about what shared agency actually entails. What is it about collective action that&#8217;s unique, and why does it come about? How is acting together sometimes greater than the sum of its parts? John and Ken join forces with Margaret Gilbert from UC Irvine, author of Joint Commitment: How We Make the Social World​.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7059/acting-together.mp3" length="23926144" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Many goals are too complex for one person to accomplish alone. Every day, we pool together our planning abilities with those around us to get things done. It’s clear that without shared agency, none of our familiar social institutions could exist. However, philosophers are in disagreement about what shared agency actually entails. What is it about collective action that&#8217;s unique, and why does it come about? How is acting together sometimes greater than the sum of its parts? John and Ken join forces with Margaret Gilbert from UC Irvine, author of Joint Commitment: How We Make the Social World​.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/C-3E3he6k20.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Many goals are too complex for one person to accomplish alone. Every day, we pool together our planning abilities with those around us to get things done. It’s clear that without shared agency, none of our familiar social institutions could exist. However, philosophers are in disagreement about what shared agency actually entails. What is it about collective action that&#8217;s unique, and why does it come about? How is acting together sometimes greater than the sum of its parts? John and Ken join forces with Margaret Gilbert from UC Irvine, author of Joint Commitment: How We Make the Social World​.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/C-3E3he6k20.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Simone de Beauvoir</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/simone-de-beauvoir/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 09 Mar 2014 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5527</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Simone de Beauvoir is often cast as only a novelist or a mere echo of Jean-Paul Sartre. But she authored many philosophical texts beyond The Second Sex, and the letters between her and Sartre reveal that both were equally concerned with existentialist questions of radical ontological freedom, the issue of self-deception, and the dynamics of desire. This episode explores the evolution of de Beauvoir&#8217;s existential-ethical thinking. In what sense did she find that we are all radically free? Are we always to blame for our self-deception or can social institutions be at fault? John and Ken sit down at the café with Shannon Mussett from Utah Valley University, co-editor of Beauvoir and Western Thought from Plato to Butler.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Simone de Beauvoir is often cast as only a novelist or a mere echo of Jean-Paul Sartre. But she authored many philosophical texts beyond The Second Sex, and the letters between her and Sartre reveal that both were equally concerned with existentialist qu]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Simone de Beauvoir is often cast as only a novelist or a mere echo of Jean-Paul Sartre. But she authored many philosophical texts beyond The Second Sex, and the letters between her and Sartre reveal that both were equally concerned with existentialist questions of radical ontological freedom, the issue of self-deception, and the dynamics of desire. This episode explores the evolution of de Beauvoir&#8217;s existential-ethical thinking. In what sense did she find that we are all radically free? Are we always to blame for our self-deception or can social institutions be at fault? John and Ken sit down at the café with Shannon Mussett from Utah Valley University, co-editor of Beauvoir and Western Thought from Plato to Butler.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5527/simone-de-beauvoir.mp3" length="47493793" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Simone de Beauvoir is often cast as only a novelist or a mere echo of Jean-Paul Sartre. But she authored many philosophical texts beyond The Second Sex, and the letters between her and Sartre reveal that both were equally concerned with existentialist questions of radical ontological freedom, the issue of self-deception, and the dynamics of desire. This episode explores the evolution of de Beauvoir&#8217;s existential-ethical thinking. In what sense did she find that we are all radically free? Are we always to blame for our self-deception or can social institutions be at fault? John and Ken sit down at the café with Shannon Mussett from Utah Valley University, co-editor of Beauvoir and Western Thought from Plato to Butler.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/IbaL319hz1w.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Simone de Beauvoir is often cast as only a novelist or a mere echo of Jean-Paul Sartre. But she authored many philosophical texts beyond The Second Sex, and the letters between her and Sartre reveal that both were equally concerned with existentialist questions of radical ontological freedom, the issue of self-deception, and the dynamics of desire. This episode explores the evolution of de Beauvoir&#8217;s existential-ethical thinking. In what sense did she find that we are all radically free? Are we always to blame for our self-deception or can social institutions be at fault? John and Ken sit down at the café with Shannon Mussett from Utah Valley University, co-editor of Beauvoir and Western Thought from Plato to Butler.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/IbaL319hz1w.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Science and Gender</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/science-and-gender/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2014 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7057</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What does gender have to do with science? The obvious answer is ‘nothing.’ Science is the epitome of an objective, rational, and disinterested enterprise. But given the history of systemic under-representation of women in science, what does it mean that science answers almost exclusively to the methodologies of men? Has male domination contributed certain unfounded assumptions or cognitive biases to the ‘objectivity’ of scientific inquiry? Is there any possibility of achieving a gender-neutral science, and if so, what would that look like? John and Ken make room at the table for Stanford historian Londa Schiebinger, author of Gendered Innovations in Science and Engineering.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What does gender have to do with science? The obvious answer is ‘nothing.’ Science is the epitome of an objective, rational, and disinterested enterprise. But given the history of systemic under-representation of women in science, what does it mean that ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What does gender have to do with science? The obvious answer is ‘nothing.’ Science is the epitome of an objective, rational, and disinterested enterprise. But given the history of systemic under-representation of women in science, what does it mean that science answers almost exclusively to the methodologies of men? Has male domination contributed certain unfounded assumptions or cognitive biases to the ‘objectivity’ of scientific inquiry? Is there any possibility of achieving a gender-neutral science, and if so, what would that look like? John and Ken make room at the table for Stanford historian Londa Schiebinger, author of Gendered Innovations in Science and Engineering.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7057/science-and-gender.mp3" length="24233536" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What does gender have to do with science? The obvious answer is ‘nothing.’ Science is the epitome of an objective, rational, and disinterested enterprise. But given the history of systemic under-representation of women in science, what does it mean that science answers almost exclusively to the methodologies of men? Has male domination contributed certain unfounded assumptions or cognitive biases to the ‘objectivity’ of scientific inquiry? Is there any possibility of achieving a gender-neutral science, and if so, what would that look like? John and Ken make room at the table for Stanford historian Londa Schiebinger, author of Gendered Innovations in Science and Engineering.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/A7OxoQopv5Q.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What does gender have to do with science? The obvious answer is ‘nothing.’ Science is the epitome of an objective, rational, and disinterested enterprise. But given the history of systemic under-representation of women in science, what does it mean that science answers almost exclusively to the methodologies of men? Has male domination contributed certain unfounded assumptions or cognitive biases to the ‘objectivity’ of scientific inquiry? Is there any possibility of achieving a gender-neutral science, and if so, what would that look like? John and Ken make room at the table for Stanford historian Londa Schiebinger, author of Gendered Innovations in Science and Engineering.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/A7OxoQopv5Q.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Legacy of Freud</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/legacy-freud/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 09 Feb 2014 17:50:03 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=12328</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Did you really want to eat that last piece of cake, or were you secretly thinking about your mother? Sigmund Freud, who might have suggested the latter, established the unconscious mind as a legitimate domain for scientific research. He was the first to seriously study dreams and slips of the tongue, and he proposed that neurotic behavior could be explained by beliefs and desires that we repress. However, many of Freud’s theories have been rejected as unscientific, and his particular brand of psychoanalysis is all but obsolete. So why is Freud still worth remembering? John and Ken get Oedipal with Stanford historian Paul Robinson, author of Freud and His Critics, for a program recorded live at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Did you really want to eat that last piece of cake, or were you secretly thinking about your mother? Sigmund Freud, who might have suggested the latter, established the unconscious mind as a legitimate domain for scientific research. He was the first to ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Did you really want to eat that last piece of cake, or were you secretly thinking about your mother? Sigmund Freud, who might have suggested the latter, established the unconscious mind as a legitimate domain for scientific research. He was the first to seriously study dreams and slips of the tongue, and he proposed that neurotic behavior could be explained by beliefs and desires that we repress. However, many of Freud’s theories have been rejected as unscientific, and his particular brand of psychoanalysis is all but obsolete. So why is Freud still worth remembering? John and Ken get Oedipal with Stanford historian Paul Robinson, author of Freud and His Critics, for a program recorded live at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/12328/legacy-freud.mp3" length="24157632" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Did you really want to eat that last piece of cake, or were you secretly thinking about your mother? Sigmund Freud, who might have suggested the latter, established the unconscious mind as a legitimate domain for scientific research. He was the first to seriously study dreams and slips of the tongue, and he proposed that neurotic behavior could be explained by beliefs and desires that we repress. However, many of Freud’s theories have been rejected as unscientific, and his particular brand of psychoanalysis is all but obsolete. So why is Freud still worth remembering? John and Ken get Oedipal with Stanford historian Paul Robinson, author of Freud and His Critics, for a program recorded live at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/nEdGJsDYEgA.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Did you really want to eat that last piece of cake, or were you secretly thinking about your mother? Sigmund Freud, who might have suggested the latter, established the unconscious mind as a legitimate domain for scientific research. He was the first to seriously study dreams and slips of the tongue, and he proposed that neurotic behavior could be explained by beliefs and desires that we repress. However, many of Freud’s theories have been rejected as unscientific, and his particular brand of psychoanalysis is all but obsolete. So why is Freud still worth remembering? John and Ken get Oedipal with Stanford historian Paul Robinson, author of Freud and His Critics, for a program recorded live at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/nEdGJsDYEgA.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Memory and the Self</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/memory-and-the-self/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 26 Jan 2014 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7062</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Ever since John Locke, philosophers have wondered about memory and its connection to the self. Locke believed that a continuity of consciousness and memory establish a &#8220;self&#8221; over time. Now psychology is weighing in with new research suggesting that the relationship between memory and the self is even more complicated than that. But what&#8217;s the connection between memory and the self? Can the self be explained strictly in terms of memory? Or might the self be something over and above what memory suggests? John and Ken remember to welcome Stan Klein from UC Santa Barbara, author of The Two Selves: Their Metaphysical Commitments and Functional Independence.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Ever since John Locke, philosophers have wondered about memory and its connection to the self. Locke believed that a continuity of consciousness and memory establish a &#8220;self&#8221; over time. Now psychology is weighing in with new research suggesti]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Ever since John Locke, philosophers have wondered about memory and its connection to the self. Locke believed that a continuity of consciousness and memory establish a &#8220;self&#8221; over time. Now psychology is weighing in with new research suggesting that the relationship between memory and the self is even more complicated than that. But what&#8217;s the connection between memory and the self? Can the self be explained strictly in terms of memory? Or might the self be something over and above what memory suggests? John and Ken remember to welcome Stan Klein from UC Santa Barbara, author of The Two Selves: Their Metaphysical Commitments and Functional Independence.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7062/memory-and-the-self.mp3" length="24133696" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Ever since John Locke, philosophers have wondered about memory and its connection to the self. Locke believed that a continuity of consciousness and memory establish a &#8220;self&#8221; over time. Now psychology is weighing in with new research suggesting that the relationship between memory and the self is even more complicated than that. But what&#8217;s the connection between memory and the self? Can the self be explained strictly in terms of memory? Or might the self be something over and above what memory suggests? John and Ken remember to welcome Stan Klein from UC Santa Barbara, author of The Two Selves: Their Metaphysical Commitments and Functional Independence.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/uw9SBcc-cb0.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Ever since John Locke, philosophers have wondered about memory and its connection to the self. Locke believed that a continuity of consciousness and memory establish a &#8220;self&#8221; over time. Now psychology is weighing in with new research suggesting that the relationship between memory and the self is even more complicated than that. But what&#8217;s the connection between memory and the self? Can the self be explained strictly in terms of memory? Or might the self be something over and above what memory suggests? John and Ken remember to welcome Stan Klein from UC Santa Barbara, author of The Two Selves: Their Metaphysical Commitments and Functional Independence.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/uw9SBcc-cb0.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Moral Luck</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/moral-luck/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jan 2014 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7065</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[It seems reasonable to believe that we can only be blamed or praised for actions that are under our control. Nevertheless, in many concrete scenarios, we&#8217;re inclined to base our moral assessment of people on circumstances that are ultimately beyond their control. Blind chance, or “moral luck,” as philosophers call it, may determine the difference between, say, murder and attempted murder. But do we think that a would-be murderer whose attempts are foiled by chance is really less morally culpable than someone who happens to succeed? How should moral luck affect our judgments of responsibility? John and Ken welcome back Susan Wolf from UNC Chapel Hill, author of Meaning in Life and Why It Matters.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[It seems reasonable to believe that we can only be blamed or praised for actions that are under our control. Nevertheless, in many concrete scenarios, we&#8217;re inclined to base our moral assessment of people on circumstances that are ultimately beyond]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[It seems reasonable to believe that we can only be blamed or praised for actions that are under our control. Nevertheless, in many concrete scenarios, we&#8217;re inclined to base our moral assessment of people on circumstances that are ultimately beyond their control. Blind chance, or “moral luck,” as philosophers call it, may determine the difference between, say, murder and attempted murder. But do we think that a would-be murderer whose attempts are foiled by chance is really less morally culpable than someone who happens to succeed? How should moral luck affect our judgments of responsibility? John and Ken welcome back Susan Wolf from UNC Chapel Hill, author of Meaning in Life and Why It Matters.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7065/moral-luck.mp3" length="23746176" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[It seems reasonable to believe that we can only be blamed or praised for actions that are under our control. Nevertheless, in many concrete scenarios, we&#8217;re inclined to base our moral assessment of people on circumstances that are ultimately beyond their control. Blind chance, or “moral luck,” as philosophers call it, may determine the difference between, say, murder and attempted murder. But do we think that a would-be murderer whose attempts are foiled by chance is really less morally culpable than someone who happens to succeed? How should moral luck affect our judgments of responsibility? John and Ken welcome back Susan Wolf from UNC Chapel Hill, author of Meaning in Life and Why It Matters.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/c6XihP9nulY.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[It seems reasonable to believe that we can only be blamed or praised for actions that are under our control. Nevertheless, in many concrete scenarios, we&#8217;re inclined to base our moral assessment of people on circumstances that are ultimately beyond their control. Blind chance, or “moral luck,” as philosophers call it, may determine the difference between, say, murder and attempted murder. But do we think that a would-be murderer whose attempts are foiled by chance is really less morally culpable than someone who happens to succeed? How should moral luck affect our judgments of responsibility? John and Ken welcome back Susan Wolf from UNC Chapel Hill, author of Meaning in Life and Why It Matters.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/c6XihP9nulY.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Examined Year &#8211; 2013</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-examined-year-2013/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jan 2014 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7370</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[A new year offers an opportunity to reflect on the significant events of the previous year.  But what ideas and events took shape over the past twelve months that have prompted us to question our assumptions and to think about things in new ways?  Join John, Ken, and their special guests as they celebrate the examined year with a philosophical look back at 2013.
• The Year in Philosophy and Gender: Linda Alcoff from City University of New York looks at events in 2013 that have higlighted the evolving but still-fraught nature of gender in academia.
• The Year in Whistleblowing and Hacktivism: Peter Ludlow from Northwestern University examines the ethics of leakers like Edward Snowden and Pvt. Manning (sentenced in 2013) who have claimed the moral high ground in their actions.
• The Year in Dysfunctional Democracy: Jon Elster from Columbia University explores the breakdown of democratic process in the US, including the work of political scientist Juan Linz, who passed away in 2013.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[A new year offers an opportunity to reflect on the significant events of the previous year.  But what ideas and events took shape over the past twelve months that have prompted us to question our assumptions and to think about things in new ways?  Join J]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[A new year offers an opportunity to reflect on the significant events of the previous year.  But what ideas and events took shape over the past twelve months that have prompted us to question our assumptions and to think about things in new ways?  Join John, Ken, and their special guests as they celebrate the examined year with a philosophical look back at 2013.
• The Year in Philosophy and Gender: Linda Alcoff from City University of New York looks at events in 2013 that have higlighted the evolving but still-fraught nature of gender in academia.
• The Year in Whistleblowing and Hacktivism: Peter Ludlow from Northwestern University examines the ethics of leakers like Edward Snowden and Pvt. Manning (sentenced in 2013) who have claimed the moral high ground in their actions.
• The Year in Dysfunctional Democracy: Jon Elster from Columbia University explores the breakdown of democratic process in the US, including the work of political scientist Juan Linz, who passed away in 2013.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7370/the-examined-year-2013.mp3" length="101628768" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[A new year offers an opportunity to reflect on the significant events of the previous year.  But what ideas and events took shape over the past twelve months that have prompted us to question our assumptions and to think about things in new ways?  Join John, Ken, and their special guests as they celebrate the examined year with a philosophical look back at 2013.
• The Year in Philosophy and Gender: Linda Alcoff from City University of New York looks at events in 2013 that have higlighted the evolving but still-fraught nature of gender in academia.
• The Year in Whistleblowing and Hacktivism: Peter Ludlow from Northwestern University examines the ethics of leakers like Edward Snowden and Pvt. Manning (sentenced in 2013) who have claimed the moral high ground in their actions.
• The Year in Dysfunctional Democracy: Jon Elster from Columbia University explores the breakdown of democratic process in the US, including the work of political scientist Juan Linz, who passed away in 2013.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/aXP5xTFWiuQ.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[A new year offers an opportunity to reflect on the significant events of the previous year.  But what ideas and events took shape over the past twelve months that have prompted us to question our assumptions and to think about things in new ways?  Join John, Ken, and their special guests as they celebrate the examined year with a philosophical look back at 2013.
• The Year in Philosophy and Gender: Linda Alcoff from City University of New York looks at events in 2013 that have higlighted the evolving but still-fraught nature of gender in academia.
• The Year in Whistleblowing and Hacktivism: Peter Ludlow from Northwestern University examines the ethics of leakers like Edward Snowden and Pvt. Manning (sentenced in 2013) who have claimed the moral high ground in their actions.
• The Year in Dysfunctional Democracy: Jon Elster from Columbia University explores the breakdown of democratic process in the US, including the work of political scientist Juan Linz, who passed away in 2013.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/aXP5xTFWiuQ.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Trust and Mistrust</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/trust-and-mistrust/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 29 Dec 2013 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7373</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[If we couldn&#8217;t trust each other, our lives would be very different. We trust strangers not to harm us, we trust our friends to take care of our most prized possessions, we even trust politicians (sometimes) to come through on their campaign promises. But trust may also come at a high cost: it can leave us vulnerable to lies, deception, and blackmail. So is it reasonable for us to be so trusting? And how should we treat those who trust us? John and Ken put their trust in Stanford philosopher Jorah Dannenberg, in a program recorded live at the Marsh Theater in San Francisco.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[If we couldn&#8217;t trust each other, our lives would be very different. We trust strangers not to harm us, we trust our friends to take care of our most prized possessions, we even trust politicians (sometimes) to come through on their campaign promise]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[If we couldn&#8217;t trust each other, our lives would be very different. We trust strangers not to harm us, we trust our friends to take care of our most prized possessions, we even trust politicians (sometimes) to come through on their campaign promises. But trust may also come at a high cost: it can leave us vulnerable to lies, deception, and blackmail. So is it reasonable for us to be so trusting? And how should we treat those who trust us? John and Ken put their trust in Stanford philosopher Jorah Dannenberg, in a program recorded live at the Marsh Theater in San Francisco.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7373/trust-and-mistrust.mp3" length="48781108" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[If we couldn&#8217;t trust each other, our lives would be very different. We trust strangers not to harm us, we trust our friends to take care of our most prized possessions, we even trust politicians (sometimes) to come through on their campaign promises. But trust may also come at a high cost: it can leave us vulnerable to lies, deception, and blackmail. So is it reasonable for us to be so trusting? And how should we treat those who trust us? John and Ken put their trust in Stanford philosopher Jorah Dannenberg, in a program recorded live at the Marsh Theater in San Francisco.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Lu4-YAbJv-Q.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[If we couldn&#8217;t trust each other, our lives would be very different. We trust strangers not to harm us, we trust our friends to take care of our most prized possessions, we even trust politicians (sometimes) to come through on their campaign promises. But trust may also come at a high cost: it can leave us vulnerable to lies, deception, and blackmail. So is it reasonable for us to be so trusting? And how should we treat those who trust us? John and Ken put their trust in Stanford philosopher Jorah Dannenberg, in a program recorded live at the Marsh Theater in San Francisco.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Lu4-YAbJv-Q.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Do Religions Deserve Special Status?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/do-religions-deserve-special-status/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 15 Dec 2013 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7379</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[In most Western democracies, religions are exempt from certain rules and regulations that most other organizations have to follow. For example, in the US, religious organizations are not required to pay taxes or follow non-discrimination employment laws. Some faithful go so far as to argue that their religious freedom means they shouldn’t have to provide birth control to their employees. But does religion truly deserve this preferential treatment? Should the demands for legal exemption based on religious freedom be treated any differently than those based on moral conscience? What special status, if any, should religion have in the eyes of the law? John and Ken grant guest status to Brian Leiter from the University of Chicago, author of Why Tolerate Religion?]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[In most Western democracies, religions are exempt from certain rules and regulations that most other organizations have to follow. For example, in the US, religious organizations are not required to pay taxes or follow non-discrimination employment laws.]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[In most Western democracies, religions are exempt from certain rules and regulations that most other organizations have to follow. For example, in the US, religious organizations are not required to pay taxes or follow non-discrimination employment laws. Some faithful go so far as to argue that their religious freedom means they shouldn’t have to provide birth control to their employees. But does religion truly deserve this preferential treatment? Should the demands for legal exemption based on religious freedom be treated any differently than those based on moral conscience? What special status, if any, should religion have in the eyes of the law? John and Ken grant guest status to Brian Leiter from the University of Chicago, author of Why Tolerate Religion?]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7379/do-religions-deserve-special-status.mp3" length="46465614" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[In most Western democracies, religions are exempt from certain rules and regulations that most other organizations have to follow. For example, in the US, religious organizations are not required to pay taxes or follow non-discrimination employment laws. Some faithful go so far as to argue that their religious freedom means they shouldn’t have to provide birth control to their employees. But does religion truly deserve this preferential treatment? Should the demands for legal exemption based on religious freedom be treated any differently than those based on moral conscience? What special status, if any, should religion have in the eyes of the law? John and Ken grant guest status to Brian Leiter from the University of Chicago, author of Why Tolerate Religion?]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/sC_SgnGn7fY.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>48:24</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[In most Western democracies, religions are exempt from certain rules and regulations that most other organizations have to follow. For example, in the US, religious organizations are not required to pay taxes or follow non-discrimination employment laws. Some faithful go so far as to argue that their religious freedom means they shouldn’t have to provide birth control to their employees. But does religion truly deserve this preferential treatment? Should the demands for legal exemption based on religious freedom be treated any differently than those based on moral conscience? What special status, if any, should religion have in the eyes of the law? John and Ken grant guest status to Brian Leiter from the University of Chicago, author of Why Tolerate Religion?]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/sC_SgnGn7fY.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Dangerous Demographics: The Challenges of an Aging Population</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/dangerous-demographics-the-challenges-of-an-aging-population/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 24 Nov 2013 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7068</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[All over the world, people are living longer and having fewer children than ever before. In less than two decades, one fifth of the US population will be over 65 years old. So what do these radically changed demographics mean for how we re-imagine the shape of a human life? Should we think of the rapidly increasing older population as a blessing or a burden? And what kinds of changes should we make – both individually and as a society – to adjust to this new world awash with old folks? John and Ken remain young at heart with Laura Carstensen, Director of the Stanford Center on Longevity, in a program recorded live as part of the Bay Area Science Festival.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[All over the world, people are living longer and having fewer children than ever before. In less than two decades, one fifth of the US population will be over 65 years old. So what do these radically changed demographics mean for how we re-imagine the sh]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[All over the world, people are living longer and having fewer children than ever before. In less than two decades, one fifth of the US population will be over 65 years old. So what do these radically changed demographics mean for how we re-imagine the shape of a human life? Should we think of the rapidly increasing older population as a blessing or a burden? And what kinds of changes should we make – both individually and as a society – to adjust to this new world awash with old folks? John and Ken remain young at heart with Laura Carstensen, Director of the Stanford Center on Longevity, in a program recorded live as part of the Bay Area Science Festival.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7068/dangerous-demographics-the-challenges-of-an-aging-population.mp3" length="48869715" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[All over the world, people are living longer and having fewer children than ever before. In less than two decades, one fifth of the US population will be over 65 years old. So what do these radically changed demographics mean for how we re-imagine the shape of a human life? Should we think of the rapidly increasing older population as a blessing or a burden? And what kinds of changes should we make – both individually and as a society – to adjust to this new world awash with old folks? John and Ken remain young at heart with Laura Carstensen, Director of the Stanford Center on Longevity, in a program recorded live as part of the Bay Area Science Festival.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Wq9bdqPTZeA.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:54</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[All over the world, people are living longer and having fewer children than ever before. In less than two decades, one fifth of the US population will be over 65 years old. So what do these radically changed demographics mean for how we re-imagine the shape of a human life? Should we think of the rapidly increasing older population as a blessing or a burden? And what kinds of changes should we make – both individually and as a society – to adjust to this new world awash with old folks? John and Ken remain young at heart with Laura Carstensen, Director of the Stanford Center on Longevity, in a program recorded live as part of the Bay Area Science Festival.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Wq9bdqPTZeA.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Dark Side of Science</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-dark-side-of-science/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7396</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Science aims tell us something about nearly everything, from the atoms in our cells to the motions of the stars. It assumes that knowledge is good for its own sake, and therefore takes as its sole purpose the acquisition of knowledge. But shouldn’t knowledge serve practical and ethical concerns, like ending conflict and feeding the hungry? Could some knowledge be interesting, but ultimately irrelevant? And isn’t there some knowledge we might be better off without, such as how to build nuclear weapons? John and Ken test their claims with UC Berkeley anthropologist Paul Rabinow. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in San Francisco.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Science aims tell us something about nearly everything, from the atoms in our cells to the motions of the stars. It assumes that knowledge is good for its own sake, and therefore takes as its sole purpose the acquisition of knowledge. But shouldn’t knowl]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Science aims tell us something about nearly everything, from the atoms in our cells to the motions of the stars. It assumes that knowledge is good for its own sake, and therefore takes as its sole purpose the acquisition of knowledge. But shouldn’t knowledge serve practical and ethical concerns, like ending conflict and feeding the hungry? Could some knowledge be interesting, but ultimately irrelevant? And isn’t there some knowledge we might be better off without, such as how to build nuclear weapons? John and Ken test their claims with UC Berkeley anthropologist Paul Rabinow. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in San Francisco.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7396/the-dark-side-of-science.mp3" length="48477669" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Science aims tell us something about nearly everything, from the atoms in our cells to the motions of the stars. It assumes that knowledge is good for its own sake, and therefore takes as its sole purpose the acquisition of knowledge. But shouldn’t knowledge serve practical and ethical concerns, like ending conflict and feeding the hungry? Could some knowledge be interesting, but ultimately irrelevant? And isn’t there some knowledge we might be better off without, such as how to build nuclear weapons? John and Ken test their claims with UC Berkeley anthropologist Paul Rabinow. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in San Francisco.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/wfLV2zexROs.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:30</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Science aims tell us something about nearly everything, from the atoms in our cells to the motions of the stars. It assumes that knowledge is good for its own sake, and therefore takes as its sole purpose the acquisition of knowledge. But shouldn’t knowledge serve practical and ethical concerns, like ending conflict and feeding the hungry? Could some knowledge be interesting, but ultimately irrelevant? And isn’t there some knowledge we might be better off without, such as how to build nuclear weapons? John and Ken test their claims with UC Berkeley anthropologist Paul Rabinow. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in San Francisco.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/wfLV2zexROs.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>When Is It Wrong to Save a Life? Lessons from the Trolley Problem</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/when-is-it-wrong-to-save-a-life-lessons-from-the-trolley-problem/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 20 Oct 2013 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7083</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[A trolley is approaching a track junction, and you happen to be standing by the switch. If you do nothing, the trolley will kill a number of innocent children playing on the tracks.  If you throw the switch, it will kill only one fat man, who is sleeping on the tracks. The so-called Trolley Problem sheds light on many claims in moral philosophy: utilitarian positions (doing what&#8217;s best for the greatest number), the difference between doing and letting happen (being more obliged to not cause harm than to prevent harm), and issues of &#8220;collateral damage&#8221; (killing one person to save others). John and Ken ride the trolley with Thomas Cathcart, author of The Trolley Problem, or Would You Throw the Fat Guy Off the Bridge: A Philosophical Conundrum.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[A trolley is approaching a track junction, and you happen to be standing by the switch. If you do nothing, the trolley will kill a number of innocent children playing on the tracks.  If you throw the switch, it will kill only one fat man, who is sleeping]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[A trolley is approaching a track junction, and you happen to be standing by the switch. If you do nothing, the trolley will kill a number of innocent children playing on the tracks.  If you throw the switch, it will kill only one fat man, who is sleeping on the tracks. The so-called Trolley Problem sheds light on many claims in moral philosophy: utilitarian positions (doing what&#8217;s best for the greatest number), the difference between doing and letting happen (being more obliged to not cause harm than to prevent harm), and issues of &#8220;collateral damage&#8221; (killing one person to save others). John and Ken ride the trolley with Thomas Cathcart, author of The Trolley Problem, or Would You Throw the Fat Guy Off the Bridge: A Philosophical Conundrum.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7083/when-is-it-wrong-to-save-a-life-lessons-from-the-trolley-problem.mp3" length="48228566" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[A trolley is approaching a track junction, and you happen to be standing by the switch. If you do nothing, the trolley will kill a number of innocent children playing on the tracks.  If you throw the switch, it will kill only one fat man, who is sleeping on the tracks. The so-called Trolley Problem sheds light on many claims in moral philosophy: utilitarian positions (doing what&#8217;s best for the greatest number), the difference between doing and letting happen (being more obliged to not cause harm than to prevent harm), and issues of &#8220;collateral damage&#8221; (killing one person to save others). John and Ken ride the trolley with Thomas Cathcart, author of The Trolley Problem, or Would You Throw the Fat Guy Off the Bridge: A Philosophical Conundrum.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ZROe2D06yBA.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:14</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[A trolley is approaching a track junction, and you happen to be standing by the switch. If you do nothing, the trolley will kill a number of innocent children playing on the tracks.  If you throw the switch, it will kill only one fat man, who is sleeping on the tracks. The so-called Trolley Problem sheds light on many claims in moral philosophy: utilitarian positions (doing what&#8217;s best for the greatest number), the difference between doing and letting happen (being more obliged to not cause harm than to prevent harm), and issues of &#8220;collateral damage&#8221; (killing one person to save others). John and Ken ride the trolley with Thomas Cathcart, author of The Trolley Problem, or Would You Throw the Fat Guy Off the Bridge: A Philosophical Conundrum.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ZROe2D06yBA.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>An Eye for an Eye: The Morality of Revenge</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/an-eye-for-an-eye-the-morality-of-revenge/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 13 Oct 2013 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7071</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[We are often taught that vengeance is a reprehensible or unworthy motivation and that, as a result, pursuing revenge should not be the method of choice when meting out punishment for crimes. Incarceration and other penalties, according to this view, can only be justified in as much as they protect society, rehabilitate criminals, or deter further crime. But are these approaches to punishment really more just than the retributive or vengeance model? Don’t the victims of crime deserve some kind of payback for their suffering? Are justice and revenge in conflict with one another, or do they actually go hand in hand? John and Ken trade favors with Thane Rosenbaum from the Fordham Law School, author of Payback: The Case For Revenge.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[We are often taught that vengeance is a reprehensible or unworthy motivation and that, as a result, pursuing revenge should not be the method of choice when meting out punishment for crimes. Incarceration and other penalties, according to this view, can ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[We are often taught that vengeance is a reprehensible or unworthy motivation and that, as a result, pursuing revenge should not be the method of choice when meting out punishment for crimes. Incarceration and other penalties, according to this view, can only be justified in as much as they protect society, rehabilitate criminals, or deter further crime. But are these approaches to punishment really more just than the retributive or vengeance model? Don’t the victims of crime deserve some kind of payback for their suffering? Are justice and revenge in conflict with one another, or do they actually go hand in hand? John and Ken trade favors with Thane Rosenbaum from the Fordham Law School, author of Payback: The Case For Revenge.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7071/an-eye-for-an-eye-the-morality-of-revenge.mp3" length="47520961" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[We are often taught that vengeance is a reprehensible or unworthy motivation and that, as a result, pursuing revenge should not be the method of choice when meting out punishment for crimes. Incarceration and other penalties, according to this view, can only be justified in as much as they protect society, rehabilitate criminals, or deter further crime. But are these approaches to punishment really more just than the retributive or vengeance model? Don’t the victims of crime deserve some kind of payback for their suffering? Are justice and revenge in conflict with one another, or do they actually go hand in hand? John and Ken trade favors with Thane Rosenbaum from the Fordham Law School, author of Payback: The Case For Revenge.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2hKyEGaaVwI.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>49:30</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[We are often taught that vengeance is a reprehensible or unworthy motivation and that, as a result, pursuing revenge should not be the method of choice when meting out punishment for crimes. Incarceration and other penalties, according to this view, can only be justified in as much as they protect society, rehabilitate criminals, or deter further crime. But are these approaches to punishment really more just than the retributive or vengeance model? Don’t the victims of crime deserve some kind of payback for their suffering? Are justice and revenge in conflict with one another, or do they actually go hand in hand? John and Ken trade favors with Thane Rosenbaum from the Fordham Law School, author of Payback: The Case For Revenge.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2hKyEGaaVwI.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Limits of Self-Knowledge</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-limits-of-self-knowledge/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 06 Oct 2013 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7074</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Descartes considered the mind to be fully self-transparent; that is, he thought that we need only introspect to know what goes on inside our own minds. More recently, social psychology has shown that a great deal of high-level cognition takes place at an unconscious level, inaccessible to introspection. How then do we gain insight into ourselves? How reliable are the narratives that we construct about ourselves and our internal lives? Are there other reliable routes to self-knowledge, or are we condemned to being forever deluded about who we truly are? John and Ken look inward with Timothy Wilson from the University of Virginia, author of Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Descartes considered the mind to be fully self-transparent; that is, he thought that we need only introspect to know what goes on inside our own minds. More recently, social psychology has shown that a great deal of high-level cognition takes place at an]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Descartes considered the mind to be fully self-transparent; that is, he thought that we need only introspect to know what goes on inside our own minds. More recently, social psychology has shown that a great deal of high-level cognition takes place at an unconscious level, inaccessible to introspection. How then do we gain insight into ourselves? How reliable are the narratives that we construct about ourselves and our internal lives? Are there other reliable routes to self-knowledge, or are we condemned to being forever deluded about who we truly are? John and Ken look inward with Timothy Wilson from the University of Virginia, author of Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7074/the-limits-of-self-knowledge.mp3" length="47981970" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Descartes considered the mind to be fully self-transparent; that is, he thought that we need only introspect to know what goes on inside our own minds. More recently, social psychology has shown that a great deal of high-level cognition takes place at an unconscious level, inaccessible to introspection. How then do we gain insight into ourselves? How reliable are the narratives that we construct about ourselves and our internal lives? Are there other reliable routes to self-knowledge, or are we condemned to being forever deluded about who we truly are? John and Ken look inward with Timothy Wilson from the University of Virginia, author of Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/UwZEQtz99Qo.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>49:59</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Descartes considered the mind to be fully self-transparent; that is, he thought that we need only introspect to know what goes on inside our own minds. More recently, social psychology has shown that a great deal of high-level cognition takes place at an unconscious level, inaccessible to introspection. How then do we gain insight into ourselves? How reliable are the narratives that we construct about ourselves and our internal lives? Are there other reliable routes to self-knowledge, or are we condemned to being forever deluded about who we truly are? John and Ken look inward with Timothy Wilson from the University of Virginia, author of Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/UwZEQtz99Qo.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Ancient Cynicism</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/ancient-cynicism/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 22 Sep 2013 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7402</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Today, the term ‘cynic’ brings to mind a person who has little or no faith in the goodness of the human race. In ancient Athens, however, it meant something quite different: one who rejects all social conventions in order to live in accordance with nature. The Cynics believed that such a life was necessary for freedom and virtue. Why did they think so? What are the most important tenets of Cynic philosophy? And are there any reasons to live now as the Cynics once did? John and Ken sincerely welcome Luis Navia from the New York Institute of Technology, author of Diogenes the Cynic: The War Against the World.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Today, the term ‘cynic’ brings to mind a person who has little or no faith in the goodness of the human race. In ancient Athens, however, it meant something quite different: one who rejects all social conventions in order to live in accordance with natur]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Today, the term ‘cynic’ brings to mind a person who has little or no faith in the goodness of the human race. In ancient Athens, however, it meant something quite different: one who rejects all social conventions in order to live in accordance with nature. The Cynics believed that such a life was necessary for freedom and virtue. Why did they think so? What are the most important tenets of Cynic philosophy? And are there any reasons to live now as the Cynics once did? John and Ken sincerely welcome Luis Navia from the New York Institute of Technology, author of Diogenes the Cynic: The War Against the World.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7402/ancient-cynicism.mp3" length="48018332" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Today, the term ‘cynic’ brings to mind a person who has little or no faith in the goodness of the human race. In ancient Athens, however, it meant something quite different: one who rejects all social conventions in order to live in accordance with nature. The Cynics believed that such a life was necessary for freedom and virtue. Why did they think so? What are the most important tenets of Cynic philosophy? And are there any reasons to live now as the Cynics once did? John and Ken sincerely welcome Luis Navia from the New York Institute of Technology, author of Diogenes the Cynic: The War Against the World.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/wmhtwERoraE.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:01</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Today, the term ‘cynic’ brings to mind a person who has little or no faith in the goodness of the human race. In ancient Athens, however, it meant something quite different: one who rejects all social conventions in order to live in accordance with nature. The Cynics believed that such a life was necessary for freedom and virtue. Why did they think so? What are the most important tenets of Cynic philosophy? And are there any reasons to live now as the Cynics once did? John and Ken sincerely welcome Luis Navia from the New York Institute of Technology, author of Diogenes the Cynic: The War Against the World.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/wmhtwERoraE.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Moral Lives of Animals</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-moral-lives-of-animals/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 15 Sep 2013 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7080</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[From Aristotle and Kant to Hume and Darwin, philosophers and scientists have long denied the idea that animals are capable of acting for moral reasons. Yet empirical evidence suggests that many animals have rich emotional lives, and some even demonstrate distinctly altruistic or empathetic behavior. So how should we interpret this behavior? Do the moral feelings of animals suggest they are capable of responding to moral reasons? Or do they lack the cognitive capacity necessary for being truly moral? John and Ken examine their animal nature with Mark Rowlands from the University of Miami, author of Can Animals Be Moral?]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[From Aristotle and Kant to Hume and Darwin, philosophers and scientists have long denied the idea that animals are capable of acting for moral reasons. Yet empirical evidence suggests that many animals have rich emotional lives, and some even demonstrate]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[From Aristotle and Kant to Hume and Darwin, philosophers and scientists have long denied the idea that animals are capable of acting for moral reasons. Yet empirical evidence suggests that many animals have rich emotional lives, and some even demonstrate distinctly altruistic or empathetic behavior. So how should we interpret this behavior? Do the moral feelings of animals suggest they are capable of responding to moral reasons? Or do they lack the cognitive capacity necessary for being truly moral? John and Ken examine their animal nature with Mark Rowlands from the University of Miami, author of Can Animals Be Moral?]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7080/the-moral-lives-of-animals.mp3" length="47245270" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[From Aristotle and Kant to Hume and Darwin, philosophers and scientists have long denied the idea that animals are capable of acting for moral reasons. Yet empirical evidence suggests that many animals have rich emotional lives, and some even demonstrate distinctly altruistic or empathetic behavior. So how should we interpret this behavior? Do the moral feelings of animals suggest they are capable of responding to moral reasons? Or do they lack the cognitive capacity necessary for being truly moral? John and Ken examine their animal nature with Mark Rowlands from the University of Miami, author of Can Animals Be Moral?]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/1E70zsyrch0.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[From Aristotle and Kant to Hume and Darwin, philosophers and scientists have long denied the idea that animals are capable of acting for moral reasons. Yet empirical evidence suggests that many animals have rich emotional lives, and some even demonstrate distinctly altruistic or empathetic behavior. So how should we interpret this behavior? Do the moral feelings of animals suggest they are capable of responding to moral reasons? Or do they lack the cognitive capacity necessary for being truly moral? John and Ken examine their animal nature with Mark Rowlands from the University of Miami, author of Can Animals Be Moral?]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/1E70zsyrch0.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Tenth Anniversary Special</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/tenth-anniversary-special/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 01 Sep 2013 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7376</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk debuted on KALW 91.7 FM in San Francisco in August 2003, with regular broadcasts beginning in early 2004. Over the course of a decade the Philosophers, their guests, and their listeners have discussed and debated everything from the meaning of life to pre-emptive military strikes and baseball. To celebrate ten years on the air, John and Ken listen back to some of their favorite conversations with the writers and thinkers who have joined them on the program, and they look ahead to the ongoing challenges of thinking hard on the radio.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk debuted on KALW 91.7 FM in San Francisco in August 2003, with regular broadcasts beginning in early 2004. Over the course of a decade the Philosophers, their guests, and their listeners have discussed and debated everything from the meani]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk debuted on KALW 91.7 FM in San Francisco in August 2003, with regular broadcasts beginning in early 2004. Over the course of a decade the Philosophers, their guests, and their listeners have discussed and debated everything from the meaning of life to pre-emptive military strikes and baseball. To celebrate ten years on the air, John and Ken listen back to some of their favorite conversations with the writers and thinkers who have joined them on the program, and they look ahead to the ongoing challenges of thinking hard on the radio.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7376/tenth-anniversary-special.mp3" length="49852499" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk debuted on KALW 91.7 FM in San Francisco in August 2003, with regular broadcasts beginning in early 2004. Over the course of a decade the Philosophers, their guests, and their listeners have discussed and debated everything from the meaning of life to pre-emptive military strikes and baseball. To celebrate ten years on the air, John and Ken listen back to some of their favorite conversations with the writers and thinkers who have joined them on the program, and they look ahead to the ongoing challenges of thinking hard on the radio.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/8GgCnPTJE6I.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk debuted on KALW 91.7 FM in San Francisco in August 2003, with regular broadcasts beginning in early 2004. Over the course of a decade the Philosophers, their guests, and their listeners have discussed and debated everything from the meaning of life to pre-emptive military strikes and baseball. To celebrate ten years on the air, John and Ken listen back to some of their favorite conversations with the writers and thinkers who have joined them on the program, and they look ahead to the ongoing challenges of thinking hard on the radio.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/8GgCnPTJE6I.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Memes: Viruses of the Mind?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/memes-viruses-of-the-mind/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 25 Aug 2013 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7086</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Gangnam style, Lolcats, and Chuck Norris’ superhuman feats are all memes – units of cultural transmission – that spread through the internet. But when the term was originally coined, memes were posited as vehicles of a kind of evolution, similar to genes and biological evolution. So are the memes that colonize our brains simply those that survive natural selection? Don’t we get any say in the viruses that populate our minds? What happens if the fittest memes are also the most detrimental to us? John and Ken explore the mutations in their minds with Susan Blackmore from the University of Plymouth, author of The Meme Machine.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Gangnam style, Lolcats, and Chuck Norris’ superhuman feats are all memes – units of cultural transmission – that spread through the internet. But when the term was originally coined, memes were posited as vehicles of a kind of evolution, similar to genes]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Gangnam style, Lolcats, and Chuck Norris’ superhuman feats are all memes – units of cultural transmission – that spread through the internet. But when the term was originally coined, memes were posited as vehicles of a kind of evolution, similar to genes and biological evolution. So are the memes that colonize our brains simply those that survive natural selection? Don’t we get any say in the viruses that populate our minds? What happens if the fittest memes are also the most detrimental to us? John and Ken explore the mutations in their minds with Susan Blackmore from the University of Plymouth, author of The Meme Machine.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7086/memes-viruses-of-the-mind.mp3" length="48590936" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Gangnam style, Lolcats, and Chuck Norris’ superhuman feats are all memes – units of cultural transmission – that spread through the internet. But when the term was originally coined, memes were posited as vehicles of a kind of evolution, similar to genes and biological evolution. So are the memes that colonize our brains simply those that survive natural selection? Don’t we get any say in the viruses that populate our minds? What happens if the fittest memes are also the most detrimental to us? John and Ken explore the mutations in their minds with Susan Blackmore from the University of Plymouth, author of The Meme Machine.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/iMjTLRD9AAU.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:37</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Gangnam style, Lolcats, and Chuck Norris’ superhuman feats are all memes – units of cultural transmission – that spread through the internet. But when the term was originally coined, memes were posited as vehicles of a kind of evolution, similar to genes and biological evolution. So are the memes that colonize our brains simply those that survive natural selection? Don’t we get any say in the viruses that populate our minds? What happens if the fittest memes are also the most detrimental to us? John and Ken explore the mutations in their minds with Susan Blackmore from the University of Plymouth, author of The Meme Machine.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/iMjTLRD9AAU.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Life as a Work of Art</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/life-as-a-work-of-art/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 18 Aug 2013 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7077</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[We know what it means for a painting to be beautiful. But what about a life? Like great works of art, great people exhibit style, originality, and creativity. Maybe, then, to live well is just to practice an ART of living. But what do the values that are important to a good life – happiness, moral goodness, or friendship, for example – have to do with aesthetic beauty? Aren’t the qualities that make a work of art good different from the qualities that make a life good? Is there really such thing as a &#8220;beautiful&#8221; life? John and Ken paint their masterpiece with Lanier Anderson from Stanford University, recorded live on campus as part of the Stanford Continuing Studies series The Art of Living.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[We know what it means for a painting to be beautiful. But what about a life? Like great works of art, great people exhibit style, originality, and creativity. Maybe, then, to live well is just to practice an ART of living. But what do the values that are]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[We know what it means for a painting to be beautiful. But what about a life? Like great works of art, great people exhibit style, originality, and creativity. Maybe, then, to live well is just to practice an ART of living. But what do the values that are important to a good life – happiness, moral goodness, or friendship, for example – have to do with aesthetic beauty? Aren’t the qualities that make a work of art good different from the qualities that make a life good? Is there really such thing as a &#8220;beautiful&#8221; life? John and Ken paint their masterpiece with Lanier Anderson from Stanford University, recorded live on campus as part of the Stanford Continuing Studies series The Art of Living.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7077/life-as-a-work-of-art.mp3" length="48617686" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[We know what it means for a painting to be beautiful. But what about a life? Like great works of art, great people exhibit style, originality, and creativity. Maybe, then, to live well is just to practice an ART of living. But what do the values that are important to a good life – happiness, moral goodness, or friendship, for example – have to do with aesthetic beauty? Aren’t the qualities that make a work of art good different from the qualities that make a life good? Is there really such thing as a &#8220;beautiful&#8221; life? John and Ken paint their masterpiece with Lanier Anderson from Stanford University, recorded live on campus as part of the Stanford Continuing Studies series The Art of Living.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/J7ia_0d2ywM.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:39</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[We know what it means for a painting to be beautiful. But what about a life? Like great works of art, great people exhibit style, originality, and creativity. Maybe, then, to live well is just to practice an ART of living. But what do the values that are important to a good life – happiness, moral goodness, or friendship, for example – have to do with aesthetic beauty? Aren’t the qualities that make a work of art good different from the qualities that make a life good? Is there really such thing as a &#8220;beautiful&#8221; life? John and Ken paint their masterpiece with Lanier Anderson from Stanford University, recorded live on campus as part of the Stanford Continuing Studies series The Art of Living.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/J7ia_0d2ywM.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Finding Meaning in a Material World</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/finding-meaning-in-a-material-world/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 04 Aug 2013 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7092</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[All there is in the world is physical stuff. That is the fundamental assumption of the materialist standpoint, and the picture given to us by science. But if there is no immaterial soul that survives the death of the body, no other realm to bestow meaning on our lives, how can we avoid despairing in light of this apparent pointlessness? Is there any way we can build meaning from the naturalistic building blocks that science provides? John and Ken talk materially with Owen Flanagan from Duke University, author of The Really Hard Problem: Meaning in a Material World. Recorded live on campus as part of the Stanford Continuing Studies series The Art of Living.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[All there is in the world is physical stuff. That is the fundamental assumption of the materialist standpoint, and the picture given to us by science. But if there is no immaterial soul that survives the death of the body, no other realm to bestow meanin]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[All there is in the world is physical stuff. That is the fundamental assumption of the materialist standpoint, and the picture given to us by science. But if there is no immaterial soul that survives the death of the body, no other realm to bestow meaning on our lives, how can we avoid despairing in light of this apparent pointlessness? Is there any way we can build meaning from the naturalistic building blocks that science provides? John and Ken talk materially with Owen Flanagan from Duke University, author of The Really Hard Problem: Meaning in a Material World. Recorded live on campus as part of the Stanford Continuing Studies series The Art of Living.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7092/finding-meaning-in-a-material-world.mp3" length="49225816" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[All there is in the world is physical stuff. That is the fundamental assumption of the materialist standpoint, and the picture given to us by science. But if there is no immaterial soul that survives the death of the body, no other realm to bestow meaning on our lives, how can we avoid despairing in light of this apparent pointlessness? Is there any way we can build meaning from the naturalistic building blocks that science provides? John and Ken talk materially with Owen Flanagan from Duke University, author of The Really Hard Problem: Meaning in a Material World. Recorded live on campus as part of the Stanford Continuing Studies series The Art of Living.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/j0IaC7FyYe8.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>51:17</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[All there is in the world is physical stuff. That is the fundamental assumption of the materialist standpoint, and the picture given to us by science. But if there is no immaterial soul that survives the death of the body, no other realm to bestow meaning on our lives, how can we avoid despairing in light of this apparent pointlessness? Is there any way we can build meaning from the naturalistic building blocks that science provides? John and Ken talk materially with Owen Flanagan from Duke University, author of The Really Hard Problem: Meaning in a Material World. Recorded live on campus as part of the Stanford Continuing Studies series The Art of Living.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/j0IaC7FyYe8.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Freedom and Free Enterprise</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/freedom-and-free-enterprise/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 21 Jul 2013 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7125</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[“Freedom” means the human capacity to choose among options, based on one’s own preferences and reasoning. It also stands for the political status to exercise such freedom on matters of conscience and to express opinions without interference from the state. Enlightenment thinkers also included the right to buy and sell property in an open market with minimal government interference. So is the justification for our free-enterprise system a practical matter – an effective way of organizing resources and the distribution of goods – or does it rest on deeper principles? John and Ken test their entrepreneurial spirit with Shannon Stimson from UC Berkeley, co-author of After Adam Smith: A Century of Transformation in Politics and Political Economy.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[“Freedom” means the human capacity to choose among options, based on one’s own preferences and reasoning. It also stands for the political status to exercise such freedom on matters of conscience and to express opinions without interference from the stat]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[“Freedom” means the human capacity to choose among options, based on one’s own preferences and reasoning. It also stands for the political status to exercise such freedom on matters of conscience and to express opinions without interference from the state. Enlightenment thinkers also included the right to buy and sell property in an open market with minimal government interference. So is the justification for our free-enterprise system a practical matter – an effective way of organizing resources and the distribution of goods – or does it rest on deeper principles? John and Ken test their entrepreneurial spirit with Shannon Stimson from UC Berkeley, co-author of After Adam Smith: A Century of Transformation in Politics and Political Economy.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7125/freedom-and-free-enterprise.mp3" length="48769567" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[“Freedom” means the human capacity to choose among options, based on one’s own preferences and reasoning. It also stands for the political status to exercise such freedom on matters of conscience and to express opinions without interference from the state. Enlightenment thinkers also included the right to buy and sell property in an open market with minimal government interference. So is the justification for our free-enterprise system a practical matter – an effective way of organizing resources and the distribution of goods – or does it rest on deeper principles? John and Ken test their entrepreneurial spirit with Shannon Stimson from UC Berkeley, co-author of After Adam Smith: A Century of Transformation in Politics and Political Economy.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/12flXMeC9Qs.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[“Freedom” means the human capacity to choose among options, based on one’s own preferences and reasoning. It also stands for the political status to exercise such freedom on matters of conscience and to express opinions without interference from the state. Enlightenment thinkers also included the right to buy and sell property in an open market with minimal government interference. So is the justification for our free-enterprise system a practical matter – an effective way of organizing resources and the distribution of goods – or does it rest on deeper principles? John and Ken test their entrepreneurial spirit with Shannon Stimson from UC Berkeley, co-author of After Adam Smith: A Century of Transformation in Politics and Political Economy.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/12flXMeC9Qs.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Ancient Wisdom for Modern Times</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/ancient-wisdom-for-modern-times/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 07 Jul 2013 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7089</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[If the Ancients found themselves transported to the modern world, they would have much to learn about science, technology, and human thinking. But is there something the Ancients can still teach us about how to live a good life? What relevance do the virtues – wisdom, courage, prudence, justice, and so on – have for our modern times? Could these ancient values help solve some of the most challenging problems of contemporary life? John and Ken talk old school with Melissa Lane from Princeton University, author of Eco-Republic: What the Ancients Can Teach Us about Ethics, Virtue, and Sustainable Living. This program was recorded live on campus as part of the Stanford Continuing Studies series The Art of Living.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[If the Ancients found themselves transported to the modern world, they would have much to learn about science, technology, and human thinking. But is there something the Ancients can still teach us about how to live a good life? What relevance do the vir]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[If the Ancients found themselves transported to the modern world, they would have much to learn about science, technology, and human thinking. But is there something the Ancients can still teach us about how to live a good life? What relevance do the virtues – wisdom, courage, prudence, justice, and so on – have for our modern times? Could these ancient values help solve some of the most challenging problems of contemporary life? John and Ken talk old school with Melissa Lane from Princeton University, author of Eco-Republic: What the Ancients Can Teach Us about Ethics, Virtue, and Sustainable Living. This program was recorded live on campus as part of the Stanford Continuing Studies series The Art of Living.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7089/ancient-wisdom-for-modern-times.mp3" length="49215111" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[If the Ancients found themselves transported to the modern world, they would have much to learn about science, technology, and human thinking. But is there something the Ancients can still teach us about how to live a good life? What relevance do the virtues – wisdom, courage, prudence, justice, and so on – have for our modern times? Could these ancient values help solve some of the most challenging problems of contemporary life? John and Ken talk old school with Melissa Lane from Princeton University, author of Eco-Republic: What the Ancients Can Teach Us about Ethics, Virtue, and Sustainable Living. This program was recorded live on campus as part of the Stanford Continuing Studies series The Art of Living.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/XCOsH6w1Ty8.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[If the Ancients found themselves transported to the modern world, they would have much to learn about science, technology, and human thinking. But is there something the Ancients can still teach us about how to live a good life? What relevance do the virtues – wisdom, courage, prudence, justice, and so on – have for our modern times? Could these ancient values help solve some of the most challenging problems of contemporary life? John and Ken talk old school with Melissa Lane from Princeton University, author of Eco-Republic: What the Ancients Can Teach Us about Ethics, Virtue, and Sustainable Living. This program was recorded live on campus as part of the Stanford Continuing Studies series The Art of Living.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/XCOsH6w1Ty8.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Nations and Borders</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/nations-and-borders/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 23 Jun 2013 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7134</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[One’s country of birth has a profound effect on life prospects. It&#8217;s often best to go elsewhere. But moving is not always so easy. Borders and immigration laws restrict people from going where they want to pursue a better life. On the one hand there is the state’s need for security, self-determination, and a functioning economy. But why should arbitrary boundaries, based on past thefts of territory, limit a person&#8217;s opportunities? Are borders essential to nationhood, or do they form an exclusive club that unfairly keeps certain people from pursuing a better life? John and Ken lift the gate for UC Berkeley Law Professor Sarah Song, author of Justice, Gender, and the Politics of Multiculturalism. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in San Francisco.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[One’s country of birth has a profound effect on life prospects. It&#8217;s often best to go elsewhere. But moving is not always so easy. Borders and immigration laws restrict people from going where they want to pursue a better life. On the one hand ther]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[One’s country of birth has a profound effect on life prospects. It&#8217;s often best to go elsewhere. But moving is not always so easy. Borders and immigration laws restrict people from going where they want to pursue a better life. On the one hand there is the state’s need for security, self-determination, and a functioning economy. But why should arbitrary boundaries, based on past thefts of territory, limit a person&#8217;s opportunities? Are borders essential to nationhood, or do they form an exclusive club that unfairly keeps certain people from pursuing a better life? John and Ken lift the gate for UC Berkeley Law Professor Sarah Song, author of Justice, Gender, and the Politics of Multiculturalism. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in San Francisco.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7134/nations-and-borders.mp3" length="48915691" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[One’s country of birth has a profound effect on life prospects. It&#8217;s often best to go elsewhere. But moving is not always so easy. Borders and immigration laws restrict people from going where they want to pursue a better life. On the one hand there is the state’s need for security, self-determination, and a functioning economy. But why should arbitrary boundaries, based on past thefts of territory, limit a person&#8217;s opportunities? Are borders essential to nationhood, or do they form an exclusive club that unfairly keeps certain people from pursuing a better life? John and Ken lift the gate for UC Berkeley Law Professor Sarah Song, author of Justice, Gender, and the Politics of Multiculturalism. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in San Francisco.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/yLG4vqH1hKA.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[One’s country of birth has a profound effect on life prospects. It&#8217;s often best to go elsewhere. But moving is not always so easy. Borders and immigration laws restrict people from going where they want to pursue a better life. On the one hand there is the state’s need for security, self-determination, and a functioning economy. But why should arbitrary boundaries, based on past thefts of territory, limit a person&#8217;s opportunities? Are borders essential to nationhood, or do they form an exclusive club that unfairly keeps certain people from pursuing a better life? John and Ken lift the gate for UC Berkeley Law Professor Sarah Song, author of Justice, Gender, and the Politics of Multiculturalism. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in San Francisco.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/yLG4vqH1hKA.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Education and the Culture Wars</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/education-and-the-culture-wars/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 16 Jun 2013 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7275</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[In contemporary democracies, the state is responsible for providing children with an education. But parents surely have both the right and responsibility for instilling appropriate morals and values in their children. How should we reconcile conflicts between the state’s responsibility to properly educate minors and the parents’ rights to influence their children&#8217;s values and ideals? Should the government’s approach to education in areas such as history and science always trump that of the child’s most direct guardians? Or should parents hold some veto power when it comes to education about evolution, sex, and other issues that bear on religious and personal values? John and Ken do their homework with Stanford political scientist Rob Reich, co-editor of Education, Justice, and Democracy, for a program recorded live at the Marsh Theater in San Francisco.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[In contemporary democracies, the state is responsible for providing children with an education. But parents surely have both the right and responsibility for instilling appropriate morals and values in their children. How should we reconcile conflicts be]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[In contemporary democracies, the state is responsible for providing children with an education. But parents surely have both the right and responsibility for instilling appropriate morals and values in their children. How should we reconcile conflicts between the state’s responsibility to properly educate minors and the parents’ rights to influence their children&#8217;s values and ideals? Should the government’s approach to education in areas such as history and science always trump that of the child’s most direct guardians? Or should parents hold some veto power when it comes to education about evolution, sex, and other issues that bear on religious and personal values? John and Ken do their homework with Stanford political scientist Rob Reich, co-editor of Education, Justice, and Democracy, for a program recorded live at the Marsh Theater in San Francisco.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7275/education-and-the-culture-wars.mp3" length="48928647" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[In contemporary democracies, the state is responsible for providing children with an education. But parents surely have both the right and responsibility for instilling appropriate morals and values in their children. How should we reconcile conflicts between the state’s responsibility to properly educate minors and the parents’ rights to influence their children&#8217;s values and ideals? Should the government’s approach to education in areas such as history and science always trump that of the child’s most direct guardians? Or should parents hold some veto power when it comes to education about evolution, sex, and other issues that bear on religious and personal values? John and Ken do their homework with Stanford political scientist Rob Reich, co-editor of Education, Justice, and Democracy, for a program recorded live at the Marsh Theater in San Francisco.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ogisUOmNzgI.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:58</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[In contemporary democracies, the state is responsible for providing children with an education. But parents surely have both the right and responsibility for instilling appropriate morals and values in their children. How should we reconcile conflicts between the state’s responsibility to properly educate minors and the parents’ rights to influence their children&#8217;s values and ideals? Should the government’s approach to education in areas such as history and science always trump that of the child’s most direct guardians? Or should parents hold some veto power when it comes to education about evolution, sex, and other issues that bear on religious and personal values? John and Ken do their homework with Stanford political scientist Rob Reich, co-editor of Education, Justice, and Democracy, for a program recorded live at the Marsh Theater in San Francisco.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ogisUOmNzgI.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Physics, Philosophy, and Theology</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/physics-philosophy-and-theology/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 09 Jun 2013 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7420</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The world disclosed by the physical sciences can seem depressing. Modern physics, for example, has undermined the religious idea that the universe has a spiritual dimension. Quantum physics in particular seems to present the world as more paradoxical than rational. Is there room within – or in addition to – the world presented to us by the physical sciences for ideas such as freedom, dignity, justice, and even God? Or should these all be regarded as useful illusions? John and Ken search the heavens with Tim O&#8217;Connor from Indiana University, author of Theism and Ultimate Explanation: The Necessary Shape of Contingency.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The world disclosed by the physical sciences can seem depressing. Modern physics, for example, has undermined the religious idea that the universe has a spiritual dimension. Quantum physics in particular seems to present the world as more paradoxical tha]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The world disclosed by the physical sciences can seem depressing. Modern physics, for example, has undermined the religious idea that the universe has a spiritual dimension. Quantum physics in particular seems to present the world as more paradoxical than rational. Is there room within – or in addition to – the world presented to us by the physical sciences for ideas such as freedom, dignity, justice, and even God? Or should these all be regarded as useful illusions? John and Ken search the heavens with Tim O&#8217;Connor from Indiana University, author of Theism and Ultimate Explanation: The Necessary Shape of Contingency.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7420/physics-philosophy-and-theology.mp3" length="48449248" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The world disclosed by the physical sciences can seem depressing. Modern physics, for example, has undermined the religious idea that the universe has a spiritual dimension. Quantum physics in particular seems to present the world as more paradoxical than rational. Is there room within – or in addition to – the world presented to us by the physical sciences for ideas such as freedom, dignity, justice, and even God? Or should these all be regarded as useful illusions? John and Ken search the heavens with Tim O&#8217;Connor from Indiana University, author of Theism and Ultimate Explanation: The Necessary Shape of Contingency.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/zvq6jguEas.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:28</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The world disclosed by the physical sciences can seem depressing. Modern physics, for example, has undermined the religious idea that the universe has a spiritual dimension. Quantum physics in particular seems to present the world as more paradoxical than rational. Is there room within – or in addition to – the world presented to us by the physical sciences for ideas such as freedom, dignity, justice, and even God? Or should these all be regarded as useful illusions? John and Ken search the heavens with Tim O&#8217;Connor from Indiana University, author of Theism and Ultimate Explanation: The Necessary Shape of Contingency.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/zvq6jguEas.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Summer Reading List 2013</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/summer-reading-list-2013/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 26 May 2013 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7411</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Summer is the perfect time to dig in to deep reading. Heidegger&#8217;s Being and Time may be a bit much to take to the beach, but there are lots of readable classics that could make your summer reading a transformative experience. John and Ken ask a few of their past guests about the book that most transformed their life and thinking. And the hosts also take book recommendations for philosophically-rich summer reading from listeners around the country.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Summer is the perfect time to dig in to deep reading. Heidegger&#8217;s Being and Time may be a bit much to take to the beach, but there are lots of readable classics that could make your summer reading a transformative experience. John and Ken ask a few]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Summer is the perfect time to dig in to deep reading. Heidegger&#8217;s Being and Time may be a bit much to take to the beach, but there are lots of readable classics that could make your summer reading a transformative experience. John and Ken ask a few of their past guests about the book that most transformed their life and thinking. And the hosts also take book recommendations for philosophically-rich summer reading from listeners around the country.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7411/summer-reading-list-2013.mp3" length="48744745" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Summer is the perfect time to dig in to deep reading. Heidegger&#8217;s Being and Time may be a bit much to take to the beach, but there are lots of readable classics that could make your summer reading a transformative experience. John and Ken ask a few of their past guests about the book that most transformed their life and thinking. And the hosts also take book recommendations for philosophically-rich summer reading from listeners around the country.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/EZrV-lK691w.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:47</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Summer is the perfect time to dig in to deep reading. Heidegger&#8217;s Being and Time may be a bit much to take to the beach, but there are lots of readable classics that could make your summer reading a transformative experience. John and Ken ask a few of their past guests about the book that most transformed their life and thinking. And the hosts also take book recommendations for philosophically-rich summer reading from listeners around the country.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/EZrV-lK691w.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Faith, Reason, and the Art of Living</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/faith-reason-and-the-art-of-living/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7129</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[It sounds plausible to require that all our beliefs be based on evidence and sound reasoning. Yet some people&#8217;s most cherished beliefs, like their belief in a deity, are based on faith alone. Does that make those beliefs fundamentally irrational, or could there be some rational justification for such faith? And what about reason itself—are there limits to what can be known rationally? Does our reliance on reason demand a kind of faith of its own? Is there a way to reconcile faith and reason, or does the well-lived life demand that we choose one over the other? John Ken put reasonable faith in Howard Wettstein from UC Riverside, author of The Significance of Religious Experience. This program was recorded live on campus as part of the Stanford Continuing Studies course The Art of Living.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[It sounds plausible to require that all our beliefs be based on evidence and sound reasoning. Yet some people&#8217;s most cherished beliefs, like their belief in a deity, are based on faith alone. Does that make those beliefs fundamentally irrational, o]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[It sounds plausible to require that all our beliefs be based on evidence and sound reasoning. Yet some people&#8217;s most cherished beliefs, like their belief in a deity, are based on faith alone. Does that make those beliefs fundamentally irrational, or could there be some rational justification for such faith? And what about reason itself—are there limits to what can be known rationally? Does our reliance on reason demand a kind of faith of its own? Is there a way to reconcile faith and reason, or does the well-lived life demand that we choose one over the other? John Ken put reasonable faith in Howard Wettstein from UC Riverside, author of The Significance of Religious Experience. This program was recorded live on campus as part of the Stanford Continuing Studies course The Art of Living.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7129/faith-reason-and-the-art-of-living.mp3" length="48835860" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[It sounds plausible to require that all our beliefs be based on evidence and sound reasoning. Yet some people&#8217;s most cherished beliefs, like their belief in a deity, are based on faith alone. Does that make those beliefs fundamentally irrational, or could there be some rational justification for such faith? And what about reason itself—are there limits to what can be known rationally? Does our reliance on reason demand a kind of faith of its own? Is there a way to reconcile faith and reason, or does the well-lived life demand that we choose one over the other? John Ken put reasonable faith in Howard Wettstein from UC Riverside, author of The Significance of Religious Experience. This program was recorded live on campus as part of the Stanford Continuing Studies course The Art of Living.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ZtpVipZ-ufI.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:52</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[It sounds plausible to require that all our beliefs be based on evidence and sound reasoning. Yet some people&#8217;s most cherished beliefs, like their belief in a deity, are based on faith alone. Does that make those beliefs fundamentally irrational, or could there be some rational justification for such faith? And what about reason itself—are there limits to what can be known rationally? Does our reliance on reason demand a kind of faith of its own? Is there a way to reconcile faith and reason, or does the well-lived life demand that we choose one over the other? John Ken put reasonable faith in Howard Wettstein from UC Riverside, author of The Significance of Religious Experience. This program was recorded live on campus as part of the Stanford Continuing Studies course The Art of Living.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ZtpVipZ-ufI.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Good, Evil, and the Divine Plan</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/good-evil-and-the-divine-plan/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 05 May 2013 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7143</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[A theodicy is an explanation by a philosopher or theologian about why a world created by a kind and all-powerful God contains so much suffering. It forces us to think about the nature of good and evil, whether the kind of knowledge an all-knowing God has leaves room for human freedom. Why do people who suffer often find their faith in God growing stronger? Is evil an illusion? Does God really need a defense attorney? John and Ken search for insight with Andrew Pinsent, Research Director of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion at the University of Oxford.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[A theodicy is an explanation by a philosopher or theologian about why a world created by a kind and all-powerful God contains so much suffering. It forces us to think about the nature of good and evil, whether the kind of knowledge an all-knowing God has]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[A theodicy is an explanation by a philosopher or theologian about why a world created by a kind and all-powerful God contains so much suffering. It forces us to think about the nature of good and evil, whether the kind of knowledge an all-knowing God has leaves room for human freedom. Why do people who suffer often find their faith in God growing stronger? Is evil an illusion? Does God really need a defense attorney? John and Ken search for insight with Andrew Pinsent, Research Director of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion at the University of Oxford.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7143/good-evil-and-the-divine-plan.mp3" length="48327366" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[A theodicy is an explanation by a philosopher or theologian about why a world created by a kind and all-powerful God contains so much suffering. It forces us to think about the nature of good and evil, whether the kind of knowledge an all-knowing God has leaves room for human freedom. Why do people who suffer often find their faith in God growing stronger? Is evil an illusion? Does God really need a defense attorney? John and Ken search for insight with Andrew Pinsent, Research Director of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion at the University of Oxford.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/DKHtXRvf-jQ.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[A theodicy is an explanation by a philosopher or theologian about why a world created by a kind and all-powerful God contains so much suffering. It forces us to think about the nature of good and evil, whether the kind of knowledge an all-knowing God has leaves room for human freedom. Why do people who suffer often find their faith in God growing stronger? Is evil an illusion? Does God really need a defense attorney? John and Ken search for insight with Andrew Pinsent, Research Director of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion at the University of Oxford.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/DKHtXRvf-jQ.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Demands of Morality</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-demands-of-morality/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7148</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[We all want to lead a moral life. But even if we all agreed on what that would mean, we still have to balance our own self-interest with the competing demands of morality. This becomes even more challenging when the decks are stacked against us, or when everyone around us is only looking out for themselves. So in the real world, what does it mean to live a moral life? Do we have a responsibility to act morally when others around us are not? And what do we do if morality makes excessive demands of us? John and Ken balance their own self-interests with Tamar Schapiro from Stanford University, for a program recorded live as part of the Stanford Continuing Studies series The Art of Living.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[We all want to lead a moral life. But even if we all agreed on what that would mean, we still have to balance our own self-interest with the competing demands of morality. This becomes even more challenging when the decks are stacked against us, or when ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[We all want to lead a moral life. But even if we all agreed on what that would mean, we still have to balance our own self-interest with the competing demands of morality. This becomes even more challenging when the decks are stacked against us, or when everyone around us is only looking out for themselves. So in the real world, what does it mean to live a moral life? Do we have a responsibility to act morally when others around us are not? And what do we do if morality makes excessive demands of us? John and Ken balance their own self-interests with Tamar Schapiro from Stanford University, for a program recorded live as part of the Stanford Continuing Studies series The Art of Living.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7148/the-demands-of-morality.mp3" length="47657633" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[We all want to lead a moral life. But even if we all agreed on what that would mean, we still have to balance our own self-interest with the competing demands of morality. This becomes even more challenging when the decks are stacked against us, or when everyone around us is only looking out for themselves. So in the real world, what does it mean to live a moral life? Do we have a responsibility to act morally when others around us are not? And what do we do if morality makes excessive demands of us? John and Ken balance their own self-interests with Tamar Schapiro from Stanford University, for a program recorded live as part of the Stanford Continuing Studies series The Art of Living.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/bCH_sy04gMM.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>49:39</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[We all want to lead a moral life. But even if we all agreed on what that would mean, we still have to balance our own self-interest with the competing demands of morality. This becomes even more challenging when the decks are stacked against us, or when everyone around us is only looking out for themselves. So in the real world, what does it mean to live a moral life? Do we have a responsibility to act morally when others around us are not? And what do we do if morality makes excessive demands of us? John and Ken balance their own self-interests with Tamar Schapiro from Stanford University, for a program recorded live as part of the Stanford Continuing Studies series The Art of Living.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/bCH_sy04gMM.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Dance as a Way of Knowing</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/dance-as-a-way-of-knowing/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 14 Apr 2013 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7272</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Be it rhythmic or shuffling, athletic or pedestrian, erotic or just social, dance is an art form that utilizes movement of the body through space. Could the aesthetic experience of being physically present and embodied in the world be considered a way of knowing? Is there something in particular we can come to know by watching or performing dance? And are there broader lessons that dance can teach us about human perception and action? John and Ken hit the floor with Alva Noë from UC Berkeley, author of Varieties of Presence. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Be it rhythmic or shuffling, athletic or pedestrian, erotic or just social, dance is an art form that utilizes movement of the body through space. Could the aesthetic experience of being physically present and embodied in the world be considered a way of]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Be it rhythmic or shuffling, athletic or pedestrian, erotic or just social, dance is an art form that utilizes movement of the body through space. Could the aesthetic experience of being physically present and embodied in the world be considered a way of knowing? Is there something in particular we can come to know by watching or performing dance? And are there broader lessons that dance can teach us about human perception and action? John and Ken hit the floor with Alva Noë from UC Berkeley, author of Varieties of Presence. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7272/dance-as-a-way-of-knowing.mp3" length="48330710" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Be it rhythmic or shuffling, athletic or pedestrian, erotic or just social, dance is an art form that utilizes movement of the body through space. Could the aesthetic experience of being physically present and embodied in the world be considered a way of knowing? Is there something in particular we can come to know by watching or performing dance? And are there broader lessons that dance can teach us about human perception and action? John and Ken hit the floor with Alva Noë from UC Berkeley, author of Varieties of Presence. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ieDej4UuXt0.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Be it rhythmic or shuffling, athletic or pedestrian, erotic or just social, dance is an art form that utilizes movement of the body through space. Could the aesthetic experience of being physically present and embodied in the world be considered a way of knowing? Is there something in particular we can come to know by watching or performing dance? And are there broader lessons that dance can teach us about human perception and action? John and Ken hit the floor with Alva Noë from UC Berkeley, author of Varieties of Presence. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ieDej4UuXt0.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Truth and Other Fictions</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/truth-and-other-fictions/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 31 Mar 2013 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7139</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Most of us think we know the truth when we see it. But what exactly is truth, anyway? Philosophers have offered a blizzard of different answers, ranging from truth as correspondence or coherence all the way to the view that truth is a matter of pragmatic utility or just a compliment we pay to the things we&#8217;re prepared to believe or to say. But what is the truth about truth? Is there really such a thing? Or is truth itself a fiction? John and Ken explore the fickle nature of truth with Alexis Burgess from Stanford University, co-author of Truth, for a program recorded live at the Marsh Theatre in Berkeley.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Most of us think we know the truth when we see it. But what exactly is truth, anyway? Philosophers have offered a blizzard of different answers, ranging from truth as correspondence or coherence all the way to the view that truth is a matter of pragmatic]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Most of us think we know the truth when we see it. But what exactly is truth, anyway? Philosophers have offered a blizzard of different answers, ranging from truth as correspondence or coherence all the way to the view that truth is a matter of pragmatic utility or just a compliment we pay to the things we&#8217;re prepared to believe or to say. But what is the truth about truth? Is there really such a thing? Or is truth itself a fiction? John and Ken explore the fickle nature of truth with Alexis Burgess from Stanford University, co-author of Truth, for a program recorded live at the Marsh Theatre in Berkeley.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7139/truth-and-other-fictions.mp3" length="48250462" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Most of us think we know the truth when we see it. But what exactly is truth, anyway? Philosophers have offered a blizzard of different answers, ranging from truth as correspondence or coherence all the way to the view that truth is a matter of pragmatic utility or just a compliment we pay to the things we&#8217;re prepared to believe or to say. But what is the truth about truth? Is there really such a thing? Or is truth itself a fiction? John and Ken explore the fickle nature of truth with Alexis Burgess from Stanford University, co-author of Truth, for a program recorded live at the Marsh Theatre in Berkeley.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/5dWC2o03K9I.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Most of us think we know the truth when we see it. But what exactly is truth, anyway? Philosophers have offered a blizzard of different answers, ranging from truth as correspondence or coherence all the way to the view that truth is a matter of pragmatic utility or just a compliment we pay to the things we&#8217;re prepared to believe or to say. But what is the truth about truth? Is there really such a thing? Or is truth itself a fiction? John and Ken explore the fickle nature of truth with Alexis Burgess from Stanford University, co-author of Truth, for a program recorded live at the Marsh Theatre in Berkeley.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/5dWC2o03K9I.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>God and the Fine-Tuned Universe</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/god-and-the-fine-tuned-universe/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 17 Mar 2013 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7283</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[If the precise value of many physical constants had been different, the universe would not have supported life, human life, consciousness, philosophy and us. Is it just luck – without which we wouldn&#8217;t even be here to worry about it? Or is there a Creator who wanted things to turn out the way they did, and fine-tuned the universe to get that result? What if there were many universes, with many combinations of values for the basic constants, and we just exist in the one with the improbable combination for life? John and Ken fine-tune their arguments with Robin Collins from Messiah College, author of God and the Laws of Nature.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[If the precise value of many physical constants had been different, the universe would not have supported life, human life, consciousness, philosophy and us. Is it just luck – without which we wouldn&#8217;t even be here to worry about it? Or is there a ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[If the precise value of many physical constants had been different, the universe would not have supported life, human life, consciousness, philosophy and us. Is it just luck – without which we wouldn&#8217;t even be here to worry about it? Or is there a Creator who wanted things to turn out the way they did, and fine-tuned the universe to get that result? What if there were many universes, with many combinations of values for the basic constants, and we just exist in the one with the improbable combination for life? John and Ken fine-tune their arguments with Robin Collins from Messiah College, author of God and the Laws of Nature.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7283/god-and-the-fine-tuned-universe.mp3" length="48149989" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[If the precise value of many physical constants had been different, the universe would not have supported life, human life, consciousness, philosophy and us. Is it just luck – without which we wouldn&#8217;t even be here to worry about it? Or is there a Creator who wanted things to turn out the way they did, and fine-tuned the universe to get that result? What if there were many universes, with many combinations of values for the basic constants, and we just exist in the one with the improbable combination for life? John and Ken fine-tune their arguments with Robin Collins from Messiah College, author of God and the Laws of Nature.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/uwXaBe0FVhc.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:09</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[If the precise value of many physical constants had been different, the universe would not have supported life, human life, consciousness, philosophy and us. Is it just luck – without which we wouldn&#8217;t even be here to worry about it? Or is there a Creator who wanted things to turn out the way they did, and fine-tuned the universe to get that result? What if there were many universes, with many combinations of values for the basic constants, and we just exist in the one with the improbable combination for life? John and Ken fine-tune their arguments with Robin Collins from Messiah College, author of God and the Laws of Nature.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/uwXaBe0FVhc.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Psychology of Partisan Politics</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-psychology-of-partisan-politics/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 10 Mar 2013 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7289</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Are you a tax-raising, soy latte-drinking, Prius-driving, New York Times-reading, Daily Show-watching, corporation-hating liberal? Or a gun-toting, Bible-loving, Walmart-shopping, homophobic, climate-change-denying, immigrant-hating conservative? Why does it seem like all of American politics often boils down to these two absurd positions? Is it because of our particular political system, our culture, or deeper psychological impulses? John and Ken cross the aisle with Jonathan Haidt from NYU, author of The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics and Religion.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Are you a tax-raising, soy latte-drinking, Prius-driving, New York Times-reading, Daily Show-watching, corporation-hating liberal? Or a gun-toting, Bible-loving, Walmart-shopping, homophobic, climate-change-denying, immigrant-hating conservative? Why doe]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Are you a tax-raising, soy latte-drinking, Prius-driving, New York Times-reading, Daily Show-watching, corporation-hating liberal? Or a gun-toting, Bible-loving, Walmart-shopping, homophobic, climate-change-denying, immigrant-hating conservative? Why does it seem like all of American politics often boils down to these two absurd positions? Is it because of our particular political system, our culture, or deeper psychological impulses? John and Ken cross the aisle with Jonathan Haidt from NYU, author of The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics and Religion.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7289/the-psychology-of-partisan-politics.mp3" length="47939918" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Are you a tax-raising, soy latte-drinking, Prius-driving, New York Times-reading, Daily Show-watching, corporation-hating liberal? Or a gun-toting, Bible-loving, Walmart-shopping, homophobic, climate-change-denying, immigrant-hating conservative? Why does it seem like all of American politics often boils down to these two absurd positions? Is it because of our particular political system, our culture, or deeper psychological impulses? John and Ken cross the aisle with Jonathan Haidt from NYU, author of The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics and Religion.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/iGZsQfGuQNA.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Are you a tax-raising, soy latte-drinking, Prius-driving, New York Times-reading, Daily Show-watching, corporation-hating liberal? Or a gun-toting, Bible-loving, Walmart-shopping, homophobic, climate-change-denying, immigrant-hating conservative? Why does it seem like all of American politics often boils down to these two absurd positions? Is it because of our particular political system, our culture, or deeper psychological impulses? John and Ken cross the aisle with Jonathan Haidt from NYU, author of The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics and Religion.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/iGZsQfGuQNA.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Self</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-self/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 24 Feb 2013 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7241</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What is a self? Merely a human being? Or perhaps a soul? Hume claimed he could not find a self when he looked within, only a succession of impressions. But other philosophers seem to find transcendental selves, momentary selves, and objective selves, among others. Do the modern physical and biological sciences shed light on the self, or do they suggest there is no room – and no need – for such things? John and Ken examine their selves and others with Jenann Ismael from the University of Arizona, author of The Situated Self.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What is a self? Merely a human being? Or perhaps a soul? Hume claimed he could not find a self when he looked within, only a succession of impressions. But other philosophers seem to find transcendental selves, momentary selves, and objective selves, amo]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What is a self? Merely a human being? Or perhaps a soul? Hume claimed he could not find a self when he looked within, only a succession of impressions. But other philosophers seem to find transcendental selves, momentary selves, and objective selves, among others. Do the modern physical and biological sciences shed light on the self, or do they suggest there is no room – and no need – for such things? John and Ken examine their selves and others with Jenann Ismael from the University of Arizona, author of The Situated Self.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7241/the-self.mp3" length="47882657" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What is a self? Merely a human being? Or perhaps a soul? Hume claimed he could not find a self when he looked within, only a succession of impressions. But other philosophers seem to find transcendental selves, momentary selves, and objective selves, among others. Do the modern physical and biological sciences shed light on the self, or do they suggest there is no room – and no need – for such things? John and Ken examine their selves and others with Jenann Ismael from the University of Arizona, author of The Situated Self.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/S4Rt2reccx8.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What is a self? Merely a human being? Or perhaps a soul? Hume claimed he could not find a self when he looked within, only a succession of impressions. But other philosophers seem to find transcendental selves, momentary selves, and objective selves, among others. Do the modern physical and biological sciences shed light on the self, or do they suggest there is no room – and no need – for such things? John and Ken examine their selves and others with Jenann Ismael from the University of Arizona, author of The Situated Self.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/S4Rt2reccx8.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Bioethics: Myths and Realities</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/bioethics-myths-and-realities/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 10 Feb 2013 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7265</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Recent advances in mapping the human genome suggest a vision of the future that might fill us with equal parts hope and dread. On the one hand, the possibility of identifying disease-causing genes may enable us to eradicate cancer, obesity, or depression before they ever develop. On the other hand, the idea that soon we could be “designing” our progeny, choosing physical and psychological traits we deem desirable, is fraught with deep moral complexities. But are these ideas realistic or just the stuff of science fiction? What real ethical problems does the current state of human genomics present? John and Ken map out the terrain with David Magnus, Director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics and co-editor of Who Owns Life? This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley, California.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Recent advances in mapping the human genome suggest a vision of the future that might fill us with equal parts hope and dread. On the one hand, the possibility of identifying disease-causing genes may enable us to eradicate cancer, obesity, or depression]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Recent advances in mapping the human genome suggest a vision of the future that might fill us with equal parts hope and dread. On the one hand, the possibility of identifying disease-causing genes may enable us to eradicate cancer, obesity, or depression before they ever develop. On the other hand, the idea that soon we could be “designing” our progeny, choosing physical and psychological traits we deem desirable, is fraught with deep moral complexities. But are these ideas realistic or just the stuff of science fiction? What real ethical problems does the current state of human genomics present? John and Ken map out the terrain with David Magnus, Director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics and co-editor of Who Owns Life? This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley, California.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7265/bioethics-myths-and-realities.mp3" length="48537600" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Recent advances in mapping the human genome suggest a vision of the future that might fill us with equal parts hope and dread. On the one hand, the possibility of identifying disease-causing genes may enable us to eradicate cancer, obesity, or depression before they ever develop. On the other hand, the idea that soon we could be “designing” our progeny, choosing physical and psychological traits we deem desirable, is fraught with deep moral complexities. But are these ideas realistic or just the stuff of science fiction? What real ethical problems does the current state of human genomics present? John and Ken map out the terrain with David Magnus, Director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics and co-editor of Who Owns Life? This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley, California.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/6s42_KRxA7Q.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Recent advances in mapping the human genome suggest a vision of the future that might fill us with equal parts hope and dread. On the one hand, the possibility of identifying disease-causing genes may enable us to eradicate cancer, obesity, or depression before they ever develop. On the other hand, the idea that soon we could be “designing” our progeny, choosing physical and psychological traits we deem desirable, is fraught with deep moral complexities. But are these ideas realistic or just the stuff of science fiction? What real ethical problems does the current state of human genomics present? John and Ken map out the terrain with David Magnus, Director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics and co-editor of Who Owns Life? This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley, California.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/6s42_KRxA7Q.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Linguistics of Name-Calling</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-linguistics-of-name-calling/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jan 2013 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7224</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Sticks and bones may break your bones, but names can also hurt you. And language gives us surprisingly many ways to deride, hurt and demean – from a subtly sneering intonation to hurtful and offensive names. How does such language work? And why is there so much of it around these days? Has our acerbic political culture ushered in a new era of name-calling? Or is name calling a phenomenon as old as language itself? John and Ken welcome back linguist and NPR commentator Geoffrey Nunberg, author of Ascent of the A-Word: Assholism, The First Sixty Years, for a program recorded live at the Marsh Theatre in Berkeley.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Sticks and bones may break your bones, but names can also hurt you. And language gives us surprisingly many ways to deride, hurt and demean – from a subtly sneering intonation to hurtful and offensive names. How does such language work? And why is there ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Sticks and bones may break your bones, but names can also hurt you. And language gives us surprisingly many ways to deride, hurt and demean – from a subtly sneering intonation to hurtful and offensive names. How does such language work? And why is there so much of it around these days? Has our acerbic political culture ushered in a new era of name-calling? Or is name calling a phenomenon as old as language itself? John and Ken welcome back linguist and NPR commentator Geoffrey Nunberg, author of Ascent of the A-Word: Assholism, The First Sixty Years, for a program recorded live at the Marsh Theatre in Berkeley.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7224/the-linguistics-of-name-calling.mp3" length="48050259" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Sticks and bones may break your bones, but names can also hurt you. And language gives us surprisingly many ways to deride, hurt and demean – from a subtly sneering intonation to hurtful and offensive names. How does such language work? And why is there so much of it around these days? Has our acerbic political culture ushered in a new era of name-calling? Or is name calling a phenomenon as old as language itself? John and Ken welcome back linguist and NPR commentator Geoffrey Nunberg, author of Ascent of the A-Word: Assholism, The First Sixty Years, for a program recorded live at the Marsh Theatre in Berkeley.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/QAJ-8SXaGXs.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Sticks and bones may break your bones, but names can also hurt you. And language gives us surprisingly many ways to deride, hurt and demean – from a subtly sneering intonation to hurtful and offensive names. How does such language work? And why is there so much of it around these days? Has our acerbic political culture ushered in a new era of name-calling? Or is name calling a phenomenon as old as language itself? John and Ken welcome back linguist and NPR commentator Geoffrey Nunberg, author of Ascent of the A-Word: Assholism, The First Sixty Years, for a program recorded live at the Marsh Theatre in Berkeley.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/QAJ-8SXaGXs.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Examined Year &#8211; 2012</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-examined-year-2012/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jan 2013 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7219</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[A new year offers an opportunity to reflect on the significant events of the previous year.&#160; But what ideas and events took shape over the past twelve months that have prompted us to question our assumptions and to think about things in new ways?&#160; Join John, Ken, and their special guests as they celebrate the examined year with a philosophical look back at 2012.
• The Year in Philosophy: Barbara Grosz from the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences discusses the legacy of Alan Turing, whose centennial was celebrated in 2012.
	• The Year in Politics: Jason Stanley from Rutgers University explores the precarious place of Truth in the presidential election and beyond.
	• The Year in Science: Hank Greely from the Stanford Law School talks about the ethical and legal implications of the year&#8217;s advances in genetics.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[A new year offers an opportunity to reflect on the significant events of the previous year.&#160; But what ideas and events took shape over the past twelve months that have prompted us to question our assumptions and to think about things in new ways?&#1]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[A new year offers an opportunity to reflect on the significant events of the previous year.&#160; But what ideas and events took shape over the past twelve months that have prompted us to question our assumptions and to think about things in new ways?&#160; Join John, Ken, and their special guests as they celebrate the examined year with a philosophical look back at 2012.
• The Year in Philosophy: Barbara Grosz from the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences discusses the legacy of Alan Turing, whose centennial was celebrated in 2012.
	• The Year in Politics: Jason Stanley from Rutgers University explores the precarious place of Truth in the presidential election and beyond.
	• The Year in Science: Hank Greely from the Stanford Law School talks about the ethical and legal implications of the year&#8217;s advances in genetics.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7219/the-examined-year-2012.mp3" length="49876579" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[A new year offers an opportunity to reflect on the significant events of the previous year.&#160; But what ideas and events took shape over the past twelve months that have prompted us to question our assumptions and to think about things in new ways?&#160; Join John, Ken, and their special guests as they celebrate the examined year with a philosophical look back at 2012.
• The Year in Philosophy: Barbara Grosz from the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences discusses the legacy of Alan Turing, whose centennial was celebrated in 2012.
	• The Year in Politics: Jason Stanley from Rutgers University explores the precarious place of Truth in the presidential election and beyond.
	• The Year in Science: Hank Greely from the Stanford Law School talks about the ethical and legal implications of the year&#8217;s advances in genetics.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/B_twiEkfskg.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[A new year offers an opportunity to reflect on the significant events of the previous year.&#160; But what ideas and events took shape over the past twelve months that have prompted us to question our assumptions and to think about things in new ways?&#160; Join John, Ken, and their special guests as they celebrate the examined year with a philosophical look back at 2012.
• The Year in Philosophy: Barbara Grosz from the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences discusses the legacy of Alan Turing, whose centennial was celebrated in 2012.
	• The Year in Politics: Jason Stanley from Rutgers University explores the precarious place of Truth in the presidential election and beyond.
	• The Year in Science: Hank Greely from the Stanford Law School talks about the ethical and legal implications of the year&#8217;s advances in genetics.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/B_twiEkfskg.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Turbo-Charging the Mind</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/turbo-charging-the-mind/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 30 Dec 2012 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7293</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The rapid advance of computer technology in recent decades has produced a vast array of intelligent machines that far outstrip the human mind in speed and capacity. Yet these machines know far less than we do about almost everything. Is it possible to have the best of both worlds? Can we use new technologies to create a hybrid intelligence that seamlessly integrates the vast knowledge and skills embedded in our biological brains with the vastly greater capacity, speed, and knowledge-sharing ability of our mechanical creations? John and Ken examine the prospects for transcending the biological limits of the human mind with Anna Salamon from the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley, California.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The rapid advance of computer technology in recent decades has produced a vast array of intelligent machines that far outstrip the human mind in speed and capacity. Yet these machines know far less than we do about almost everything. Is it possible to ha]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The rapid advance of computer technology in recent decades has produced a vast array of intelligent machines that far outstrip the human mind in speed and capacity. Yet these machines know far less than we do about almost everything. Is it possible to have the best of both worlds? Can we use new technologies to create a hybrid intelligence that seamlessly integrates the vast knowledge and skills embedded in our biological brains with the vastly greater capacity, speed, and knowledge-sharing ability of our mechanical creations? John and Ken examine the prospects for transcending the biological limits of the human mind with Anna Salamon from the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley, California.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7293/turbo-charging-the-mind.mp3" length="47681039" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The rapid advance of computer technology in recent decades has produced a vast array of intelligent machines that far outstrip the human mind in speed and capacity. Yet these machines know far less than we do about almost everything. Is it possible to have the best of both worlds? Can we use new technologies to create a hybrid intelligence that seamlessly integrates the vast knowledge and skills embedded in our biological brains with the vastly greater capacity, speed, and knowledge-sharing ability of our mechanical creations? John and Ken examine the prospects for transcending the biological limits of the human mind with Anna Salamon from the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley, California.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AKwI-JtiGUw.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>49:40</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The rapid advance of computer technology in recent decades has produced a vast array of intelligent machines that far outstrip the human mind in speed and capacity. Yet these machines know far less than we do about almost everything. Is it possible to have the best of both worlds? Can we use new technologies to create a hybrid intelligence that seamlessly integrates the vast knowledge and skills embedded in our biological brains with the vastly greater capacity, speed, and knowledge-sharing ability of our mechanical creations? John and Ken examine the prospects for transcending the biological limits of the human mind with Anna Salamon from the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley, California.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AKwI-JtiGUw.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Has Science Replaced Philosophy?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/has-science-replaced-philosophy/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7261</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Modern science has made astounding progress in our understanding of ourselves and the universe. Physics, neuroscience, and psychology now tackle questions that a few decades ago could only be explored through philosophical speculation. So some vocal members of the scientific community, and even members of the general public, have suggested that philosophy itself has become a superfluous, archaic practice. Is philosophy useful and applicable today? Or has it been reduced to a dissociated game of mental aerobics, a mere ping-pong game of arguments and counter-arguments? John and Ken question the modern-day viability of philosophy with Massimo Pigliucci from the City University of New York, author of Answers to Aristotle: How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to A More Meaningful Life.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Modern science has made astounding progress in our understanding of ourselves and the universe. Physics, neuroscience, and psychology now tackle questions that a few decades ago could only be explored through philosophical speculation. So some vocal memb]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Modern science has made astounding progress in our understanding of ourselves and the universe. Physics, neuroscience, and psychology now tackle questions that a few decades ago could only be explored through philosophical speculation. So some vocal members of the scientific community, and even members of the general public, have suggested that philosophy itself has become a superfluous, archaic practice. Is philosophy useful and applicable today? Or has it been reduced to a dissociated game of mental aerobics, a mere ping-pong game of arguments and counter-arguments? John and Ken question the modern-day viability of philosophy with Massimo Pigliucci from the City University of New York, author of Answers to Aristotle: How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to A More Meaningful Life.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7261/has-science-replaced-philosophy.mp3" length="48479341" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Modern science has made astounding progress in our understanding of ourselves and the universe. Physics, neuroscience, and psychology now tackle questions that a few decades ago could only be explored through philosophical speculation. So some vocal members of the scientific community, and even members of the general public, have suggested that philosophy itself has become a superfluous, archaic practice. Is philosophy useful and applicable today? Or has it been reduced to a dissociated game of mental aerobics, a mere ping-pong game of arguments and counter-arguments? John and Ken question the modern-day viability of philosophy with Massimo Pigliucci from the City University of New York, author of Answers to Aristotle: How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to A More Meaningful Life.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/pf6dZDhtZb4.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:30</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Modern science has made astounding progress in our understanding of ourselves and the universe. Physics, neuroscience, and psychology now tackle questions that a few decades ago could only be explored through philosophical speculation. So some vocal members of the scientific community, and even members of the general public, have suggested that philosophy itself has become a superfluous, archaic practice. Is philosophy useful and applicable today? Or has it been reduced to a dissociated game of mental aerobics, a mere ping-pong game of arguments and counter-arguments? John and Ken question the modern-day viability of philosophy with Massimo Pigliucci from the City University of New York, author of Answers to Aristotle: How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to A More Meaningful Life.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/pf6dZDhtZb4.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Unconditional Love</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/unconditional-love/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 09 Dec 2012 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7299</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[According to Corinthians 13, “Love is patient, love is kind and envies no one.” But is love always unconditional? Should it be? If unconditional love means that we love no matter what our beloved’s actions or traits are, doesn’t that suggest we should love everyone in this way? If not, how do we select just a few to love unconditionally? Perhaps the feeling we reserve for those we cherish most in the world is better described as selfless rather than unconditional love, in which case we are confronted with another challenge. What happens when our beloved changes radically and loses the very features that caused us to love in the first place? John and Ken talk unconditionally with Lynn Underwood, editor of The Science of Compassionate Love: Theory, Research and Applications.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[According to Corinthians 13, “Love is patient, love is kind and envies no one.” But is love always unconditional? Should it be? If unconditional love means that we love no matter what our beloved’s actions or traits are, doesn’t that suggest we should lo]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[According to Corinthians 13, “Love is patient, love is kind and envies no one.” But is love always unconditional? Should it be? If unconditional love means that we love no matter what our beloved’s actions or traits are, doesn’t that suggest we should love everyone in this way? If not, how do we select just a few to love unconditionally? Perhaps the feeling we reserve for those we cherish most in the world is better described as selfless rather than unconditional love, in which case we are confronted with another challenge. What happens when our beloved changes radically and loses the very features that caused us to love in the first place? John and Ken talk unconditionally with Lynn Underwood, editor of The Science of Compassionate Love: Theory, Research and Applications.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7299/unconditional-love.mp3" length="48541199" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[According to Corinthians 13, “Love is patient, love is kind and envies no one.” But is love always unconditional? Should it be? If unconditional love means that we love no matter what our beloved’s actions or traits are, doesn’t that suggest we should love everyone in this way? If not, how do we select just a few to love unconditionally? Perhaps the feeling we reserve for those we cherish most in the world is better described as selfless rather than unconditional love, in which case we are confronted with another challenge. What happens when our beloved changes radically and loses the very features that caused us to love in the first place? John and Ken talk unconditionally with Lynn Underwood, editor of The Science of Compassionate Love: Theory, Research and Applications.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/PvedIOiOh0Y.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:34</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[According to Corinthians 13, “Love is patient, love is kind and envies no one.” But is love always unconditional? Should it be? If unconditional love means that we love no matter what our beloved’s actions or traits are, doesn’t that suggest we should love everyone in this way? If not, how do we select just a few to love unconditionally? Perhaps the feeling we reserve for those we cherish most in the world is better described as selfless rather than unconditional love, in which case we are confronted with another challenge. What happens when our beloved changes radically and loses the very features that caused us to love in the first place? John and Ken talk unconditionally with Lynn Underwood, editor of The Science of Compassionate Love: Theory, Research and Applications.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/PvedIOiOh0Y.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Are Some People Better Than Others?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/are-some-people-better-than-others/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 02 Dec 2012 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7280</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Egalitarian principles play an important role in our moral and political discourse. Yet there’s no doubt that some people are smarter, stronger, or more talented in certain respects than others. So was Thomas Jefferson wrong to think that all men are created equal? Might we reasonably think that some people are better than others? If so, should the “elite” be treated differently? Should we, for example, find immoral acts committed by a great artist less reprehensible than the same acts committed by a common person? John and Ken level the playing field with Thomas Hurka from the University of Toronto, author of The Best Things In Life: A Guide To What Really Matters.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Egalitarian principles play an important role in our moral and political discourse. Yet there’s no doubt that some people are smarter, stronger, or more talented in certain respects than others. So was Thomas Jefferson wrong to think that all men are cre]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Egalitarian principles play an important role in our moral and political discourse. Yet there’s no doubt that some people are smarter, stronger, or more talented in certain respects than others. So was Thomas Jefferson wrong to think that all men are created equal? Might we reasonably think that some people are better than others? If so, should the “elite” be treated differently? Should we, for example, find immoral acts committed by a great artist less reprehensible than the same acts committed by a common person? John and Ken level the playing field with Thomas Hurka from the University of Toronto, author of The Best Things In Life: A Guide To What Really Matters.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7280/are-some-people-better-than-others.mp3" length="48460951" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Egalitarian principles play an important role in our moral and political discourse. Yet there’s no doubt that some people are smarter, stronger, or more talented in certain respects than others. So was Thomas Jefferson wrong to think that all men are created equal? Might we reasonably think that some people are better than others? If so, should the “elite” be treated differently? Should we, for example, find immoral acts committed by a great artist less reprehensible than the same acts committed by a common person? John and Ken level the playing field with Thomas Hurka from the University of Toronto, author of The Best Things In Life: A Guide To What Really Matters.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/fMm7rxMFY4.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:29</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Egalitarian principles play an important role in our moral and political discourse. Yet there’s no doubt that some people are smarter, stronger, or more talented in certain respects than others. So was Thomas Jefferson wrong to think that all men are created equal? Might we reasonably think that some people are better than others? If so, should the “elite” be treated differently? Should we, for example, find immoral acts committed by a great artist less reprehensible than the same acts committed by a common person? John and Ken level the playing field with Thomas Hurka from the University of Toronto, author of The Best Things In Life: A Guide To What Really Matters.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/fMm7rxMFY4.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>How Fiction Shapes Us</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/how-fiction-shapes-us/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2012 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7296</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[A good novel can do many things. It can distract us from the humdrum of daily existence, stimulate our imaginations, and delight us with its creative use of language. But isn’t there something more we gain from engaging with fictional worlds and characters? Do we, for example, use literary texts to morally improve ourselves? Is there some deeper truth we’re supposed to learn from a good novel? Or do we use fiction to fine-tune certain cognitive capacities? John and Ken entertain the possibilities with Joshua Landy, author of How To Do Things With Fictions, for a program recorded live at Litquake – San Francisco&#8217;s Literary Festival.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[A good novel can do many things. It can distract us from the humdrum of daily existence, stimulate our imaginations, and delight us with its creative use of language. But isn’t there something more we gain from engaging with fictional worlds and characte]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[A good novel can do many things. It can distract us from the humdrum of daily existence, stimulate our imaginations, and delight us with its creative use of language. But isn’t there something more we gain from engaging with fictional worlds and characters? Do we, for example, use literary texts to morally improve ourselves? Is there some deeper truth we’re supposed to learn from a good novel? Or do we use fiction to fine-tune certain cognitive capacities? John and Ken entertain the possibilities with Joshua Landy, author of How To Do Things With Fictions, for a program recorded live at Litquake – San Francisco&#8217;s Literary Festival.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7296/how-fiction-shapes-us.mp3" length="48039392" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[A good novel can do many things. It can distract us from the humdrum of daily existence, stimulate our imaginations, and delight us with its creative use of language. But isn’t there something more we gain from engaging with fictional worlds and characters? Do we, for example, use literary texts to morally improve ourselves? Is there some deeper truth we’re supposed to learn from a good novel? Or do we use fiction to fine-tune certain cognitive capacities? John and Ken entertain the possibilities with Joshua Landy, author of How To Do Things With Fictions, for a program recorded live at Litquake – San Francisco&#8217;s Literary Festival.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Q0unUJpYZG4.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[A good novel can do many things. It can distract us from the humdrum of daily existence, stimulate our imaginations, and delight us with its creative use of language. But isn’t there something more we gain from engaging with fictional worlds and characters? Do we, for example, use literary texts to morally improve ourselves? Is there some deeper truth we’re supposed to learn from a good novel? Or do we use fiction to fine-tune certain cognitive capacities? John and Ken entertain the possibilities with Joshua Landy, author of How To Do Things With Fictions, for a program recorded live at Litquake – San Francisco&#8217;s Literary Festival.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Q0unUJpYZG4.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Economics &#8211; Science or Cult?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/economics-science-or-cult/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 18 Nov 2012 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/economics-science-or-cult/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[With the recent global economic crisis, many people wonder if our economic policies are built on sound principles or on dubious, unscientific claims. What kinds of assumptions does Economics make about markets and the behavior of producers and consumers? What kinds of assumptions does it make about the rationality of individuals? How, if at all, are those claims empirically verified? Or are they just speculative theories proven false by the current crisis? John and Ken pursue their rational self-interest with Alex Rosenberg from Duke University, author of Economics: Mathematical Politics or Science of Diminishing Returns?]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[With the recent global economic crisis, many people wonder if our economic policies are built on sound principles or on dubious, unscientific claims. What kinds of assumptions does Economics make about markets and the behavior of producers and consumers?]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[With the recent global economic crisis, many people wonder if our economic policies are built on sound principles or on dubious, unscientific claims. What kinds of assumptions does Economics make about markets and the behavior of producers and consumers? What kinds of assumptions does it make about the rationality of individuals? How, if at all, are those claims empirically verified? Or are they just speculative theories proven false by the current crisis? John and Ken pursue their rational self-interest with Alex Rosenberg from Duke University, author of Economics: Mathematical Politics or Science of Diminishing Returns?]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/233/economics-science-or-cult.mp3" length="48042736" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[With the recent global economic crisis, many people wonder if our economic policies are built on sound principles or on dubious, unscientific claims. What kinds of assumptions does Economics make about markets and the behavior of producers and consumers? What kinds of assumptions does it make about the rationality of individuals? How, if at all, are those claims empirically verified? Or are they just speculative theories proven false by the current crisis? John and Ken pursue their rational self-interest with Alex Rosenberg from Duke University, author of Economics: Mathematical Politics or Science of Diminishing Returns?]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/B5Ax-iVcEJY.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[With the recent global economic crisis, many people wonder if our economic policies are built on sound principles or on dubious, unscientific claims. What kinds of assumptions does Economics make about markets and the behavior of producers and consumers? What kinds of assumptions does it make about the rationality of individuals? How, if at all, are those claims empirically verified? Or are they just speculative theories proven false by the current crisis? John and Ken pursue their rational self-interest with Alex Rosenberg from Duke University, author of Economics: Mathematical Politics or Science of Diminishing Returns?]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/B5Ax-iVcEJY.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Evolution of Storytelling</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-evolution-of-storytelling/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 04 Nov 2012 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7361</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Humans are unique as the only creatures on this planet who tell stories. Whether it be fiction, history, mythology, gossip, daydreams, news, or personal narrative &#8211; stories permeate every aspect of our lives. But how did we evolve into such creatures? Are there any possible evolutionary advantages that storytelling might give us? How do stories shape who we are, both as individuals and as a species? John and Ken swap stories with Jonathan Gottschall from Washington &#38; Jefferson College, author of The Storytelling Animal: How Stories Make Us Human.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Humans are unique as the only creatures on this planet who tell stories. Whether it be fiction, history, mythology, gossip, daydreams, news, or personal narrative &#8211; stories permeate every aspect of our lives. But how did we evolve into such creatur]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Humans are unique as the only creatures on this planet who tell stories. Whether it be fiction, history, mythology, gossip, daydreams, news, or personal narrative &#8211; stories permeate every aspect of our lives. But how did we evolve into such creatures? Are there any possible evolutionary advantages that storytelling might give us? How do stories shape who we are, both as individuals and as a species? John and Ken swap stories with Jonathan Gottschall from Washington &#38; Jefferson College, author of The Storytelling Animal: How Stories Make Us Human.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7361/the-evolution-of-storytelling.mp3" length="47288737" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Humans are unique as the only creatures on this planet who tell stories. Whether it be fiction, history, mythology, gossip, daydreams, news, or personal narrative &#8211; stories permeate every aspect of our lives. But how did we evolve into such creatures? Are there any possible evolutionary advantages that storytelling might give us? How do stories shape who we are, both as individuals and as a species? John and Ken swap stories with Jonathan Gottschall from Washington &#38; Jefferson College, author of The Storytelling Animal: How Stories Make Us Human.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/em1_QdrHcKs.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Humans are unique as the only creatures on this planet who tell stories. Whether it be fiction, history, mythology, gossip, daydreams, news, or personal narrative &#8211; stories permeate every aspect of our lives. But how did we evolve into such creatures? Are there any possible evolutionary advantages that storytelling might give us? How do stories shape who we are, both as individuals and as a species? John and Ken swap stories with Jonathan Gottschall from Washington &#38; Jefferson College, author of The Storytelling Animal: How Stories Make Us Human.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/em1_QdrHcKs.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Forbidden Words</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/forbidden-words/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 21 Oct 2012 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7302</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Some words, like n****r, ch*nk, and c*nt, are so forbidden that we won&#8217;t even spell them out here. Decent people simply don&#8217;t use these words to refer to others; they are intrinsically disrespectful. But aren&#8217;t words just strings of sounds or letters? Words have life because they express ideas. But in a free society, how can we prohibit the expression of ideas? How can we forbid words? Where does the strange power of curses, epithets, and scatological terms come from? John and Ken avoid mincing words with Chris Hom from Texas Tech University, author of Hating and Necessity: The Semantics of Racial Epithets (forthcoming). This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley, California.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Some words, like n****r, ch*nk, and c*nt, are so forbidden that we won&#8217;t even spell them out here. Decent people simply don&#8217;t use these words to refer to others; they are intrinsically disrespectful. But aren&#8217;t words just strings of sou]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Some words, like n****r, ch*nk, and c*nt, are so forbidden that we won&#8217;t even spell them out here. Decent people simply don&#8217;t use these words to refer to others; they are intrinsically disrespectful. But aren&#8217;t words just strings of sounds or letters? Words have life because they express ideas. But in a free society, how can we prohibit the expression of ideas? How can we forbid words? Where does the strange power of curses, epithets, and scatological terms come from? John and Ken avoid mincing words with Chris Hom from Texas Tech University, author of Hating and Necessity: The Semantics of Racial Epithets (forthcoming). This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley, California.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7302/forbidden-words.mp3" length="49199229" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Some words, like n****r, ch*nk, and c*nt, are so forbidden that we won&#8217;t even spell them out here. Decent people simply don&#8217;t use these words to refer to others; they are intrinsically disrespectful. But aren&#8217;t words just strings of sounds or letters? Words have life because they express ideas. But in a free society, how can we prohibit the expression of ideas? How can we forbid words? Where does the strange power of curses, epithets, and scatological terms come from? John and Ken avoid mincing words with Chris Hom from Texas Tech University, author of Hating and Necessity: The Semantics of Racial Epithets (forthcoming). This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley, California.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/CqsazTySOGE.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Some words, like n****r, ch*nk, and c*nt, are so forbidden that we won&#8217;t even spell them out here. Decent people simply don&#8217;t use these words to refer to others; they are intrinsically disrespectful. But aren&#8217;t words just strings of sounds or letters? Words have life because they express ideas. But in a free society, how can we prohibit the expression of ideas? How can we forbid words? Where does the strange power of curses, epithets, and scatological terms come from? John and Ken avoid mincing words with Chris Hom from Texas Tech University, author of Hating and Necessity: The Semantics of Racial Epithets (forthcoming). This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley, California.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/CqsazTySOGE.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Prostitution and the Sex Trade</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/prostitution-and-the-sex-trade/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 14 Oct 2012 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7306</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Some consider the commodification of sexual services inherently wrong, something that ought to be abolished outright. Others claim that prostitution is a legitimate form of commerce and that changing its legal status would reduce or eliminate most harms to sex workers. So in a just society, are there any conditions under which buying and selling sex are morally acceptable? Does the sex trade inevitably involve coercion of some kind, or can becoming a sex worker ever be a free, fully autonomous choice? John and Ken explore the complexities of the world&#8217;s oldest profession with novelist, columnist, and former sex worker Tracy Quan, author of the best-selling Diary of a Manhattan Call Girl. This program was recorded live at the Public Radio Program Directors Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Some consider the commodification of sexual services inherently wrong, something that ought to be abolished outright. Others claim that prostitution is a legitimate form of commerce and that changing its legal status would reduce or eliminate most harms ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Some consider the commodification of sexual services inherently wrong, something that ought to be abolished outright. Others claim that prostitution is a legitimate form of commerce and that changing its legal status would reduce or eliminate most harms to sex workers. So in a just society, are there any conditions under which buying and selling sex are morally acceptable? Does the sex trade inevitably involve coercion of some kind, or can becoming a sex worker ever be a free, fully autonomous choice? John and Ken explore the complexities of the world&#8217;s oldest profession with novelist, columnist, and former sex worker Tracy Quan, author of the best-selling Diary of a Manhattan Call Girl. This program was recorded live at the Public Radio Program Directors Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7306/prostitution-and-the-sex-trade.mp3" length="24567040" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Some consider the commodification of sexual services inherently wrong, something that ought to be abolished outright. Others claim that prostitution is a legitimate form of commerce and that changing its legal status would reduce or eliminate most harms to sex workers. So in a just society, are there any conditions under which buying and selling sex are morally acceptable? Does the sex trade inevitably involve coercion of some kind, or can becoming a sex worker ever be a free, fully autonomous choice? John and Ken explore the complexities of the world&#8217;s oldest profession with novelist, columnist, and former sex worker Tracy Quan, author of the best-selling Diary of a Manhattan Call Girl. This program was recorded live at the Public Radio Program Directors Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/gRTyXO9-BXw.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Some consider the commodification of sexual services inherently wrong, something that ought to be abolished outright. Others claim that prostitution is a legitimate form of commerce and that changing its legal status would reduce or eliminate most harms to sex workers. So in a just society, are there any conditions under which buying and selling sex are morally acceptable? Does the sex trade inevitably involve coercion of some kind, or can becoming a sex worker ever be a free, fully autonomous choice? John and Ken explore the complexities of the world&#8217;s oldest profession with novelist, columnist, and former sex worker Tracy Quan, author of the best-selling Diary of a Manhattan Call Girl. This program was recorded live at the Public Radio Program Directors Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/gRTyXO9-BXw.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Regulating Bodies</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/regulating-bodies/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 30 Sep 2012 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/regulating-bodies/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Most countries allow their citizens to smoke cigarettes, get intoxicated, and eat unhealthy food – despite the harms that such behaviors may bring to the individual&#8217;s health and to the social and economic interests of the state. Yet taking certain narcotics, selling one&#8217;s organs, and driving without a seat-belt are often prohibited by law. Is this an arbitrary distinction, or is there a principled reason for these diverging attitudes? What can government legitimately prohibit its citizens from doing to their own bodies &#8212; and what can it legitimately compel them to do? John and Ken are joined by Cécile Fabre from the University of Oxford, author of Whose Body is it Anyway? Justice and the Integrity of the Person.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Most countries allow their citizens to smoke cigarettes, get intoxicated, and eat unhealthy food – despite the harms that such behaviors may bring to the individual&#8217;s health and to the social and economic interests of the state. Yet taking certain ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Most countries allow their citizens to smoke cigarettes, get intoxicated, and eat unhealthy food – despite the harms that such behaviors may bring to the individual&#8217;s health and to the social and economic interests of the state. Yet taking certain narcotics, selling one&#8217;s organs, and driving without a seat-belt are often prohibited by law. Is this an arbitrary distinction, or is there a principled reason for these diverging attitudes? What can government legitimately prohibit its citizens from doing to their own bodies &#8212; and what can it legitimately compel them to do? John and Ken are joined by Cécile Fabre from the University of Oxford, author of Whose Body is it Anyway? Justice and the Integrity of the Person.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/219/regulating-bodies.mp3" length="47980878" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Most countries allow their citizens to smoke cigarettes, get intoxicated, and eat unhealthy food – despite the harms that such behaviors may bring to the individual&#8217;s health and to the social and economic interests of the state. Yet taking certain narcotics, selling one&#8217;s organs, and driving without a seat-belt are often prohibited by law. Is this an arbitrary distinction, or is there a principled reason for these diverging attitudes? What can government legitimately prohibit its citizens from doing to their own bodies &#8212; and what can it legitimately compel them to do? John and Ken are joined by Cécile Fabre from the University of Oxford, author of Whose Body is it Anyway? Justice and the Integrity of the Person.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/2u3vA6vD7c0.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Most countries allow their citizens to smoke cigarettes, get intoxicated, and eat unhealthy food – despite the harms that such behaviors may bring to the individual&#8217;s health and to the social and economic interests of the state. Yet taking certain narcotics, selling one&#8217;s organs, and driving without a seat-belt are often prohibited by law. Is this an arbitrary distinction, or is there a principled reason for these diverging attitudes? What can government legitimately prohibit its citizens from doing to their own bodies &#8212; and what can it legitimately compel them to do? John and Ken are joined by Cécile Fabre from the University of Oxford, author of Whose Body is it Anyway? Justice and the Integrity of the Person.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/2u3vA6vD7c0.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Why Be Moral?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/why-be-moral/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 16 Sep 2012 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/why-be-moral/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Morality tells us how we ought to behave, if we want to do the right thing. But is there a reason why we ought to be moral in the first place? Both Plato and Kant believed that morality is dictated by reason and so a fully rational person is automatically a moral person too. But how can we derive morality from reason? Isn’t it possible to be a rational but amoral or even immoral person? John and Ken walk the line with James Sterba from the University of Notre Dame, author of From Rationality to Equality.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Morality tells us how we ought to behave, if we want to do the right thing. But is there a reason why we ought to be moral in the first place? Both Plato and Kant believed that morality is dictated by reason and so a fully rational person is automaticall]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Morality tells us how we ought to behave, if we want to do the right thing. But is there a reason why we ought to be moral in the first place? Both Plato and Kant believed that morality is dictated by reason and so a fully rational person is automatically a moral person too. But how can we derive morality from reason? Isn’t it possible to be a rational but amoral or even immoral person? John and Ken walk the line with James Sterba from the University of Notre Dame, author of From Rationality to Equality.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/225/why-be-moral.mp3" length="48688901" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Morality tells us how we ought to behave, if we want to do the right thing. But is there a reason why we ought to be moral in the first place? Both Plato and Kant believed that morality is dictated by reason and so a fully rational person is automatically a moral person too. But how can we derive morality from reason? Isn’t it possible to be a rational but amoral or even immoral person? John and Ken walk the line with James Sterba from the University of Notre Dame, author of From Rationality to Equality.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/iDmYlktdt8s.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Morality tells us how we ought to behave, if we want to do the right thing. But is there a reason why we ought to be moral in the first place? Both Plato and Kant believed that morality is dictated by reason and so a fully rational person is automatically a moral person too. But how can we derive morality from reason? Isn’t it possible to be a rational but amoral or even immoral person? John and Ken walk the line with James Sterba from the University of Notre Dame, author of From Rationality to Equality.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/iDmYlktdt8s.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Nature of Wilderness</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/nature-wilderness/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 26 Aug 2012 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/nature-wilderness/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Nowadays we think of wilderness as a fully natural environment that contrasts sharply&#160;with the designed and constructed environments in which we normally move. But does&#160;that vision of wilderness really exist anymore? What is natural and what is artificial about&#160;wilderness? Should humans be understood as a part of nature or distinct from it? And&#160;how should we approach conservation efforts so that we balance the needs of a growing&#160;world population with the need to preserve some aspect of the wild in our lives? John and&#160;Ken welcome Jay Odenbaugh from Lewis &#38; Clark College, for a program recorded live&#160;on campus in Portland, Oregon.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Nowadays we think of wilderness as a fully natural environment that contrasts sharply&#160;with the designed and constructed environments in which we normally move. But does&#160;that vision of wilderness really exist anymore? What is natural and what is]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Nowadays we think of wilderness as a fully natural environment that contrasts sharply&#160;with the designed and constructed environments in which we normally move. But does&#160;that vision of wilderness really exist anymore? What is natural and what is artificial about&#160;wilderness? Should humans be understood as a part of nature or distinct from it? And&#160;how should we approach conservation efforts so that we balance the needs of a growing&#160;world population with the need to preserve some aspect of the wild in our lives? John and&#160;Ken welcome Jay Odenbaugh from Lewis &#38; Clark College, for a program recorded live&#160;on campus in Portland, Oregon.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/229/nature-wilderness.mp3" length="48370672" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Nowadays we think of wilderness as a fully natural environment that contrasts sharply&#160;with the designed and constructed environments in which we normally move. But does&#160;that vision of wilderness really exist anymore? What is natural and what is artificial about&#160;wilderness? Should humans be understood as a part of nature or distinct from it? And&#160;how should we approach conservation efforts so that we balance the needs of a growing&#160;world population with the need to preserve some aspect of the wild in our lives? John and&#160;Ken welcome Jay Odenbaugh from Lewis &#38; Clark College, for a program recorded live&#160;on campus in Portland, Oregon.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/60720_img_5234.rev_.1465945337_0.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Nowadays we think of wilderness as a fully natural environment that contrasts sharply&#160;with the designed and constructed environments in which we normally move. But does&#160;that vision of wilderness really exist anymore? What is natural and what is artificial about&#160;wilderness? Should humans be understood as a part of nature or distinct from it? And&#160;how should we approach conservation efforts so that we balance the needs of a growing&#160;world population with the need to preserve some aspect of the wild in our lives? John and&#160;Ken welcome Jay Odenbaugh from Lewis &#38; Clark College, for a program recorded live&#160;on campus in Portland, Oregon.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/60720_img_5234.rev_.1465945337_0.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Moral Costs of Climate Change</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/moral-costs-climate-change/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 19 Aug 2012 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/moral-costs-climate-change/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Global climate change confronts us not only with well-known pragmatic challenges, but also with less commonly acknowledged moral challenges. Who is responsible for responding to environmental catastrophes around the world? What kind of help does the industrialized world owe developing nations? What values should we hold onto, and which must we discard, in response to the changing climate? John and Ken survey the moral landscape with Allen Thompson from Oregon State University, editor of Ethical Adaptation to Climate Change: Human Virtues of the Future. This program was recorded live at OSU in Corvallis, Oregon.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Global climate change confronts us not only with well-known pragmatic challenges, but also with less commonly acknowledged moral challenges. Who is responsible for responding to environmental catastrophes around the world? What kind of help does the indu]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Global climate change confronts us not only with well-known pragmatic challenges, but also with less commonly acknowledged moral challenges. Who is responsible for responding to environmental catastrophes around the world? What kind of help does the industrialized world owe developing nations? What values should we hold onto, and which must we discard, in response to the changing climate? John and Ken survey the moral landscape with Allen Thompson from Oregon State University, editor of Ethical Adaptation to Climate Change: Human Virtues of the Future. This program was recorded live at OSU in Corvallis, Oregon.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/205/moral-costs-climate-change.mp3" length="49557420" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Global climate change confronts us not only with well-known pragmatic challenges, but also with less commonly acknowledged moral challenges. Who is responsible for responding to environmental catastrophes around the world? What kind of help does the industrialized world owe developing nations? What values should we hold onto, and which must we discard, in response to the changing climate? John and Ken survey the moral landscape with Allen Thompson from Oregon State University, editor of Ethical Adaptation to Climate Change: Human Virtues of the Future. This program was recorded live at OSU in Corvallis, Oregon.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/thompson-allen.jpg_.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Global climate change confronts us not only with well-known pragmatic challenges, but also with less commonly acknowledged moral challenges. Who is responsible for responding to environmental catastrophes around the world? What kind of help does the industrialized world owe developing nations? What values should we hold onto, and which must we discard, in response to the changing climate? John and Ken survey the moral landscape with Allen Thompson from Oregon State University, editor of Ethical Adaptation to Climate Change: Human Virtues of the Future. This program was recorded live at OSU in Corvallis, Oregon.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/thompson-allen.jpg_.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Neuroscience and the Law</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/neuroscience-and-the-law/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Aug 2012 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7322</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Recent advances in neuroscience have revealed that certain neurological disorders, like a brain tumor, can cause an otherwise normal person to behave in criminally deviant ways. Would knowing that an underlying neurological condition had caused criminal behavior change the way we assign moral responsibility and mete out justice? Should it? Is committing a crime with a &#8220;normal&#8221; biology fundamentally different from doing so with an identifiable brain disorder? John and Ken ask how the law should respond to the findings of neuroscience with David Eagleman, author of Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Recent advances in neuroscience have revealed that certain neurological disorders, like a brain tumor, can cause an otherwise normal person to behave in criminally deviant ways. Would knowing that an underlying neurological condition had caused criminal ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Recent advances in neuroscience have revealed that certain neurological disorders, like a brain tumor, can cause an otherwise normal person to behave in criminally deviant ways. Would knowing that an underlying neurological condition had caused criminal behavior change the way we assign moral responsibility and mete out justice? Should it? Is committing a crime with a &#8220;normal&#8221; biology fundamentally different from doing so with an identifiable brain disorder? John and Ken ask how the law should respond to the findings of neuroscience with David Eagleman, author of Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7322/neuroscience-and-the-law.mp3" length="24114202" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Recent advances in neuroscience have revealed that certain neurological disorders, like a brain tumor, can cause an otherwise normal person to behave in criminally deviant ways. Would knowing that an underlying neurological condition had caused criminal behavior change the way we assign moral responsibility and mete out justice? Should it? Is committing a crime with a &#8220;normal&#8221; biology fundamentally different from doing so with an identifiable brain disorder? John and Ken ask how the law should respond to the findings of neuroscience with David Eagleman, author of Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/f_1nvqluQ2s.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Recent advances in neuroscience have revealed that certain neurological disorders, like a brain tumor, can cause an otherwise normal person to behave in criminally deviant ways. Would knowing that an underlying neurological condition had caused criminal behavior change the way we assign moral responsibility and mete out justice? Should it? Is committing a crime with a &#8220;normal&#8221; biology fundamentally different from doing so with an identifiable brain disorder? John and Ken ask how the law should respond to the findings of neuroscience with David Eagleman, author of Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/f_1nvqluQ2s.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Gut Feelings and the Art of Decision-Making</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/gut-feelings-and-the-art-of-decision-making/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jul 2012 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7309</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[We may think of ourselves as rational decision-makers, but we often base even high-stakes decisions on intuitions or &#8220;gut feelings&#8221; rather than explicit reasoning. Decisions based on intuition are not highly esteemed in business, politics, or medicine – which may lead decision-makers to construct elaborate post facto rationalizations to explain their intuitive choices. What place should intuitions have in important decision-making? Is there a role for expertise in developing reliable gut-feelings? John and Ken trust their instincts with Gerd Gigerenzer from the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, author of Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[We may think of ourselves as rational decision-makers, but we often base even high-stakes decisions on intuitions or &#8220;gut feelings&#8221; rather than explicit reasoning. Decisions based on intuition are not highly esteemed in business, politics, or]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[We may think of ourselves as rational decision-makers, but we often base even high-stakes decisions on intuitions or &#8220;gut feelings&#8221; rather than explicit reasoning. Decisions based on intuition are not highly esteemed in business, politics, or medicine – which may lead decision-makers to construct elaborate post facto rationalizations to explain their intuitive choices. What place should intuitions have in important decision-making? Is there a role for expertise in developing reliable gut-feelings? John and Ken trust their instincts with Gerd Gigerenzer from the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, author of Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7309/gut-feelings-and-the-art-of-decision-making.mp3" length="48342251" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[We may think of ourselves as rational decision-makers, but we often base even high-stakes decisions on intuitions or &#8220;gut feelings&#8221; rather than explicit reasoning. Decisions based on intuition are not highly esteemed in business, politics, or medicine – which may lead decision-makers to construct elaborate post facto rationalizations to explain their intuitive choices. What place should intuitions have in important decision-making? Is there a role for expertise in developing reliable gut-feelings? John and Ken trust their instincts with Gerd Gigerenzer from the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, author of Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/8BFWdbETG0M.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:21</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[We may think of ourselves as rational decision-makers, but we often base even high-stakes decisions on intuitions or &#8220;gut feelings&#8221; rather than explicit reasoning. Decisions based on intuition are not highly esteemed in business, politics, or medicine – which may lead decision-makers to construct elaborate post facto rationalizations to explain their intuitive choices. What place should intuitions have in important decision-making? Is there a role for expertise in developing reliable gut-feelings? John and Ken trust their instincts with Gerd Gigerenzer from the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, author of Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/8BFWdbETG0M.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Hypocrisy</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/hypocrisy/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jul 2012 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7313</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Hypocrites believe one thing, but do another. Jefferson opposed slavery, but owned slaves. Jesus professed universal love, but cursed an innocent fig tree. Jerry Brown opposes the death penalty, but as governor of California will be responsible for executions. Hypocrites all – but vile hypocrites? Surely it was better that Jefferson was a hypocrite, and articulated the case against slavery, than not opposing it at all. Does it take courage to defend a view that you, yourself, don&#8217;t have the courage or the character to follow through on? John and Ken try to practice what they preach with Lawrence Quill from San Jose State University, author of Secrets and Democracy: From Arcana Imperii to Wikileaks.
&#160;]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Hypocrites believe one thing, but do another. Jefferson opposed slavery, but owned slaves. Jesus professed universal love, but cursed an innocent fig tree. Jerry Brown opposes the death penalty, but as governor of California will be responsible for execu]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Hypocrites believe one thing, but do another. Jefferson opposed slavery, but owned slaves. Jesus professed universal love, but cursed an innocent fig tree. Jerry Brown opposes the death penalty, but as governor of California will be responsible for executions. Hypocrites all – but vile hypocrites? Surely it was better that Jefferson was a hypocrite, and articulated the case against slavery, than not opposing it at all. Does it take courage to defend a view that you, yourself, don&#8217;t have the courage or the character to follow through on? John and Ken try to practice what they preach with Lawrence Quill from San Jose State University, author of Secrets and Democracy: From Arcana Imperii to Wikileaks.
&#160;]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7313/hypocrisy.mp3" length="49190870" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Hypocrites believe one thing, but do another. Jefferson opposed slavery, but owned slaves. Jesus professed universal love, but cursed an innocent fig tree. Jerry Brown opposes the death penalty, but as governor of California will be responsible for executions. Hypocrites all – but vile hypocrites? Surely it was better that Jefferson was a hypocrite, and articulated the case against slavery, than not opposing it at all. Does it take courage to defend a view that you, yourself, don&#8217;t have the courage or the character to follow through on? John and Ken try to practice what they preach with Lawrence Quill from San Jose State University, author of Secrets and Democracy: From Arcana Imperii to Wikileaks.
&#160;]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/c9oRSDw_wsY.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Hypocrites believe one thing, but do another. Jefferson opposed slavery, but owned slaves. Jesus professed universal love, but cursed an innocent fig tree. Jerry Brown opposes the death penalty, but as governor of California will be responsible for executions. Hypocrites all – but vile hypocrites? Surely it was better that Jefferson was a hypocrite, and articulated the case against slavery, than not opposing it at all. Does it take courage to defend a view that you, yourself, don&#8217;t have the courage or the character to follow through on? John and Ken try to practice what they preach with Lawrence Quill from San Jose State University, author of Secrets and Democracy: From Arcana Imperii to Wikileaks.
&#160;]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/c9oRSDw_wsY.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Identities Lost &#038; Found in a Global Age</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/identities-lost-found-in-a-global-age/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 01 Jul 2012 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7317</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Throughout human history, people have tended to live and die in the place they&#8217;re born. Place is an important part of identity. But what happens when people are deprived of this sense of place? What psychological effects do emigrants, exiles, and expatriates endure? What happens to the importance of place when community membership can be based on common interests among people linked by email and facebook? John and Ken situate themselves with UC Berkeley English Professor Bharati Mukherjee, author of Miss New India and other novels exploring migration, alienation, and identity.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Throughout human history, people have tended to live and die in the place they&#8217;re born. Place is an important part of identity. But what happens when people are deprived of this sense of place? What psychological effects do emigrants, exiles, and e]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Throughout human history, people have tended to live and die in the place they&#8217;re born. Place is an important part of identity. But what happens when people are deprived of this sense of place? What psychological effects do emigrants, exiles, and expatriates endure? What happens to the importance of place when community membership can be based on common interests among people linked by email and facebook? John and Ken situate themselves with UC Berkeley English Professor Bharati Mukherjee, author of Miss New India and other novels exploring migration, alienation, and identity.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7317/identities-lost-found-in-a-global-age.mp3" length="48106104" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Throughout human history, people have tended to live and die in the place they&#8217;re born. Place is an important part of identity. But what happens when people are deprived of this sense of place? What psychological effects do emigrants, exiles, and expatriates endure? What happens to the importance of place when community membership can be based on common interests among people linked by email and facebook? John and Ken situate themselves with UC Berkeley English Professor Bharati Mukherjee, author of Miss New India and other novels exploring migration, alienation, and identity.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/u7xcKfZaPn0.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:07</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Throughout human history, people have tended to live and die in the place they&#8217;re born. Place is an important part of identity. But what happens when people are deprived of this sense of place? What psychological effects do emigrants, exiles, and expatriates endure? What happens to the importance of place when community membership can be based on common interests among people linked by email and facebook? John and Ken situate themselves with UC Berkeley English Professor Bharati Mukherjee, author of Miss New India and other novels exploring migration, alienation, and identity.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/u7xcKfZaPn0.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Corporations and the Future of Democracy</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/corporations-and-the-future-of-democracy/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 24 Jun 2012 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7206</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The US prides itself on the strength of its democratic institutions and considers itself a leader in the promotion of democratic values around the globe. But can we consistently maintain this self-image in the face of the growing power of corporations? Are capitalism and globalization subverting the interests of democracy at home and abroad? If so, does the problem stem from fundamental inconsistencies between global capitalism and national democracy? Can regulations provide a solution, and if so, who has the authority to create and enforce these regulations? John and Ken welcome former US Senator Russell Feingold, author of While America Sleeps: A Wake-up Call for the Post-9/11 Era, for a program recorded live on the Stanford campus.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The US prides itself on the strength of its democratic institutions and considers itself a leader in the promotion of democratic values around the globe. But can we consistently maintain this self-image in the face of the growing power of corporations? A]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The US prides itself on the strength of its democratic institutions and considers itself a leader in the promotion of democratic values around the globe. But can we consistently maintain this self-image in the face of the growing power of corporations? Are capitalism and globalization subverting the interests of democracy at home and abroad? If so, does the problem stem from fundamental inconsistencies between global capitalism and national democracy? Can regulations provide a solution, and if so, who has the authority to create and enforce these regulations? John and Ken welcome former US Senator Russell Feingold, author of While America Sleeps: A Wake-up Call for the Post-9/11 Era, for a program recorded live on the Stanford campus.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7206/corporations-and-the-future-of-democracy.mp3" length="48358969" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The US prides itself on the strength of its democratic institutions and considers itself a leader in the promotion of democratic values around the globe. But can we consistently maintain this self-image in the face of the growing power of corporations? Are capitalism and globalization subverting the interests of democracy at home and abroad? If so, does the problem stem from fundamental inconsistencies between global capitalism and national democracy? Can regulations provide a solution, and if so, who has the authority to create and enforce these regulations? John and Ken welcome former US Senator Russell Feingold, author of While America Sleeps: A Wake-up Call for the Post-9/11 Era, for a program recorded live on the Stanford campus.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/zCSz2l3_w7s.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The US prides itself on the strength of its democratic institutions and considers itself a leader in the promotion of democratic values around the globe. But can we consistently maintain this self-image in the face of the growing power of corporations? Are capitalism and globalization subverting the interests of democracy at home and abroad? If so, does the problem stem from fundamental inconsistencies between global capitalism and national democracy? Can regulations provide a solution, and if so, who has the authority to create and enforce these regulations? John and Ken welcome former US Senator Russell Feingold, author of While America Sleeps: A Wake-up Call for the Post-9/11 Era, for a program recorded live on the Stanford campus.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/zCSz2l3_w7s.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>What Might Have Been</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/what-might-have-been/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jun 2012 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7335</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[When we make claims about things that could have been—what philosophers call counterfactual statements—we are, in some sense, sliding between different worlds. We all use counterfactual statements frequently. But what would make our speculations about what might have been in a different scenario true or false? When I say things could have gone differently than they did, I am speaking of a possible world in which things did, in fact, go differently. But how do we make sense of this talk of possible worlds? How can there be facts other than facts about the actual world? John and Ken consider the possibilities with Laurie Paul from UNC Chapel Hill, co-author of Causation: A User&#8217;s Guide.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[When we make claims about things that could have been—what philosophers call counterfactual statements—we are, in some sense, sliding between different worlds. We all use counterfactual statements frequently. But what would make our speculations about wh]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[When we make claims about things that could have been—what philosophers call counterfactual statements—we are, in some sense, sliding between different worlds. We all use counterfactual statements frequently. But what would make our speculations about what might have been in a different scenario true or false? When I say things could have gone differently than they did, I am speaking of a possible world in which things did, in fact, go differently. But how do we make sense of this talk of possible worlds? How can there be facts other than facts about the actual world? John and Ken consider the possibilities with Laurie Paul from UNC Chapel Hill, co-author of Causation: A User&#8217;s Guide.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7335/what-might-have-been.mp3" length="48071157" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[When we make claims about things that could have been—what philosophers call counterfactual statements—we are, in some sense, sliding between different worlds. We all use counterfactual statements frequently. But what would make our speculations about what might have been in a different scenario true or false? When I say things could have gone differently than they did, I am speaking of a possible world in which things did, in fact, go differently. But how do we make sense of this talk of possible worlds? How can there be facts other than facts about the actual world? John and Ken consider the possibilities with Laurie Paul from UNC Chapel Hill, co-author of Causation: A User&#8217;s Guide.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Off9u2wYycA.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[When we make claims about things that could have been—what philosophers call counterfactual statements—we are, in some sense, sliding between different worlds. We all use counterfactual statements frequently. But what would make our speculations about what might have been in a different scenario true or false? When I say things could have gone differently than they did, I am speaking of a possible world in which things did, in fact, go differently. But how do we make sense of this talk of possible worlds? How can there be facts other than facts about the actual world? John and Ken consider the possibilities with Laurie Paul from UNC Chapel Hill, co-author of Causation: A User&#8217;s Guide.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Off9u2wYycA.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Summer Reading List 2012</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/summer-reading-list-2012/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 27 May 2012 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/summer-reading-list-2012/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Summer is the perfect time to dig in to deep reading. Plato&#8217;s Collected Dialogues may be a bit much to take on vacation, but there are lots of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your summer reading. Not to mention new and classic fiction books with a philosophical bent. John and Ken share some of the philosophically-minded titles on their reading list and take suggestions from listeners and special guests.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Summer is the perfect time to dig in to deep reading. Plato&#8217;s Collected Dialogues may be a bit much to take on vacation, but there are lots of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your summer reading. Not]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Summer is the perfect time to dig in to deep reading. Plato&#8217;s Collected Dialogues may be a bit much to take on vacation, but there are lots of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your summer reading. Not to mention new and classic fiction books with a philosophical bent. John and Ken share some of the philosophically-minded titles on their reading list and take suggestions from listeners and special guests.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/351/summer-reading-list-2012.mp3" length="49175243" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Summer is the perfect time to dig in to deep reading. Plato&#8217;s Collected Dialogues may be a bit much to take on vacation, but there are lots of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your summer reading. Not to mention new and classic fiction books with a philosophical bent. John and Ken share some of the philosophically-minded titles on their reading list and take suggestions from listeners and special guests.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/kzDxBYGy5m8.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Summer is the perfect time to dig in to deep reading. Plato&#8217;s Collected Dialogues may be a bit much to take on vacation, but there are lots of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your summer reading. Not to mention new and classic fiction books with a philosophical bent. John and Ken share some of the philosophically-minded titles on their reading list and take suggestions from listeners and special guests.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/kzDxBYGy5m8.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Freedom, Blame, and Resentment</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/freedom-blame-and-resentment/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 13 May 2012 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7318</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[When someone acts without regard for our feelings or needs, a natural response is to feel resentment toward that person. But is that a rational response? What if there&#8217;s no such thing as free will? Is blame still appropriate in a deterministic universe? Or are we simply genetically programmed to respond emotionally to perceived injuries? John and Ken talk freely with Pamela Hieronymi from UCLA, author of Reflection and Responsibility.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[When someone acts without regard for our feelings or needs, a natural response is to feel resentment toward that person. But is that a rational response? What if there&#8217;s no such thing as free will? Is blame still appropriate in a deterministic univ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[When someone acts without regard for our feelings or needs, a natural response is to feel resentment toward that person. But is that a rational response? What if there&#8217;s no such thing as free will? Is blame still appropriate in a deterministic universe? Or are we simply genetically programmed to respond emotionally to perceived injuries? John and Ken talk freely with Pamela Hieronymi from UCLA, author of Reflection and Responsibility.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7318/freedom-blame-and-resentment.mp3" length="47866613" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[When someone acts without regard for our feelings or needs, a natural response is to feel resentment toward that person. But is that a rational response? What if there&#8217;s no such thing as free will? Is blame still appropriate in a deterministic universe? Or are we simply genetically programmed to respond emotionally to perceived injuries? John and Ken talk freely with Pamela Hieronymi from UCLA, author of Reflection and Responsibility.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/QvziqcXud6U.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>49:52</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[When someone acts without regard for our feelings or needs, a natural response is to feel resentment toward that person. But is that a rational response? What if there&#8217;s no such thing as free will? Is blame still appropriate in a deterministic universe? Or are we simply genetically programmed to respond emotionally to perceived injuries? John and Ken talk freely with Pamela Hieronymi from UCLA, author of Reflection and Responsibility.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/QvziqcXud6U.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>What Is Love?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/what-is-love/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 22 Apr 2012 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6959</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[It may seem doubtful that philosophers have much to tell us about love (beyond their love of wisdom). Surely it is the poets who have the market cornered when it comes to deep reflection on the nature of love. John and Ken question the notion that love cannot be captured by the light of reason by turning their attention to the philosophy of love with philosopher-poet Troy Jollimore from CSU Chico. Troy is the author of Love’s Vision, as well as two collections of poems: At Lake Scugog and 2006&#8217;s Tom Thomson in Purgatory, which won the National Book Critics Circle Award. This program was recorded live at the Mill Valley Public Library, just north of San Francisco.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[It may seem doubtful that philosophers have much to tell us about love (beyond their love of wisdom). Surely it is the poets who have the market cornered when it comes to deep reflection on the nature of love. John and Ken question the notion that love c]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[It may seem doubtful that philosophers have much to tell us about love (beyond their love of wisdom). Surely it is the poets who have the market cornered when it comes to deep reflection on the nature of love. John and Ken question the notion that love cannot be captured by the light of reason by turning their attention to the philosophy of love with philosopher-poet Troy Jollimore from CSU Chico. Troy is the author of Love’s Vision, as well as two collections of poems: At Lake Scugog and 2006&#8217;s Tom Thomson in Purgatory, which won the National Book Critics Circle Award. This program was recorded live at the Mill Valley Public Library, just north of San Francisco.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6959/what-is-love.mp3" length="49192960" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[It may seem doubtful that philosophers have much to tell us about love (beyond their love of wisdom). Surely it is the poets who have the market cornered when it comes to deep reflection on the nature of love. John and Ken question the notion that love cannot be captured by the light of reason by turning their attention to the philosophy of love with philosopher-poet Troy Jollimore from CSU Chico. Troy is the author of Love’s Vision, as well as two collections of poems: At Lake Scugog and 2006&#8217;s Tom Thomson in Purgatory, which won the National Book Critics Circle Award. This program was recorded live at the Mill Valley Public Library, just north of San Francisco.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ReWVxHpHJjA.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[It may seem doubtful that philosophers have much to tell us about love (beyond their love of wisdom). Surely it is the poets who have the market cornered when it comes to deep reflection on the nature of love. John and Ken question the notion that love cannot be captured by the light of reason by turning their attention to the philosophy of love with philosopher-poet Troy Jollimore from CSU Chico. Troy is the author of Love’s Vision, as well as two collections of poems: At Lake Scugog and 2006&#8217;s Tom Thomson in Purgatory, which won the National Book Critics Circle Award. This program was recorded live at the Mill Valley Public Library, just north of San Francisco.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ReWVxHpHJjA.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>What Are Leaders Made of?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/what-are-leaders-made-of/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 15 Apr 2012 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7332</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[There seems to be a paradox in leadership: the qualities of ruthlessness and opportunism necessary to attain power and become a leader are not necessarily the qualities of morality and a sense of justice that make for a good leader. Do the traits that make it likely that someone will become a leader correlate positively or negatively with the traits that make a good and effective leader? Do our democratic institutions lead to better leaders than, say, a lottery like the Athenians used? Ken and John ask what leaders are – and should be – made of with Stanford Law Professor Deborah Rhode, co-author of Moral Leadership: The Theory and Practice of Power, Judgment, and Policy. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theatre in Berkeley.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[There seems to be a paradox in leadership: the qualities of ruthlessness and opportunism necessary to attain power and become a leader are not necessarily the qualities of morality and a sense of justice that make for a good leader. Do the traits that ma]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[There seems to be a paradox in leadership: the qualities of ruthlessness and opportunism necessary to attain power and become a leader are not necessarily the qualities of morality and a sense of justice that make for a good leader. Do the traits that make it likely that someone will become a leader correlate positively or negatively with the traits that make a good and effective leader? Do our democratic institutions lead to better leaders than, say, a lottery like the Athenians used? Ken and John ask what leaders are – and should be – made of with Stanford Law Professor Deborah Rhode, co-author of Moral Leadership: The Theory and Practice of Power, Judgment, and Policy. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theatre in Berkeley.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7332/what-are-leaders-made-of.mp3" length="47512184" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[There seems to be a paradox in leadership: the qualities of ruthlessness and opportunism necessary to attain power and become a leader are not necessarily the qualities of morality and a sense of justice that make for a good leader. Do the traits that make it likely that someone will become a leader correlate positively or negatively with the traits that make a good and effective leader? Do our democratic institutions lead to better leaders than, say, a lottery like the Athenians used? Ken and John ask what leaders are – and should be – made of with Stanford Law Professor Deborah Rhode, co-author of Moral Leadership: The Theory and Practice of Power, Judgment, and Policy. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theatre in Berkeley.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/q3cbbWUot5s.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>49:29</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[There seems to be a paradox in leadership: the qualities of ruthlessness and opportunism necessary to attain power and become a leader are not necessarily the qualities of morality and a sense of justice that make for a good leader. Do the traits that make it likely that someone will become a leader correlate positively or negatively with the traits that make a good and effective leader? Do our democratic institutions lead to better leaders than, say, a lottery like the Athenians used? Ken and John ask what leaders are – and should be – made of with Stanford Law Professor Deborah Rhode, co-author of Moral Leadership: The Theory and Practice of Power, Judgment, and Policy. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theatre in Berkeley.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/q3cbbWUot5s.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Poetry as a Way of Knowing</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/poetry-as-a-way-of-knowing/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2012 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6971</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What is poetry? Mere word play? A pretty, or at any rate striking, way of expressing thought and emotion? Or does great poetry involve an approach to the world that provides insight and information not available in other ways? Ken and John explore how poetry can illuminate what we know with award-winning poet Jane Hirshfield, author of Come, Thief and other poetic works of philosophical richness. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theatre in Berkeley.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What is poetry? Mere word play? A pretty, or at any rate striking, way of expressing thought and emotion? Or does great poetry involve an approach to the world that provides insight and information not available in other ways? Ken and John explore how po]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What is poetry? Mere word play? A pretty, or at any rate striking, way of expressing thought and emotion? Or does great poetry involve an approach to the world that provides insight and information not available in other ways? Ken and John explore how poetry can illuminate what we know with award-winning poet Jane Hirshfield, author of Come, Thief and other poetic works of philosophical richness. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theatre in Berkeley.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6971/poetry-as-a-way-of-knowing.mp3" length="48042992" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What is poetry? Mere word play? A pretty, or at any rate striking, way of expressing thought and emotion? Or does great poetry involve an approach to the world that provides insight and information not available in other ways? Ken and John explore how poetry can illuminate what we know with award-winning poet Jane Hirshfield, author of Come, Thief and other poetic works of philosophical richness. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theatre in Berkeley.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/HXrpVZJEUak.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:03</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What is poetry? Mere word play? A pretty, or at any rate striking, way of expressing thought and emotion? Or does great poetry involve an approach to the world that provides insight and information not available in other ways? Ken and John explore how poetry can illuminate what we know with award-winning poet Jane Hirshfield, author of Come, Thief and other poetic works of philosophical richness. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theatre in Berkeley.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/HXrpVZJEUak.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Epicurus and the Good Life</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/epicurus-and-the-good-life/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 04 Mar 2012 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7343</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Though his name is often misleadingly associated with indulgence in sensual pleasures, the Greek philosopher Epicurus developed a far-reaching system of thought that incorporated an empiricist theory of knowledge, a description of nature based on atomistic materialism, and views about the importance of friendship. His notions of what constitutes a good life have preserved the relevance of Epicurean philosophy for contemporary life. A diverse array of thinkers, including Thomas Jefferson, Diderot, and Jeremy Bentham, have considered themselves Epicureans. So what is the legacy of Epicurus, and how have his ideas become integrated into the fabric of modernity? With great pleasure John and Ken welcome David Konstan from NYU, author of A Life Worthy of the Gods: The Materialist Psychology of Epicurus.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Though his name is often misleadingly associated with indulgence in sensual pleasures, the Greek philosopher Epicurus developed a far-reaching system of thought that incorporated an empiricist theory of knowledge, a description of nature based on atomist]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Though his name is often misleadingly associated with indulgence in sensual pleasures, the Greek philosopher Epicurus developed a far-reaching system of thought that incorporated an empiricist theory of knowledge, a description of nature based on atomistic materialism, and views about the importance of friendship. His notions of what constitutes a good life have preserved the relevance of Epicurean philosophy for contemporary life. A diverse array of thinkers, including Thomas Jefferson, Diderot, and Jeremy Bentham, have considered themselves Epicureans. So what is the legacy of Epicurus, and how have his ideas become integrated into the fabric of modernity? With great pleasure John and Ken welcome David Konstan from NYU, author of A Life Worthy of the Gods: The Materialist Psychology of Epicurus.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7343/epicurus-and-the-good-life.mp3" length="48202234" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Though his name is often misleadingly associated with indulgence in sensual pleasures, the Greek philosopher Epicurus developed a far-reaching system of thought that incorporated an empiricist theory of knowledge, a description of nature based on atomistic materialism, and views about the importance of friendship. His notions of what constitutes a good life have preserved the relevance of Epicurean philosophy for contemporary life. A diverse array of thinkers, including Thomas Jefferson, Diderot, and Jeremy Bentham, have considered themselves Epicureans. So what is the legacy of Epicurus, and how have his ideas become integrated into the fabric of modernity? With great pleasure John and Ken welcome David Konstan from NYU, author of A Life Worthy of the Gods: The Materialist Psychology of Epicurus.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/jCkjp0K80Ck.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:13</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Though his name is often misleadingly associated with indulgence in sensual pleasures, the Greek philosopher Epicurus developed a far-reaching system of thought that incorporated an empiricist theory of knowledge, a description of nature based on atomistic materialism, and views about the importance of friendship. His notions of what constitutes a good life have preserved the relevance of Epicurean philosophy for contemporary life. A diverse array of thinkers, including Thomas Jefferson, Diderot, and Jeremy Bentham, have considered themselves Epicureans. So what is the legacy of Epicurus, and how have his ideas become integrated into the fabric of modernity? With great pleasure John and Ken welcome David Konstan from NYU, author of A Life Worthy of the Gods: The Materialist Psychology of Epicurus.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/jCkjp0K80Ck.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Pantheism</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/pantheism/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 26 Feb 2012 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7325</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Pantheism is the doctrine that the world is either identical with God or an expression of His nature. Pantheistic ideas appear in many schools of Buddhism and Hinduism, and in the Tao-te-Ching. Pantheism also has had defenders in Western philosophy, including Heraclitus, Spinoza, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel. Many of the Romantic poets, like Shelley, Keats, and Wordsworth, were considered pantheists. In modern times, the ecological movement has led to new interest in pantheism and its emphasis on nature as sacred. Is there a consistent world view that all these philosophies have in common? And how should we understand the claim that nature is to be worshipped? John and Ken welcome back Philip Clayton from the Claremont Graduate School, co-author of The Predicament of Belief: Science, Philosophy and Faith.2]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Pantheism is the doctrine that the world is either identical with God or an expression of His nature. Pantheistic ideas appear in many schools of Buddhism and Hinduism, and in the Tao-te-Ching. Pantheism also has had defenders in Western philosophy, incl]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Pantheism is the doctrine that the world is either identical with God or an expression of His nature. Pantheistic ideas appear in many schools of Buddhism and Hinduism, and in the Tao-te-Ching. Pantheism also has had defenders in Western philosophy, including Heraclitus, Spinoza, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel. Many of the Romantic poets, like Shelley, Keats, and Wordsworth, were considered pantheists. In modern times, the ecological movement has led to new interest in pantheism and its emphasis on nature as sacred. Is there a consistent world view that all these philosophies have in common? And how should we understand the claim that nature is to be worshipped? John and Ken welcome back Philip Clayton from the Claremont Graduate School, co-author of The Predicament of Belief: Science, Philosophy and Faith.2]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7325/pantheism.mp3" length="48465967" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Pantheism is the doctrine that the world is either identical with God or an expression of His nature. Pantheistic ideas appear in many schools of Buddhism and Hinduism, and in the Tao-te-Ching. Pantheism also has had defenders in Western philosophy, including Heraclitus, Spinoza, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel. Many of the Romantic poets, like Shelley, Keats, and Wordsworth, were considered pantheists. In modern times, the ecological movement has led to new interest in pantheism and its emphasis on nature as sacred. Is there a consistent world view that all these philosophies have in common? And how should we understand the claim that nature is to be worshipped? John and Ken welcome back Philip Clayton from the Claremont Graduate School, co-author of The Predicament of Belief: Science, Philosophy and Faith.2]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/66cU8mWsAiI.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:29</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Pantheism is the doctrine that the world is either identical with God or an expression of His nature. Pantheistic ideas appear in many schools of Buddhism and Hinduism, and in the Tao-te-Ching. Pantheism also has had defenders in Western philosophy, including Heraclitus, Spinoza, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel. Many of the Romantic poets, like Shelley, Keats, and Wordsworth, were considered pantheists. In modern times, the ecological movement has led to new interest in pantheism and its emphasis on nature as sacred. Is there a consistent world view that all these philosophies have in common? And how should we understand the claim that nature is to be worshipped? John and Ken welcome back Philip Clayton from the Claremont Graduate School, co-author of The Predicament of Belief: Science, Philosophy and Faith.2]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/66cU8mWsAiI.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The 4th Annual Dionysus Awards</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/4th-annual-dionysus-awards/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/4th-annual-dionysus-awards/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Movies play a large role in modern life. We enjoy watching them; we idolize the actors and actresses who appear in them; we analyze the directors. But how well do movies tackle bigger philosophical questions? With the help of listeners and special guests, John and Ken turn a philosophical eye to the past year&#8217;s cinematic offerings, and present their 4th annual Dionysus Awards for the most philosophically-rich films of the past year. Send your nominations to comments@philosophytalk.org.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Movies play a large role in modern life. We enjoy watching them; we idolize the actors and actresses who appear in them; we analyze the directors. But how well do movies tackle bigger philosophical questions? With the help of listeners and special guests]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Movies play a large role in modern life. We enjoy watching them; we idolize the actors and actresses who appear in them; we analyze the directors. But how well do movies tackle bigger philosophical questions? With the help of listeners and special guests, John and Ken turn a philosophical eye to the past year&#8217;s cinematic offerings, and present their 4th annual Dionysus Awards for the most philosophically-rich films of the past year. Send your nominations to comments@philosophytalk.org.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/347/4th-annual-dionysus-awards.mp3" length="25914352" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Movies play a large role in modern life. We enjoy watching them; we idolize the actors and actresses who appear in them; we analyze the directors. But how well do movies tackle bigger philosophical questions? With the help of listeners and special guests, John and Ken turn a philosophical eye to the past year&#8217;s cinematic offerings, and present their 4th annual Dionysus Awards for the most philosophically-rich films of the past year. Send your nominations to comments@philosophytalk.org.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/JuuVhzV2ih0-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Movies play a large role in modern life. We enjoy watching them; we idolize the actors and actresses who appear in them; we analyze the directors. But how well do movies tackle bigger philosophical questions? With the help of listeners and special guests, John and Ken turn a philosophical eye to the past year&#8217;s cinematic offerings, and present their 4th annual Dionysus Awards for the most philosophically-rich films of the past year. Send your nominations to comments@philosophytalk.org.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/JuuVhzV2ih0-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Black Solidarity</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/black-solidarity/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7364</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[From the abolition of slavery to the Black Power movement, African-American unity has been considered a powerful method to achieve freedom and equality. But does Black solidarity still make sense in a supposedly post-racial era? And how should we think about racial solidarity versus class or gender solidarity? In honor of Black History Month, John and Ken join forces with Tommie Shelby from Harvard University, author of We Who Are Dark: The Philosophical Foundations of Black Solidarity.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[From the abolition of slavery to the Black Power movement, African-American unity has been considered a powerful method to achieve freedom and equality. But does Black solidarity still make sense in a supposedly post-racial era? And how should we think a]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[From the abolition of slavery to the Black Power movement, African-American unity has been considered a powerful method to achieve freedom and equality. But does Black solidarity still make sense in a supposedly post-racial era? And how should we think about racial solidarity versus class or gender solidarity? In honor of Black History Month, John and Ken join forces with Tommie Shelby from Harvard University, author of We Who Are Dark: The Philosophical Foundations of Black Solidarity.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7364/black-solidarity.mp3" length="51824269" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[From the abolition of slavery to the Black Power movement, African-American unity has been considered a powerful method to achieve freedom and equality. But does Black solidarity still make sense in a supposedly post-racial era? And how should we think about racial solidarity versus class or gender solidarity? In honor of Black History Month, John and Ken join forces with Tommie Shelby from Harvard University, author of We Who Are Dark: The Philosophical Foundations of Black Solidarity.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/JCbdVKVHavQ.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[From the abolition of slavery to the Black Power movement, African-American unity has been considered a powerful method to achieve freedom and equality. But does Black solidarity still make sense in a supposedly post-racial era? And how should we think about racial solidarity versus class or gender solidarity? In honor of Black History Month, John and Ken join forces with Tommie Shelby from Harvard University, author of We Who Are Dark: The Philosophical Foundations of Black Solidarity.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/JCbdVKVHavQ.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Right to Privacy</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-right-to-privacy/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jan 2012 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7346</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Is the right to privacy – the right to be left alone and to control one’s personal information – really a right? Is privacy just a privilege that can be revoked any time it conflicts with other more important needs, like the need to protect our security? Who has the right to infringe upon our privacy and for what particular purposes? How much public surveillance do we really need to stay safe and does that count as an infringement on our privacy? How does our use of social media undermine our claims to privacy? John and Ken talk openly with George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Rosen, author of Constitution 3.0: Freedom and Technological Change.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Is the right to privacy – the right to be left alone and to control one’s personal information – really a right? Is privacy just a privilege that can be revoked any time it conflicts with other more important needs, like the need to protect our security?]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Is the right to privacy – the right to be left alone and to control one’s personal information – really a right? Is privacy just a privilege that can be revoked any time it conflicts with other more important needs, like the need to protect our security? Who has the right to infringe upon our privacy and for what particular purposes? How much public surveillance do we really need to stay safe and does that count as an infringement on our privacy? How does our use of social media undermine our claims to privacy? John and Ken talk openly with George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Rosen, author of Constitution 3.0: Freedom and Technological Change.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7346/the-right-to-privacy.mp3" length="48044246" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Is the right to privacy – the right to be left alone and to control one’s personal information – really a right? Is privacy just a privilege that can be revoked any time it conflicts with other more important needs, like the need to protect our security? Who has the right to infringe upon our privacy and for what particular purposes? How much public surveillance do we really need to stay safe and does that count as an infringement on our privacy? How does our use of social media undermine our claims to privacy? John and Ken talk openly with George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Rosen, author of Constitution 3.0: Freedom and Technological Change.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/U8tjOyhNiRY.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Is the right to privacy – the right to be left alone and to control one’s personal information – really a right? Is privacy just a privilege that can be revoked any time it conflicts with other more important needs, like the need to protect our security? Who has the right to infringe upon our privacy and for what particular purposes? How much public surveillance do we really need to stay safe and does that count as an infringement on our privacy? How does our use of social media undermine our claims to privacy? John and Ken talk openly with George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Rosen, author of Constitution 3.0: Freedom and Technological Change.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/U8tjOyhNiRY.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Is Democracy a Universal Value?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/is-democracy-a-universal-value/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 15 Jan 2012 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7340</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Americans value democracy, and expect others to value it. But is it a universal value? Does God, or rationality, or something very basic about human sensibility, dictate that states should be organized democratically? What if there were empirical evidence that some non-democratic form of government is more likely to produce human happiness, cultural achievement, and sound money? John and Ken consider the universality of democratic values with Larry Diamond, Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and author of The Spirit of Democracy: The Struggle to Build Free Societies Throughout the World. This program was recorded live at the Marsh theatre in San Francisco.12]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Americans value democracy, and expect others to value it. But is it a universal value? Does God, or rationality, or something very basic about human sensibility, dictate that states should be organized democratically? What if there were empirical evidenc]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Americans value democracy, and expect others to value it. But is it a universal value? Does God, or rationality, or something very basic about human sensibility, dictate that states should be organized democratically? What if there were empirical evidence that some non-democratic form of government is more likely to produce human happiness, cultural achievement, and sound money? John and Ken consider the universality of democratic values with Larry Diamond, Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and author of The Spirit of Democracy: The Struggle to Build Free Societies Throughout the World. This program was recorded live at the Marsh theatre in San Francisco.12]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7340/is-democracy-a-universal-value.mp3" length="24604224" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Americans value democracy, and expect others to value it. But is it a universal value? Does God, or rationality, or something very basic about human sensibility, dictate that states should be organized democratically? What if there were empirical evidence that some non-democratic form of government is more likely to produce human happiness, cultural achievement, and sound money? John and Ken consider the universality of democratic values with Larry Diamond, Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and author of The Spirit of Democracy: The Struggle to Build Free Societies Throughout the World. This program was recorded live at the Marsh theatre in San Francisco.12]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/eugZ-BUXxGY.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Americans value democracy, and expect others to value it. But is it a universal value? Does God, or rationality, or something very basic about human sensibility, dictate that states should be organized democratically? What if there were empirical evidence that some non-democratic form of government is more likely to produce human happiness, cultural achievement, and sound money? John and Ken consider the universality of democratic values with Larry Diamond, Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and author of The Spirit of Democracy: The Struggle to Build Free Societies Throughout the World. This program was recorded live at the Marsh theatre in San Francisco.12]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/eugZ-BUXxGY.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Examined Year: 2011</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/examined-year-2011/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jan 2012 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/examined-year-2011/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[A new year offers an opportunity to reflect on the significant events of the previous year. But what ideas and events took shape over the past twelve months that have prompted us to question our assumptions and to think about things in new ways? What significant events – in politics, in science, and in philosophy itself – have called into question our most deeply-held beliefs? Join John, Ken, and their special guests as they celebrate the examined year with a philosophical look back at 2011.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[A new year offers an opportunity to reflect on the significant events of the previous year. But what ideas and events took shape over the past twelve months that have prompted us to question our assumptions and to think about things in new ways? What sig]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[A new year offers an opportunity to reflect on the significant events of the previous year. But what ideas and events took shape over the past twelve months that have prompted us to question our assumptions and to think about things in new ways? What significant events – in politics, in science, and in philosophy itself – have called into question our most deeply-held beliefs? Join John, Ken, and their special guests as they celebrate the examined year with a philosophical look back at 2011.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/472/examined-year-2011.mp3" length="50129188" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[A new year offers an opportunity to reflect on the significant events of the previous year. But what ideas and events took shape over the past twelve months that have prompted us to question our assumptions and to think about things in new ways? What significant events – in politics, in science, and in philosophy itself – have called into question our most deeply-held beliefs? Join John, Ken, and their special guests as they celebrate the examined year with a philosophical look back at 2011.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/NfRobbjiGYo.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[A new year offers an opportunity to reflect on the significant events of the previous year. But what ideas and events took shape over the past twelve months that have prompted us to question our assumptions and to think about things in new ways? What significant events – in politics, in science, and in philosophy itself – have called into question our most deeply-held beliefs? Join John, Ken, and their special guests as they celebrate the examined year with a philosophical look back at 2011.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/NfRobbjiGYo.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Forgive and Forget</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/forgive-and-forget/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 11 Dec 2011 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7353</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[At least forgive OR forget.  Get things behind you.  All good advice for those who don&#8217;t want their life dominated by the bad things that have happened to them at the hands of others. This advice has also been applied to aggrieved populations following liberating reforms and revolutions, as in South Africa.  But what is forgiveness?  What are its limits?  Does it make sense to forgive those who attempt genocide, for example?  Does forgiveness entail a sacrifice of pride and dignity?  John and Ken let bygones be bygones with their guest, Paul Hughes from the University of Michigan-Dearborn.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[At least forgive OR forget.  Get things behind you.  All good advice for those who don&#8217;t want their life dominated by the bad things that have happened to them at the hands of others. This advice has also been applied to aggrieved populations follo]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[At least forgive OR forget.  Get things behind you.  All good advice for those who don&#8217;t want their life dominated by the bad things that have happened to them at the hands of others. This advice has also been applied to aggrieved populations following liberating reforms and revolutions, as in South Africa.  But what is forgiveness?  What are its limits?  Does it make sense to forgive those who attempt genocide, for example?  Does forgiveness entail a sacrifice of pride and dignity?  John and Ken let bygones be bygones with their guest, Paul Hughes from the University of Michigan-Dearborn.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7353/forgive-and-forget.mp3" length="48451338" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[At least forgive OR forget.  Get things behind you.  All good advice for those who don&#8217;t want their life dominated by the bad things that have happened to them at the hands of others. This advice has also been applied to aggrieved populations following liberating reforms and revolutions, as in South Africa.  But what is forgiveness?  What are its limits?  Does it make sense to forgive those who attempt genocide, for example?  Does forgiveness entail a sacrifice of pride and dignity?  John and Ken let bygones be bygones with their guest, Paul Hughes from the University of Michigan-Dearborn.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/4c67fJnpV8A.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:28</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[At least forgive OR forget.  Get things behind you.  All good advice for those who don&#8217;t want their life dominated by the bad things that have happened to them at the hands of others. This advice has also been applied to aggrieved populations following liberating reforms and revolutions, as in South Africa.  But what is forgiveness?  What are its limits?  Does it make sense to forgive those who attempt genocide, for example?  Does forgiveness entail a sacrifice of pride and dignity?  John and Ken let bygones be bygones with their guest, Paul Hughes from the University of Michigan-Dearborn.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/4c67fJnpV8A.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Military: What Is It Good For?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-military-what-is-it-good-for/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 27 Nov 2011 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7358</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Is the military draft a natural expression of democratic values, or a challenge to our most basic concepts of individual rights and liberties?  Are the values that make for an effective military consistent with the values that make for a free and democratic republic? If the government must have the power to defend the nation, does it follow that it must have the power to control events around the entire world?  John and Ken enlist themselves in a discussion of the military and its role in public life with Pulitzer Prize winning historian David Kennedy, for a program recorded live at the Marsh theatre in San Francisco.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Is the military draft a natural expression of democratic values, or a challenge to our most basic concepts of individual rights and liberties?  Are the values that make for an effective military consistent with the values that make for a free and democra]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Is the military draft a natural expression of democratic values, or a challenge to our most basic concepts of individual rights and liberties?  Are the values that make for an effective military consistent with the values that make for a free and democratic republic? If the government must have the power to defend the nation, does it follow that it must have the power to control events around the entire world?  John and Ken enlist themselves in a discussion of the military and its role in public life with Pulitzer Prize winning historian David Kennedy, for a program recorded live at the Marsh theatre in San Francisco.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7358/the-military-what-is-it-good-for.mp3" length="48540363" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Is the military draft a natural expression of democratic values, or a challenge to our most basic concepts of individual rights and liberties?  Are the values that make for an effective military consistent with the values that make for a free and democratic republic? If the government must have the power to defend the nation, does it follow that it must have the power to control events around the entire world?  John and Ken enlist themselves in a discussion of the military and its role in public life with Pulitzer Prize winning historian David Kennedy, for a program recorded live at the Marsh theatre in San Francisco.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/wp_xnqgiC9o.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:34</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Is the military draft a natural expression of democratic values, or a challenge to our most basic concepts of individual rights and liberties?  Are the values that make for an effective military consistent with the values that make for a free and democratic republic? If the government must have the power to defend the nation, does it follow that it must have the power to control events around the entire world?  John and Ken enlist themselves in a discussion of the military and its role in public life with Pulitzer Prize winning historian David Kennedy, for a program recorded live at the Marsh theatre in San Francisco.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/wp_xnqgiC9o.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Is Nothing Sacred Anymore?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/is-nothing-sacred-anymore/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 13 Nov 2011 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7349</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Tribal societies lived in a world of the sacred and profane, ritual and taboo. Is there anything left of this structure in the modern world? Is anything really taboo, or are things just inadvisable, problematic, unhealthy, unwise, and less than optimal under the circumstances? John and Ken consider what, if anything, is still sacred with Cora Diamond from the University of Virginia, author of The Realistic Spirit: Wittgenstein, Philosophy, and the Mind. This program was recorded live at Pacific University in Forest Grove, Oregon.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Tribal societies lived in a world of the sacred and profane, ritual and taboo. Is there anything left of this structure in the modern world? Is anything really taboo, or are things just inadvisable, problematic, unhealthy, unwise, and less than optimal u]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Tribal societies lived in a world of the sacred and profane, ritual and taboo. Is there anything left of this structure in the modern world? Is anything really taboo, or are things just inadvisable, problematic, unhealthy, unwise, and less than optimal under the circumstances? John and Ken consider what, if anything, is still sacred with Cora Diamond from the University of Virginia, author of The Realistic Spirit: Wittgenstein, Philosophy, and the Mind. This program was recorded live at Pacific University in Forest Grove, Oregon.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7349/is-nothing-sacred-anymore.mp3" length="48774002" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Tribal societies lived in a world of the sacred and profane, ritual and taboo. Is there anything left of this structure in the modern world? Is anything really taboo, or are things just inadvisable, problematic, unhealthy, unwise, and less than optimal under the circumstances? John and Ken consider what, if anything, is still sacred with Cora Diamond from the University of Virginia, author of The Realistic Spirit: Wittgenstein, Philosophy, and the Mind. This program was recorded live at Pacific University in Forest Grove, Oregon.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/UTBeKZ80p8A.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:48</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Tribal societies lived in a world of the sacred and profane, ritual and taboo. Is there anything left of this structure in the modern world? Is anything really taboo, or are things just inadvisable, problematic, unhealthy, unwise, and less than optimal under the circumstances? John and Ken consider what, if anything, is still sacred with Cora Diamond from the University of Virginia, author of The Realistic Spirit: Wittgenstein, Philosophy, and the Mind. This program was recorded live at Pacific University in Forest Grove, Oregon.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/UTBeKZ80p8A.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Miracles</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/miracles/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 06 Nov 2011 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7367</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Religions rely on miracles to demonstrate the authenticity of figures thought to have supernatural powers.  Many people feel that key events in their lives were literally miracles.  Many even claim to have witnessed miracles.  But what counts as a miracle?  Is it true, as Hume argued, that it is always more rational to disbelieve the testimony of a miracle than to believe in the miracle itself?  John and Ken explore what miracles are, and what would constitute good reasons for believing in them, with Peter Graham from the University of California Riverside.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Religions rely on miracles to demonstrate the authenticity of figures thought to have supernatural powers.  Many people feel that key events in their lives were literally miracles.  Many even claim to have witnessed miracles.  But what counts as a miracl]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Religions rely on miracles to demonstrate the authenticity of figures thought to have supernatural powers.  Many people feel that key events in their lives were literally miracles.  Many even claim to have witnessed miracles.  But what counts as a miracle?  Is it true, as Hume argued, that it is always more rational to disbelieve the testimony of a miracle than to believe in the miracle itself?  John and Ken explore what miracles are, and what would constitute good reasons for believing in them, with Peter Graham from the University of California Riverside.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7367/miracles.mp3" length="48215191" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Religions rely on miracles to demonstrate the authenticity of figures thought to have supernatural powers.  Many people feel that key events in their lives were literally miracles.  Many even claim to have witnessed miracles.  But what counts as a miracle?  Is it true, as Hume argued, that it is always more rational to disbelieve the testimony of a miracle than to believe in the miracle itself?  John and Ken explore what miracles are, and what would constitute good reasons for believing in them, with Peter Graham from the University of California Riverside.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AC1Vwck7-2w.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:13</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Religions rely on miracles to demonstrate the authenticity of figures thought to have supernatural powers.  Many people feel that key events in their lives were literally miracles.  Many even claim to have witnessed miracles.  But what counts as a miracle?  Is it true, as Hume argued, that it is always more rational to disbelieve the testimony of a miracle than to believe in the miracle itself?  John and Ken explore what miracles are, and what would constitute good reasons for believing in them, with Peter Graham from the University of California Riverside.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AC1Vwck7-2w.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Thinking Inside the Box</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/thinking-inside-box/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 23 Oct 2011 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/thinking-inside-box/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Speaking to the National Association of Broadcasters in May 1961, FCC Chairman Newton Minow famously introduced the characterization of television as a “vast wasteland.” And that wasteland has only become vaster – though occasionally a flower will bloom, from “The Twilight Zone” and “Star Trek” to “South Park” and “Lost.” With help from listeners, critics, and past guests, John and Ken try to tease out the thoughtful from the mindless for a thinking person&#8217;s guide to TV, past and present.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Speaking to the National Association of Broadcasters in May 1961, FCC Chairman Newton Minow famously introduced the characterization of television as a “vast wasteland.” And that wasteland has only become vaster – though occasionally a flower will bloom,]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Speaking to the National Association of Broadcasters in May 1961, FCC Chairman Newton Minow famously introduced the characterization of television as a “vast wasteland.” And that wasteland has only become vaster – though occasionally a flower will bloom, from “The Twilight Zone” and “Star Trek” to “South Park” and “Lost.” With help from listeners, critics, and past guests, John and Ken try to tease out the thoughtful from the mindless for a thinking person&#8217;s guide to TV, past and present.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/433/thinking-inside-box.mp3" length="49897639" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Speaking to the National Association of Broadcasters in May 1961, FCC Chairman Newton Minow famously introduced the characterization of television as a “vast wasteland.” And that wasteland has only become vaster – though occasionally a flower will bloom, from “The Twilight Zone” and “Star Trek” to “South Park” and “Lost.” With help from listeners, critics, and past guests, John and Ken try to tease out the thoughtful from the mindless for a thinking person&#8217;s guide to TV, past and present.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/NwP67VpRRo4.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Speaking to the National Association of Broadcasters in May 1961, FCC Chairman Newton Minow famously introduced the characterization of television as a “vast wasteland.” And that wasteland has only become vaster – though occasionally a flower will bloom, from “The Twilight Zone” and “Star Trek” to “South Park” and “Lost.” With help from listeners, critics, and past guests, John and Ken try to tease out the thoughtful from the mindless for a thinking person&#8217;s guide to TV, past and present.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/NwP67VpRRo4.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Cooperation and Conflict</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/cooperation-and-conflict/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 16 Oct 2011 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7382</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a problem studied in game theory that shows how two people might not cooperate even if it&#8217;s in both their best interests to do so. It highlights the inherent tension between individual interests and a larger society. Should you pick up your trash at the lunch table? Should you push in your chair after getting up? Should you take performance-enhancing drugs? Should you preserve the earth for the next generation? John and Ken find their mutual interests with Cristina Bicchieri from the University of Pennsylvania, author of The Grammar of Society: The Nature and Dynamics of Social Norms.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a problem studied in game theory that shows how two people might not cooperate even if it&#8217;s in both their best interests to do so. It highlights the inherent tension between individual interests and a larger society. Shoul]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a problem studied in game theory that shows how two people might not cooperate even if it&#8217;s in both their best interests to do so. It highlights the inherent tension between individual interests and a larger society. Should you pick up your trash at the lunch table? Should you push in your chair after getting up? Should you take performance-enhancing drugs? Should you preserve the earth for the next generation? John and Ken find their mutual interests with Cristina Bicchieri from the University of Pennsylvania, author of The Grammar of Society: The Nature and Dynamics of Social Norms.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7382/cooperation-and-conflict.mp3" length="47531572" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a problem studied in game theory that shows how two people might not cooperate even if it&#8217;s in both their best interests to do so. It highlights the inherent tension between individual interests and a larger society. Should you pick up your trash at the lunch table? Should you push in your chair after getting up? Should you take performance-enhancing drugs? Should you preserve the earth for the next generation? John and Ken find their mutual interests with Cristina Bicchieri from the University of Pennsylvania, author of The Grammar of Society: The Nature and Dynamics of Social Norms.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/OI81FyWIPsQ.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a problem studied in game theory that shows how two people might not cooperate even if it&#8217;s in both their best interests to do so. It highlights the inherent tension between individual interests and a larger society. Should you pick up your trash at the lunch table? Should you push in your chair after getting up? Should you take performance-enhancing drugs? Should you preserve the earth for the next generation? John and Ken find their mutual interests with Cristina Bicchieri from the University of Pennsylvania, author of The Grammar of Society: The Nature and Dynamics of Social Norms.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/OI81FyWIPsQ.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Morality and the Self</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/morality-and-self/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 02 Oct 2011 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/morality-and-self/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Social psychologists have discovered that our self-images play a surprising role in our thinking about everyday moral matters. People who feel they have already proven themselves to be morally good feel less pressure to do the right thing than someone whose moral credentials are still in question. And people often resent, rather than applaud, the morally admirable actions of others if those actions threaten their own sense of moral adequacy. John and Ken explore the surprising ways in which our own self-images influences our moral evaluations and reasoning with Stanford psychologist Benoit Monin. This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Marsh theatre in San Francisco.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Social psychologists have discovered that our self-images play a surprising role in our thinking about everyday moral matters. People who feel they have already proven themselves to be morally good feel less pressure to do the right thing than someone wh]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Social psychologists have discovered that our self-images play a surprising role in our thinking about everyday moral matters. People who feel they have already proven themselves to be morally good feel less pressure to do the right thing than someone whose moral credentials are still in question. And people often resent, rather than applaud, the morally admirable actions of others if those actions threaten their own sense of moral adequacy. John and Ken explore the surprising ways in which our own self-images influences our moral evaluations and reasoning with Stanford psychologist Benoit Monin. This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Marsh theatre in San Francisco.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/474/morality-and-self.mp3" length="48737384" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Social psychologists have discovered that our self-images play a surprising role in our thinking about everyday moral matters. People who feel they have already proven themselves to be morally good feel less pressure to do the right thing than someone whose moral credentials are still in question. And people often resent, rather than applaud, the morally admirable actions of others if those actions threaten their own sense of moral adequacy. John and Ken explore the surprising ways in which our own self-images influences our moral evaluations and reasoning with Stanford psychologist Benoit Monin. This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Marsh theatre in San Francisco.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/e1qvkPqVp7E.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Social psychologists have discovered that our self-images play a surprising role in our thinking about everyday moral matters. People who feel they have already proven themselves to be morally good feel less pressure to do the right thing than someone whose moral credentials are still in question. And people often resent, rather than applaud, the morally admirable actions of others if those actions threaten their own sense of moral adequacy. John and Ken explore the surprising ways in which our own self-images influences our moral evaluations and reasoning with Stanford psychologist Benoit Monin. This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Marsh theatre in San Francisco.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/e1qvkPqVp7E.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Wisdom</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/wisdom/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 25 Sep 2011 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7385</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Philosophy is the love of wisdom – or is it?  Is this traditional definition outmoded?  Is wisdom an anachronism, an elitist concept deployed by old learned people with nothing of practical value to say?  Do the professors of philosophy around the world (or on this program) love wisdom any more or less than anyone else?  John and Ken wise up with Valerie Tiberius from the University of Minnesota, author of The Reflective Life: Living Wisely With Our Limits.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Philosophy is the love of wisdom – or is it?  Is this traditional definition outmoded?  Is wisdom an anachronism, an elitist concept deployed by old learned people with nothing of practical value to say?  Do the professors of philosophy around the world ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Philosophy is the love of wisdom – or is it?  Is this traditional definition outmoded?  Is wisdom an anachronism, an elitist concept deployed by old learned people with nothing of practical value to say?  Do the professors of philosophy around the world (or on this program) love wisdom any more or less than anyone else?  John and Ken wise up with Valerie Tiberius from the University of Minnesota, author of The Reflective Life: Living Wisely With Our Limits.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7385/wisdom.mp3" length="46679771" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Philosophy is the love of wisdom – or is it?  Is this traditional definition outmoded?  Is wisdom an anachronism, an elitist concept deployed by old learned people with nothing of practical value to say?  Do the professors of philosophy around the world (or on this program) love wisdom any more or less than anyone else?  John and Ken wise up with Valerie Tiberius from the University of Minnesota, author of The Reflective Life: Living Wisely With Our Limits.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/UncCSbmtwfY.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>48:37</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Philosophy is the love of wisdom – or is it?  Is this traditional definition outmoded?  Is wisdom an anachronism, an elitist concept deployed by old learned people with nothing of practical value to say?  Do the professors of philosophy around the world (or on this program) love wisdom any more or less than anyone else?  John and Ken wise up with Valerie Tiberius from the University of Minnesota, author of The Reflective Life: Living Wisely With Our Limits.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/UncCSbmtwfY.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Latin-American Philosophy</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/latin-american-philosophy/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 18 Sep 2011 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7399</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Latin American Philosophy began centuries before anything of much philosophical consequence happened in North America.  Yet in our own time, Latin American Philosophy is undergoing a protracted identity crisis.  Is it just transplanted European philosophy?  A reaction to analytical philosophy?  A reflection of the themes of liberation theology?  John and Ken explore Latin America&#8217;s philosophical traditions with Joseph Orosco from Oregon State University, author of Cesar Chavez and the Common Sense of Nonviolence. This program was recorded live at OSU in Corvallis.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Latin American Philosophy began centuries before anything of much philosophical consequence happened in North America.  Yet in our own time, Latin American Philosophy is undergoing a protracted identity crisis.  Is it just transplanted European philosoph]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Latin American Philosophy began centuries before anything of much philosophical consequence happened in North America.  Yet in our own time, Latin American Philosophy is undergoing a protracted identity crisis.  Is it just transplanted European philosophy?  A reaction to analytical philosophy?  A reflection of the themes of liberation theology?  John and Ken explore Latin America&#8217;s philosophical traditions with Joseph Orosco from Oregon State University, author of Cesar Chavez and the Common Sense of Nonviolence. This program was recorded live at OSU in Corvallis.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7399/latin-american-philosophy.mp3" length="48092891" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Latin American Philosophy began centuries before anything of much philosophical consequence happened in North America.  Yet in our own time, Latin American Philosophy is undergoing a protracted identity crisis.  Is it just transplanted European philosophy?  A reaction to analytical philosophy?  A reflection of the themes of liberation theology?  John and Ken explore Latin America&#8217;s philosophical traditions with Joseph Orosco from Oregon State University, author of Cesar Chavez and the Common Sense of Nonviolence. This program was recorded live at OSU in Corvallis.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/YWs9OeQSMos.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:06</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Latin American Philosophy began centuries before anything of much philosophical consequence happened in North America.  Yet in our own time, Latin American Philosophy is undergoing a protracted identity crisis.  Is it just transplanted European philosophy?  A reaction to analytical philosophy?  A reflection of the themes of liberation theology?  John and Ken explore Latin America&#8217;s philosophical traditions with Joseph Orosco from Oregon State University, author of Cesar Chavez and the Common Sense of Nonviolence. This program was recorded live at OSU in Corvallis.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/YWs9OeQSMos.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Deconstructing the College Admissions Rat Race</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/deconstructing-the-college-admissions-rat-race/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 04 Sep 2011 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7393</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[America&#8217;s elite colleges and universities spend millions of dollars to generate thousands of applicants, the vast majority of whom they reject.  High school students – and their parents – work hard to gain entry to such institutions, and can be devastated by the rejection. Is there a purpose to this rat race?  What values are implicit in the American college admissions process?  John and Ken offer admission to Mitchell Stevens from Stanford&#8217;s School of Education, author of Creating A Class: College Admissions and the Education of Elites, for a program recorded with an audience of high school students in Palo Alto, California.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[America&#8217;s elite colleges and universities spend millions of dollars to generate thousands of applicants, the vast majority of whom they reject.  High school students – and their parents – work hard to gain entry to such institutions, and can be dev]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[America&#8217;s elite colleges and universities spend millions of dollars to generate thousands of applicants, the vast majority of whom they reject.  High school students – and their parents – work hard to gain entry to such institutions, and can be devastated by the rejection. Is there a purpose to this rat race?  What values are implicit in the American college admissions process?  John and Ken offer admission to Mitchell Stevens from Stanford&#8217;s School of Education, author of Creating A Class: College Admissions and the Education of Elites, for a program recorded with an audience of high school students in Palo Alto, California.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7393/deconstructing-the-college-admissions-rat-race.mp3" length="47897286" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[America&#8217;s elite colleges and universities spend millions of dollars to generate thousands of applicants, the vast majority of whom they reject.  High school students – and their parents – work hard to gain entry to such institutions, and can be devastated by the rejection. Is there a purpose to this rat race?  What values are implicit in the American college admissions process?  John and Ken offer admission to Mitchell Stevens from Stanford&#8217;s School of Education, author of Creating A Class: College Admissions and the Education of Elites, for a program recorded with an audience of high school students in Palo Alto, California.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/IV0Vi-MbWnE.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[America&#8217;s elite colleges and universities spend millions of dollars to generate thousands of applicants, the vast majority of whom they reject.  High school students – and their parents – work hard to gain entry to such institutions, and can be devastated by the rejection. Is there a purpose to this rat race?  What values are implicit in the American college admissions process?  John and Ken offer admission to Mitchell Stevens from Stanford&#8217;s School of Education, author of Creating A Class: College Admissions and the Education of Elites, for a program recorded with an audience of high school students in Palo Alto, California.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/IV0Vi-MbWnE.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Time, Space, and Quantum Mechanics</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/time-space-and-quantum-mechanics/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 14 Aug 2011 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7390</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Quantum physics is regarded by many as the most powerful predictive theory science has produced.  But there is no interpretation of what the theory means that all knowledgeable scientists and philosophers agree on.  For example, quantum mechanics delivers no very clear message about the difference between past, present and future. What are the implications for our everyday experience of space and time?  John and Ken welcome back Jenann Ismael from the University of Arizona, author of The Situated Self and many essays on the interpretation of quantum mechanics.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Quantum physics is regarded by many as the most powerful predictive theory science has produced.  But there is no interpretation of what the theory means that all knowledgeable scientists and philosophers agree on.  For example, quantum mechanics deliver]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Quantum physics is regarded by many as the most powerful predictive theory science has produced.  But there is no interpretation of what the theory means that all knowledgeable scientists and philosophers agree on.  For example, quantum mechanics delivers no very clear message about the difference between past, present and future. What are the implications for our everyday experience of space and time?  John and Ken welcome back Jenann Ismael from the University of Arizona, author of The Situated Self and many essays on the interpretation of quantum mechanics.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7390/time-space-and-quantum-mechanics.mp3" length="48179665" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Quantum physics is regarded by many as the most powerful predictive theory science has produced.  But there is no interpretation of what the theory means that all knowledgeable scientists and philosophers agree on.  For example, quantum mechanics delivers no very clear message about the difference between past, present and future. What are the implications for our everyday experience of space and time?  John and Ken welcome back Jenann Ismael from the University of Arizona, author of The Situated Self and many essays on the interpretation of quantum mechanics.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ES8q5bkZqaI.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Quantum physics is regarded by many as the most powerful predictive theory science has produced.  But there is no interpretation of what the theory means that all knowledgeable scientists and philosophers agree on.  For example, quantum mechanics delivers no very clear message about the difference between past, present and future. What are the implications for our everyday experience of space and time?  John and Ken welcome back Jenann Ismael from the University of Arizona, author of The Situated Self and many essays on the interpretation of quantum mechanics.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ES8q5bkZqaI.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The State of Public Philosophy</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-state-of-public-philosophy/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 07 Aug 2011 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7405</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[In the 18th and 19th Century, philosophers and intellectuals were immersed in politics and popular culture.  Even in the early 20th Century some of the leading academic figures of the time, like Betrand Russell, also wrote for a broader public.  Where have the public philosophers and public intellectuals gone?  Can philosophers and intellectuals still speak to a broad public?  If they speak will the public listen? Or is the public intellectual a thing of the past? John and Ken contemplate the place of the public intellectual in the modern world with Hans Gumbrecht, author of Reading Moods: On Literature&#8217;s Different Reality. This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Marsh theatre in San Francisco]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[In the 18th and 19th Century, philosophers and intellectuals were immersed in politics and popular culture.  Even in the early 20th Century some of the leading academic figures of the time, like Betrand Russell, also wrote for a broader public.  Where ha]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[In the 18th and 19th Century, philosophers and intellectuals were immersed in politics and popular culture.  Even in the early 20th Century some of the leading academic figures of the time, like Betrand Russell, also wrote for a broader public.  Where have the public philosophers and public intellectuals gone?  Can philosophers and intellectuals still speak to a broad public?  If they speak will the public listen? Or is the public intellectual a thing of the past? John and Ken contemplate the place of the public intellectual in the modern world with Hans Gumbrecht, author of Reading Moods: On Literature&#8217;s Different Reality. This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Marsh theatre in San Francisco]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7405/the-state-of-public-philosophy.mp3" length="48397165" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[In the 18th and 19th Century, philosophers and intellectuals were immersed in politics and popular culture.  Even in the early 20th Century some of the leading academic figures of the time, like Betrand Russell, also wrote for a broader public.  Where have the public philosophers and public intellectuals gone?  Can philosophers and intellectuals still speak to a broad public?  If they speak will the public listen? Or is the public intellectual a thing of the past? John and Ken contemplate the place of the public intellectual in the modern world with Hans Gumbrecht, author of Reading Moods: On Literature&#8217;s Different Reality. This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Marsh theatre in San Francisco]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/OtdGdMYDXEI.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:25</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[In the 18th and 19th Century, philosophers and intellectuals were immersed in politics and popular culture.  Even in the early 20th Century some of the leading academic figures of the time, like Betrand Russell, also wrote for a broader public.  Where have the public philosophers and public intellectuals gone?  Can philosophers and intellectuals still speak to a broad public?  If they speak will the public listen? Or is the public intellectual a thing of the past? John and Ken contemplate the place of the public intellectual in the modern world with Hans Gumbrecht, author of Reading Moods: On Literature&#8217;s Different Reality. This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Marsh theatre in San Francisco]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/OtdGdMYDXEI.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Philosophy and Everyday Life</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/philosophy-and-everyday-life/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 31 Jul 2011 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6793</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Philosophy isn&#8217;t just about cosmic issues.&#160; Every day is full of events that raise philosophical questions: why do we eat the things we eat, work the way we work, go to the places we go?&#160; What ideas underlie our most basic activities?&#160; John and Ken look for depth in the daily grind with Robert Rowland Smith, author of Breakfast With Socrates: An Extraordinary (Philosophical) Journey Through Your Ordinary Day.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Philosophy isn&#8217;t just about cosmic issues.&#160; Every day is full of events that raise philosophical questions: why do we eat the things we eat, work the way we work, go to the places we go?&#160; What ideas underlie our most basic activities?&#16]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Philosophy isn&#8217;t just about cosmic issues.&#160; Every day is full of events that raise philosophical questions: why do we eat the things we eat, work the way we work, go to the places we go?&#160; What ideas underlie our most basic activities?&#160; John and Ken look for depth in the daily grind with Robert Rowland Smith, author of Breakfast With Socrates: An Extraordinary (Philosophical) Journey Through Your Ordinary Day.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6793/philosophy-and-everyday-life.mp3" length="47608476" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Philosophy isn&#8217;t just about cosmic issues.&#160; Every day is full of events that raise philosophical questions: why do we eat the things we eat, work the way we work, go to the places we go?&#160; What ideas underlie our most basic activities?&#160; John and Ken look for depth in the daily grind with Robert Rowland Smith, author of Breakfast With Socrates: An Extraordinary (Philosophical) Journey Through Your Ordinary Day.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/NhkDi_Jq7zc.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Philosophy isn&#8217;t just about cosmic issues.&#160; Every day is full of events that raise philosophical questions: why do we eat the things we eat, work the way we work, go to the places we go?&#160; What ideas underlie our most basic activities?&#160; John and Ken look for depth in the daily grind with Robert Rowland Smith, author of Breakfast With Socrates: An Extraordinary (Philosophical) Journey Through Your Ordinary Day.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/NhkDi_Jq7zc.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Psychology of Evil</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-psychology-of-evil/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 17 Jul 2011 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7408</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[True evil seems easy to recognize: the killing of innocent children; assigning whole populations to death by gassing, or napalm, or aerial bombing. These acts go beyond the criminal, the mean, the bad. But what is the psychology of evil-doers? Are they monsters among us &#8212; just like the rest of us, with one screw a little loose, or are they radically unlike us? John and Ken probe the evil mind with Simon Baron Cohen from Cambridge University, author of The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[True evil seems easy to recognize: the killing of innocent children; assigning whole populations to death by gassing, or napalm, or aerial bombing. These acts go beyond the criminal, the mean, the bad. But what is the psychology of evil-doers? Are they m]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[True evil seems easy to recognize: the killing of innocent children; assigning whole populations to death by gassing, or napalm, or aerial bombing. These acts go beyond the criminal, the mean, the bad. But what is the psychology of evil-doers? Are they monsters among us &#8212; just like the rest of us, with one screw a little loose, or are they radically unlike us? John and Ken probe the evil mind with Simon Baron Cohen from Cambridge University, author of The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7408/the-psychology-of-evil.mp3" length="48036884" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[True evil seems easy to recognize: the killing of innocent children; assigning whole populations to death by gassing, or napalm, or aerial bombing. These acts go beyond the criminal, the mean, the bad. But what is the psychology of evil-doers? Are they monsters among us &#8212; just like the rest of us, with one screw a little loose, or are they radically unlike us? John and Ken probe the evil mind with Simon Baron Cohen from Cambridge University, author of The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ORMSXeSTznE.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[True evil seems easy to recognize: the killing of innocent children; assigning whole populations to death by gassing, or napalm, or aerial bombing. These acts go beyond the criminal, the mean, the bad. But what is the psychology of evil-doers? Are they monsters among us &#8212; just like the rest of us, with one screw a little loose, or are they radically unlike us? John and Ken probe the evil mind with Simon Baron Cohen from Cambridge University, author of The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ORMSXeSTznE.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Atheism and the Well-Lived Life</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/atheism-and-the-well-lived-life/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jul 2011 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7414</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Atheists don&#8217;t believe in God – does that mean they don&#8217;t find life meaningful?  Are atheists doomed to be grouchy nihilists, finding meaning only in criticizing theists?  Or does a world without God offer its own meanings and values to structure a well-lived life?  John and Ken search for a meaningful atheism with Louise Antony from UMass Amherst, editor of Philosophers Without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life.  This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Engaging Philosophy conference at Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley, Massachusetts.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Atheists don&#8217;t believe in God – does that mean they don&#8217;t find life meaningful?  Are atheists doomed to be grouchy nihilists, finding meaning only in criticizing theists?  Or does a world without God offer its own meanings and values to struc]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Atheists don&#8217;t believe in God – does that mean they don&#8217;t find life meaningful?  Are atheists doomed to be grouchy nihilists, finding meaning only in criticizing theists?  Or does a world without God offer its own meanings and values to structure a well-lived life?  John and Ken search for a meaningful atheism with Louise Antony from UMass Amherst, editor of Philosophers Without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life.  This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Engaging Philosophy conference at Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley, Massachusetts.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7414/atheism-and-the-well-lived-life.mp3" length="48811363" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Atheists don&#8217;t believe in God – does that mean they don&#8217;t find life meaningful?  Are atheists doomed to be grouchy nihilists, finding meaning only in criticizing theists?  Or does a world without God offer its own meanings and values to structure a well-lived life?  John and Ken search for a meaningful atheism with Louise Antony from UMass Amherst, editor of Philosophers Without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life.  This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Engaging Philosophy conference at Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley, Massachusetts.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/DvyhS9z0ZKM.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:51</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Atheists don&#8217;t believe in God – does that mean they don&#8217;t find life meaningful?  Are atheists doomed to be grouchy nihilists, finding meaning only in criticizing theists?  Or does a world without God offer its own meanings and values to structure a well-lived life?  John and Ken search for a meaningful atheism with Louise Antony from UMass Amherst, editor of Philosophers Without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life.  This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Engaging Philosophy conference at Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley, Massachusetts.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/DvyhS9z0ZKM.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Whodunit: The Language of Responsibility</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/whodunit-the-language-of-responsibility/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jun 2011 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7417</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Who is responsible for the broken vase in the foyer? How harshly should criminals be punished for their crimes? Did Justin Timberlake mean to disrobe Janet Jackson during her infamous ‘wardrobe malfunction’? Cognitive scientists have recently discovered some surprising ways in which the language we use influences how we think about responsibility and agency. John and Ken are joined by Stanford psychologist Lera Boroditsky for a probing look at cross cultural variations in the language of responsibility. This program was recorded in front a live audience at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley, California.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Who is responsible for the broken vase in the foyer? How harshly should criminals be punished for their crimes? Did Justin Timberlake mean to disrobe Janet Jackson during her infamous ‘wardrobe malfunction’? Cognitive scientists have recently discovered ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Who is responsible for the broken vase in the foyer? How harshly should criminals be punished for their crimes? Did Justin Timberlake mean to disrobe Janet Jackson during her infamous ‘wardrobe malfunction’? Cognitive scientists have recently discovered some surprising ways in which the language we use influences how we think about responsibility and agency. John and Ken are joined by Stanford psychologist Lera Boroditsky for a probing look at cross cultural variations in the language of responsibility. This program was recorded in front a live audience at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley, California.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7417/whodunit-the-language-of-responsibility.mp3" length="48733878" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Who is responsible for the broken vase in the foyer? How harshly should criminals be punished for their crimes? Did Justin Timberlake mean to disrobe Janet Jackson during her infamous ‘wardrobe malfunction’? Cognitive scientists have recently discovered some surprising ways in which the language we use influences how we think about responsibility and agency. John and Ken are joined by Stanford psychologist Lera Boroditsky for a probing look at cross cultural variations in the language of responsibility. This program was recorded in front a live audience at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley, California.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/sGPSl0EmCzQ.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:46</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Who is responsible for the broken vase in the foyer? How harshly should criminals be punished for their crimes? Did Justin Timberlake mean to disrobe Janet Jackson during her infamous ‘wardrobe malfunction’? Cognitive scientists have recently discovered some surprising ways in which the language we use influences how we think about responsibility and agency. John and Ken are joined by Stanford psychologist Lera Boroditsky for a probing look at cross cultural variations in the language of responsibility. This program was recorded in front a live audience at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley, California.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/sGPSl0EmCzQ.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Gay Pride &#038; Prejudice</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/gay-pride-prejudice/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jun 2011 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7423</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The question of gay rights has become a hot button issue, with opposition taking on the air of a moral panic and support taking on the air of a righteous crusade. John and Ken attempt to dispassionately examine the competing scientific, religious, and philosophical visions of the nature of gayness. They explore the consequences of those competing arguments for and against gay rights with cultural and psychological anthropologist Gilbert Herdt, editor of Moral Panics, Sex Panics: Fear and the Fight over Sexual Rights. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The question of gay rights has become a hot button issue, with opposition taking on the air of a moral panic and support taking on the air of a righteous crusade. John and Ken attempt to dispassionately examine the competing scientific, religious, and ph]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The question of gay rights has become a hot button issue, with opposition taking on the air of a moral panic and support taking on the air of a righteous crusade. John and Ken attempt to dispassionately examine the competing scientific, religious, and philosophical visions of the nature of gayness. They explore the consequences of those competing arguments for and against gay rights with cultural and psychological anthropologist Gilbert Herdt, editor of Moral Panics, Sex Panics: Fear and the Fight over Sexual Rights. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7423/gay-pride-prejudice.mp3" length="47673260" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The question of gay rights has become a hot button issue, with opposition taking on the air of a moral panic and support taking on the air of a righteous crusade. John and Ken attempt to dispassionately examine the competing scientific, religious, and philosophical visions of the nature of gayness. They explore the consequences of those competing arguments for and against gay rights with cultural and psychological anthropologist Gilbert Herdt, editor of Moral Panics, Sex Panics: Fear and the Fight over Sexual Rights. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/oAqG_zFVi_w.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>49:40</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The question of gay rights has become a hot button issue, with opposition taking on the air of a moral panic and support taking on the air of a righteous crusade. John and Ken attempt to dispassionately examine the competing scientific, religious, and philosophical visions of the nature of gayness. They explore the consequences of those competing arguments for and against gay rights with cultural and psychological anthropologist Gilbert Herdt, editor of Moral Panics, Sex Panics: Fear and the Fight over Sexual Rights. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/oAqG_zFVi_w.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Summer Reading List 2011</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/summer-reading-list-2011/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 29 May 2011 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6554</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Summer&#8217;s just around the corner – what philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues do you want to read up on?&#160; Kant&#8217;s Critique of Pure Reason may not be the obvious choice to take on vacation, but there are lots of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your summer reading.&#160; Not to mention new and classic fiction books with a philosophical bent.&#160; John and Ken share some of the philosophically-minded titles on their reading list and take suggestions from listeners and special guests.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Summer&#8217;s just around the corner – what philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues do you want to read up on?&#160; Kant&#8217;s Critique of Pure Reason may not be the obvious choice to take on vacation, but there are lots of readable, beac]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Summer&#8217;s just around the corner – what philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues do you want to read up on?&#160; Kant&#8217;s Critique of Pure Reason may not be the obvious choice to take on vacation, but there are lots of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your summer reading.&#160; Not to mention new and classic fiction books with a philosophical bent.&#160; John and Ken share some of the philosophically-minded titles on their reading list and take suggestions from listeners and special guests.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6554/summer-reading-list-2011.mp3" length="47910661" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Summer&#8217;s just around the corner – what philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues do you want to read up on?&#160; Kant&#8217;s Critique of Pure Reason may not be the obvious choice to take on vacation, but there are lots of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your summer reading.&#160; Not to mention new and classic fiction books with a philosophical bent.&#160; John and Ken share some of the philosophically-minded titles on their reading list and take suggestions from listeners and special guests.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/JZPj7zPNIx8.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Summer&#8217;s just around the corner – what philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues do you want to read up on?&#160; Kant&#8217;s Critique of Pure Reason may not be the obvious choice to take on vacation, but there are lots of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your summer reading.&#160; Not to mention new and classic fiction books with a philosophical bent.&#160; John and Ken share some of the philosophically-minded titles on their reading list and take suggestions from listeners and special guests.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/JZPj7zPNIx8.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Cities, Gentrification, and Inequality</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/cities-gentrification-and-inequality/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 08 May 2011 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7237</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[In the 1960s, as many American cities burst and burned, the upper and middle classes fled to the suburbs, leaving behind a decaying infrastructure and a socially isolated urban underclass.  In more recent times, many urban centers have undergone re-gentrification, and with it the return of the upper classes, safer neighborhoods, and better services.  But gentrification often drives poor and working class people from the very places they had called home.  Is gentrification on balance a morally and socially good thing or bad thing?  Does it serve more to increase inequality or to lessen the isolation of the urban underclass?  John and Ken assess the moral cityscape with Stanford sociologist Frederic Stout, co-editor of The City Reader.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[In the 1960s, as many American cities burst and burned, the upper and middle classes fled to the suburbs, leaving behind a decaying infrastructure and a socially isolated urban underclass.  In more recent times, many urban centers have undergone re-gentr]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[In the 1960s, as many American cities burst and burned, the upper and middle classes fled to the suburbs, leaving behind a decaying infrastructure and a socially isolated urban underclass.  In more recent times, many urban centers have undergone re-gentrification, and with it the return of the upper classes, safer neighborhoods, and better services.  But gentrification often drives poor and working class people from the very places they had called home.  Is gentrification on balance a morally and socially good thing or bad thing?  Does it serve more to increase inequality or to lessen the isolation of the urban underclass?  John and Ken assess the moral cityscape with Stanford sociologist Frederic Stout, co-editor of The City Reader.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7237/cities-gentrification-and-inequality.mp3" length="48756866" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[In the 1960s, as many American cities burst and burned, the upper and middle classes fled to the suburbs, leaving behind a decaying infrastructure and a socially isolated urban underclass.  In more recent times, many urban centers have undergone re-gentrification, and with it the return of the upper classes, safer neighborhoods, and better services.  But gentrification often drives poor and working class people from the very places they had called home.  Is gentrification on balance a morally and socially good thing or bad thing?  Does it serve more to increase inequality or to lessen the isolation of the urban underclass?  John and Ken assess the moral cityscape with Stanford sociologist Frederic Stout, co-editor of The City Reader.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/nHVbsKLQpIQ.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[In the 1960s, as many American cities burst and burned, the upper and middle classes fled to the suburbs, leaving behind a decaying infrastructure and a socially isolated urban underclass.  In more recent times, many urban centers have undergone re-gentrification, and with it the return of the upper classes, safer neighborhoods, and better services.  But gentrification often drives poor and working class people from the very places they had called home.  Is gentrification on balance a morally and socially good thing or bad thing?  Does it serve more to increase inequality or to lessen the isolation of the urban underclass?  John and Ken assess the moral cityscape with Stanford sociologist Frederic Stout, co-editor of The City Reader.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/nHVbsKLQpIQ.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Should Marriage Be Abolished?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/should-marriage-be-abolished/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 01 May 2011 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7244</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[State-sanctioned marriage has long been regarded as one of the bedrocks of a stable society.&#160; But in recent times, this venerable institution has become the focus of intense debate, as those long denied the right to marry clamor to be let in and those determined to keep marriage the way it&#8217;s always been threaten to amend the constitution in “defense” of marriage.&#160; In the heat of battle, few have stopped to ask whether the state should be in the marriage business in the first place – until now.&#160; John and Ken welcome Tamara Metz from Reed College, author of Untying the Knot: Marriage, the State and the Case for Their Divorce.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[State-sanctioned marriage has long been regarded as one of the bedrocks of a stable society.&#160; But in recent times, this venerable institution has become the focus of intense debate, as those long denied the right to marry clamor to be let in and tho]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[State-sanctioned marriage has long been regarded as one of the bedrocks of a stable society.&#160; But in recent times, this venerable institution has become the focus of intense debate, as those long denied the right to marry clamor to be let in and those determined to keep marriage the way it&#8217;s always been threaten to amend the constitution in “defense” of marriage.&#160; In the heat of battle, few have stopped to ask whether the state should be in the marriage business in the first place – until now.&#160; John and Ken welcome Tamara Metz from Reed College, author of Untying the Knot: Marriage, the State and the Case for Their Divorce.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7244/should-marriage-be-abolished.mp3" length="29722680" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[State-sanctioned marriage has long been regarded as one of the bedrocks of a stable society.&#160; But in recent times, this venerable institution has become the focus of intense debate, as those long denied the right to marry clamor to be let in and those determined to keep marriage the way it&#8217;s always been threaten to amend the constitution in “defense” of marriage.&#160; In the heat of battle, few have stopped to ask whether the state should be in the marriage business in the first place – until now.&#160; John and Ken welcome Tamara Metz from Reed College, author of Untying the Knot: Marriage, the State and the Case for Their Divorce.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/hxmVPTHLKhI.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[State-sanctioned marriage has long been regarded as one of the bedrocks of a stable society.&#160; But in recent times, this venerable institution has become the focus of intense debate, as those long denied the right to marry clamor to be let in and those determined to keep marriage the way it&#8217;s always been threaten to amend the constitution in “defense” of marriage.&#160; In the heat of battle, few have stopped to ask whether the state should be in the marriage business in the first place – until now.&#160; John and Ken welcome Tamara Metz from Reed College, author of Untying the Knot: Marriage, the State and the Case for Their Divorce.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/hxmVPTHLKhI.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Extended Mind</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-extended-mind/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 17 Apr 2011 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7426</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The question of gay rights has become a hot button issue, with opposition taking on the air of a moral panic and support taking on the air of a righteous crusade. John and Ken attempt to dispassionately examine the competing scientific, religious, and philosophical visions of the nature of gayness. They explore the consequences of those competing arguments for and against gay rights with cultural and psychological anthropologist Gilbert Herdt, editor of Moral Panics, Sex Panics: Fear and the Fight over Sexual Rights. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The question of gay rights has become a hot button issue, with opposition taking on the air of a moral panic and support taking on the air of a righteous crusade. John and Ken attempt to dispassionately examine the competing scientific, religious, and ph]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The question of gay rights has become a hot button issue, with opposition taking on the air of a moral panic and support taking on the air of a righteous crusade. John and Ken attempt to dispassionately examine the competing scientific, religious, and philosophical visions of the nature of gayness. They explore the consequences of those competing arguments for and against gay rights with cultural and psychological anthropologist Gilbert Herdt, editor of Moral Panics, Sex Panics: Fear and the Fight over Sexual Rights. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7426/the-extended-mind.mp3" length="23534654" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The question of gay rights has become a hot button issue, with opposition taking on the air of a moral panic and support taking on the air of a righteous crusade. John and Ken attempt to dispassionately examine the competing scientific, religious, and philosophical visions of the nature of gayness. They explore the consequences of those competing arguments for and against gay rights with cultural and psychological anthropologist Gilbert Herdt, editor of Moral Panics, Sex Panics: Fear and the Fight over Sexual Rights. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/OG1q6uYt6Js.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The question of gay rights has become a hot button issue, with opposition taking on the air of a moral panic and support taking on the air of a righteous crusade. John and Ken attempt to dispassionately examine the competing scientific, religious, and philosophical visions of the nature of gayness. They explore the consequences of those competing arguments for and against gay rights with cultural and psychological anthropologist Gilbert Herdt, editor of Moral Panics, Sex Panics: Fear and the Fight over Sexual Rights. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/OG1q6uYt6Js.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>What is an Adult?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/what-is-an-adult/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 10 Apr 2011 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7256</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[In the Middle Ages, people married, had children, went off to war and took on all the traditional trappings of adulthood by their early teens.&#160; But today many people put off those trappings until well into their thirties.&#160; Some have even suggested that we need a new vocabulary to describe the variety of life stages experienced by 21st century humans.&#160; John and Ken explore the new adulthood with Ethan Watters, author of Urban Tribes: A Generation Redefines Friendship, Family, and Commitment, in a program recorded in front a live audience at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley, California.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[In the Middle Ages, people married, had children, went off to war and took on all the traditional trappings of adulthood by their early teens.&#160; But today many people put off those trappings until well into their thirties.&#160; Some have even sugges]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[In the Middle Ages, people married, had children, went off to war and took on all the traditional trappings of adulthood by their early teens.&#160; But today many people put off those trappings until well into their thirties.&#160; Some have even suggested that we need a new vocabulary to describe the variety of life stages experienced by 21st century humans.&#160; John and Ken explore the new adulthood with Ethan Watters, author of Urban Tribes: A Generation Redefines Friendship, Family, and Commitment, in a program recorded in front a live audience at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley, California.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7256/what-is-an-adult.mp3" length="24101872" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[In the Middle Ages, people married, had children, went off to war and took on all the traditional trappings of adulthood by their early teens.&#160; But today many people put off those trappings until well into their thirties.&#160; Some have even suggested that we need a new vocabulary to describe the variety of life stages experienced by 21st century humans.&#160; John and Ken explore the new adulthood with Ethan Watters, author of Urban Tribes: A Generation Redefines Friendship, Family, and Commitment, in a program recorded in front a live audience at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley, California.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/NLquykbJJSk.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[In the Middle Ages, people married, had children, went off to war and took on all the traditional trappings of adulthood by their early teens.&#160; But today many people put off those trappings until well into their thirties.&#160; Some have even suggested that we need a new vocabulary to describe the variety of life stages experienced by 21st century humans.&#160; John and Ken explore the new adulthood with Ethan Watters, author of Urban Tribes: A Generation Redefines Friendship, Family, and Commitment, in a program recorded in front a live audience at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley, California.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/NLquykbJJSk.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Is It All Relative?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/is-it-all-relative/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 20 Mar 2011 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7233</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[We&#8217;ve all heard a disenchanted teenager claim that everything is relative and that there is no absolute morality or truth.&#160; Of course, there seems to be something wrong with that; isn&#8217;t the relativity of everything then an absolute?&#160; Relativism has appeared throughout philosophy since the ancient Greek Sophists.&#160; Proponents of relativism argue that some central element of thought, experience, evaluation, or even reality is somehow relative to something else.&#160; Does that mean that we merely obey a code that has no inherent value?&#160; John and Ken avoid absolutes with Paul Boghossian from New York University, author of Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[We&#8217;ve all heard a disenchanted teenager claim that everything is relative and that there is no absolute morality or truth.&#160; Of course, there seems to be something wrong with that; isn&#8217;t the relativity of everything then an absolute?&#160]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[We&#8217;ve all heard a disenchanted teenager claim that everything is relative and that there is no absolute morality or truth.&#160; Of course, there seems to be something wrong with that; isn&#8217;t the relativity of everything then an absolute?&#160; Relativism has appeared throughout philosophy since the ancient Greek Sophists.&#160; Proponents of relativism argue that some central element of thought, experience, evaluation, or even reality is somehow relative to something else.&#160; Does that mean that we merely obey a code that has no inherent value?&#160; John and Ken avoid absolutes with Paul Boghossian from New York University, author of Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7233/is-it-all-relative.mp3" length="47205564" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[We&#8217;ve all heard a disenchanted teenager claim that everything is relative and that there is no absolute morality or truth.&#160; Of course, there seems to be something wrong with that; isn&#8217;t the relativity of everything then an absolute?&#160; Relativism has appeared throughout philosophy since the ancient Greek Sophists.&#160; Proponents of relativism argue that some central element of thought, experience, evaluation, or even reality is somehow relative to something else.&#160; Does that mean that we merely obey a code that has no inherent value?&#160; John and Ken avoid absolutes with Paul Boghossian from New York University, author of Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/fhOt0uUTetE.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[We&#8217;ve all heard a disenchanted teenager claim that everything is relative and that there is no absolute morality or truth.&#160; Of course, there seems to be something wrong with that; isn&#8217;t the relativity of everything then an absolute?&#160; Relativism has appeared throughout philosophy since the ancient Greek Sophists.&#160; Proponents of relativism argue that some central element of thought, experience, evaluation, or even reality is somehow relative to something else.&#160; Does that mean that we merely obey a code that has no inherent value?&#160; John and Ken avoid absolutes with Paul Boghossian from New York University, author of Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/fhOt0uUTetE.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>John Locke</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/john-locke/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 27 Feb 2011 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7229</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Thomas Jefferson identified John Locke as one of “the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception.” Many debates in modern political theory have their roots in the writings of John Locke, and Locke’s work on other philosophical issues, particularly identity and selfhood, have also influenced generations of philosophers. What was Locke’s influence on contemporary political theory and our understanding of the purpose of government?&#160; John and Ken derive their power from the consent of their guest,&#160;William Uzgalis from Oregon State University, author of Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding: A Reader’s Guide.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Thomas Jefferson identified John Locke as one of “the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception.” Many debates in modern political theory have their roots in the writings of John Locke, and Locke’s work on other philosophical issues,]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Thomas Jefferson identified John Locke as one of “the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception.” Many debates in modern political theory have their roots in the writings of John Locke, and Locke’s work on other philosophical issues, particularly identity and selfhood, have also influenced generations of philosophers. What was Locke’s influence on contemporary political theory and our understanding of the purpose of government?&#160; John and Ken derive their power from the consent of their guest,&#160;William Uzgalis from Oregon State University, author of Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding: A Reader’s Guide.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7229/john-locke.mp3" length="47473057" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Thomas Jefferson identified John Locke as one of “the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception.” Many debates in modern political theory have their roots in the writings of John Locke, and Locke’s work on other philosophical issues, particularly identity and selfhood, have also influenced generations of philosophers. What was Locke’s influence on contemporary political theory and our understanding of the purpose of government?&#160; John and Ken derive their power from the consent of their guest,&#160;William Uzgalis from Oregon State University, author of Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding: A Reader’s Guide.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/EIDOzJ1BVHw.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Thomas Jefferson identified John Locke as one of “the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception.” Many debates in modern political theory have their roots in the writings of John Locke, and Locke’s work on other philosophical issues, particularly identity and selfhood, have also influenced generations of philosophers. What was Locke’s influence on contemporary political theory and our understanding of the purpose of government?&#160; John and Ken derive their power from the consent of their guest,&#160;William Uzgalis from Oregon State University, author of Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding: A Reader’s Guide.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/EIDOzJ1BVHw.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Movie Show 2011</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-movie-show-2011/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 13 Feb 2011 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6579</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s the third annual Philosophy Talk Dionysus Awards show!&#160; With the help of listeners and special guests, John and Ken turn a philosophical eye to the past year&#8217;s cinematic offerings, and present their Dionysus Awards for the most philosophically-rich films of the past year.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[It&#8217;s the third annual Philosophy Talk Dionysus Awards show!&#160; With the help of listeners and special guests, John and Ken turn a philosophical eye to the past year&#8217;s cinematic offerings, and present their Dionysus Awards for the most phil]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[It&#8217;s the third annual Philosophy Talk Dionysus Awards show!&#160; With the help of listeners and special guests, John and Ken turn a philosophical eye to the past year&#8217;s cinematic offerings, and present their Dionysus Awards for the most philosophically-rich films of the past year.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6579/the-movie-show-2011.mp3" length="48998191" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[It&#8217;s the third annual Philosophy Talk Dionysus Awards show!&#160; With the help of listeners and special guests, John and Ken turn a philosophical eye to the past year&#8217;s cinematic offerings, and present their Dionysus Awards for the most philosophically-rich films of the past year.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/OryJnYOIvxg.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s the third annual Philosophy Talk Dionysus Awards show!&#160; With the help of listeners and special guests, John and Ken turn a philosophical eye to the past year&#8217;s cinematic offerings, and present their Dionysus Awards for the most philosophically-rich films of the past year.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/OryJnYOIvxg.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Procrastination</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/procrastination/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 30 Jan 2011 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7200</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Everyone procrastinates – academics are especially prone to it.&#160; But why do we procrastinate?&#160; Is it lack of will-power?&#160; Or is procrastination more like a disease, something that might be cured?&#160; Can we structure our priorities in such a way so as to accomplish more even while procrastinating?&#160; John and Ken can no longer put off the discussion with Tim Pychyl, Director of the Procrastination Research Group at Carleton University and author of The Procrastinator’s Digest: A Concise Guide to Solving the Procrastination Puzzle.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Everyone procrastinates – academics are especially prone to it.&#160; But why do we procrastinate?&#160; Is it lack of will-power?&#160; Or is procrastination more like a disease, something that might be cured?&#160; Can we structure our priorities in su]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Everyone procrastinates – academics are especially prone to it.&#160; But why do we procrastinate?&#160; Is it lack of will-power?&#160; Or is procrastination more like a disease, something that might be cured?&#160; Can we structure our priorities in such a way so as to accomplish more even while procrastinating?&#160; John and Ken can no longer put off the discussion with Tim Pychyl, Director of the Procrastination Research Group at Carleton University and author of The Procrastinator’s Digest: A Concise Guide to Solving the Procrastination Puzzle.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7200/procrastination.mp3" length="47711968" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Everyone procrastinates – academics are especially prone to it.&#160; But why do we procrastinate?&#160; Is it lack of will-power?&#160; Or is procrastination more like a disease, something that might be cured?&#160; Can we structure our priorities in such a way so as to accomplish more even while procrastinating?&#160; John and Ken can no longer put off the discussion with Tim Pychyl, Director of the Procrastination Research Group at Carleton University and author of The Procrastinator’s Digest: A Concise Guide to Solving the Procrastination Puzzle.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/HfzdaN8vDRw.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Everyone procrastinates – academics are especially prone to it.&#160; But why do we procrastinate?&#160; Is it lack of will-power?&#160; Or is procrastination more like a disease, something that might be cured?&#160; Can we structure our priorities in such a way so as to accomplish more even while procrastinating?&#160; John and Ken can no longer put off the discussion with Tim Pychyl, Director of the Procrastination Research Group at Carleton University and author of The Procrastinator’s Digest: A Concise Guide to Solving the Procrastination Puzzle.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/HfzdaN8vDRw.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Derrida and Deconstruction</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/derrida-and-deconstruction/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 16 Jan 2011 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6563</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Jacques Derrida was one of the most influential and also one of the most polarizing philosophers of the twentieth century.&#160; With his method of &#8220;deconstruction,&#8221; Derrida provided critiques not only of literary trends and philosophical ideas but also political institutions.&#160; He won many followers among humanists, but analytical philosophers tended to be skeptical that Deconstructionism was anything more than a fancy name for a mélange of half-understood ideas.&#160; John and Ken take on Derrida and his ideas with Joshua Kates from Indiana University, author of Fielding Derrida: Deconstruction in the Fields of Philosophy, History, and Beyond.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Jacques Derrida was one of the most influential and also one of the most polarizing philosophers of the twentieth century.&#160; With his method of &#8220;deconstruction,&#8221; Derrida provided critiques not only of literary trends and philosophical ide]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Jacques Derrida was one of the most influential and also one of the most polarizing philosophers of the twentieth century.&#160; With his method of &#8220;deconstruction,&#8221; Derrida provided critiques not only of literary trends and philosophical ideas but also political institutions.&#160; He won many followers among humanists, but analytical philosophers tended to be skeptical that Deconstructionism was anything more than a fancy name for a mélange of half-understood ideas.&#160; John and Ken take on Derrida and his ideas with Joshua Kates from Indiana University, author of Fielding Derrida: Deconstruction in the Fields of Philosophy, History, and Beyond.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6563/derrida-and-deconstruction.mp3" length="47161260" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Jacques Derrida was one of the most influential and also one of the most polarizing philosophers of the twentieth century.&#160; With his method of &#8220;deconstruction,&#8221; Derrida provided critiques not only of literary trends and philosophical ideas but also political institutions.&#160; He won many followers among humanists, but analytical philosophers tended to be skeptical that Deconstructionism was anything more than a fancy name for a mélange of half-understood ideas.&#160; John and Ken take on Derrida and his ideas with Joshua Kates from Indiana University, author of Fielding Derrida: Deconstruction in the Fields of Philosophy, History, and Beyond.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/V1sz3yidX9k.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Jacques Derrida was one of the most influential and also one of the most polarizing philosophers of the twentieth century.&#160; With his method of &#8220;deconstruction,&#8221; Derrida provided critiques not only of literary trends and philosophical ideas but also political institutions.&#160; He won many followers among humanists, but analytical philosophers tended to be skeptical that Deconstructionism was anything more than a fancy name for a mélange of half-understood ideas.&#160; John and Ken take on Derrida and his ideas with Joshua Kates from Indiana University, author of Fielding Derrida: Deconstruction in the Fields of Philosophy, History, and Beyond.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/V1sz3yidX9k.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Abortion</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/abortion/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 09 Jan 2011 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7248</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Nothing stirs up controversy like abortion.&#160; To some, it carries the steep moral cost of destroying human life, while to others, it represents an inviolable bastion of women’s rights over their own bodies.&#160; Despite the polarizing nature of the debate, it covers broad philosophical ground, and touches on religious, political, social and moral considerations.&#160; Ken and John seek a dispassionate and rational discussion of abortion with UC Berkeley Journalism professor Cynthia Gorney, author of Articles of Faith: A Frontline History of the Abortion Wars.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Nothing stirs up controversy like abortion.&#160; To some, it carries the steep moral cost of destroying human life, while to others, it represents an inviolable bastion of women’s rights over their own bodies.&#160; Despite the polarizing nature of the ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Nothing stirs up controversy like abortion.&#160; To some, it carries the steep moral cost of destroying human life, while to others, it represents an inviolable bastion of women’s rights over their own bodies.&#160; Despite the polarizing nature of the debate, it covers broad philosophical ground, and touches on religious, political, social and moral considerations.&#160; Ken and John seek a dispassionate and rational discussion of abortion with UC Berkeley Journalism professor Cynthia Gorney, author of Articles of Faith: A Frontline History of the Abortion Wars.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7248/abortion.mp3" length="23888922" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Nothing stirs up controversy like abortion.&#160; To some, it carries the steep moral cost of destroying human life, while to others, it represents an inviolable bastion of women’s rights over their own bodies.&#160; Despite the polarizing nature of the debate, it covers broad philosophical ground, and touches on religious, political, social and moral considerations.&#160; Ken and John seek a dispassionate and rational discussion of abortion with UC Berkeley Journalism professor Cynthia Gorney, author of Articles of Faith: A Frontline History of the Abortion Wars.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/VdYofQnzyM.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Nothing stirs up controversy like abortion.&#160; To some, it carries the steep moral cost of destroying human life, while to others, it represents an inviolable bastion of women’s rights over their own bodies.&#160; Despite the polarizing nature of the debate, it covers broad philosophical ground, and touches on religious, political, social and moral considerations.&#160; Ken and John seek a dispassionate and rational discussion of abortion with UC Berkeley Journalism professor Cynthia Gorney, author of Articles of Faith: A Frontline History of the Abortion Wars.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/VdYofQnzyM.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Moral Costs of Free Markets</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/moral-costs-free-markets/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 02 Jan 2011 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/moral-costs-free-markets/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[We live in a market-driven society – our day-to-day lives consist of buying and selling goods and services, and to some, our ability to do so without government regulation is the underpinning of democratic freedom itself. Everything has a price, and pretty much everything is for sale, from concert tickets to political influence. But should it be this way? Ken and John explore the moral costs of free markets with Stanford philosopher Debra Satz, author of Why Some Things Should Not Be For Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[We live in a market-driven society – our day-to-day lives consist of buying and selling goods and services, and to some, our ability to do so without government regulation is the underpinning of democratic freedom itself. Everything has a price, and pret]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[We live in a market-driven society – our day-to-day lives consist of buying and selling goods and services, and to some, our ability to do so without government regulation is the underpinning of democratic freedom itself. Everything has a price, and pretty much everything is for sale, from concert tickets to political influence. But should it be this way? Ken and John explore the moral costs of free markets with Stanford philosopher Debra Satz, author of Why Some Things Should Not Be For Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/476/moral-costs-free-markets.mp3" length="48488954" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[We live in a market-driven society – our day-to-day lives consist of buying and selling goods and services, and to some, our ability to do so without government regulation is the underpinning of democratic freedom itself. Everything has a price, and pretty much everything is for sale, from concert tickets to political influence. But should it be this way? Ken and John explore the moral costs of free markets with Stanford philosopher Debra Satz, author of Why Some Things Should Not Be For Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/BF9QOBUuIwI.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[We live in a market-driven society – our day-to-day lives consist of buying and selling goods and services, and to some, our ability to do so without government regulation is the underpinning of democratic freedom itself. Everything has a price, and pretty much everything is for sale, from concert tickets to political influence. But should it be this way? Ken and John explore the moral costs of free markets with Stanford philosopher Debra Satz, author of Why Some Things Should Not Be For Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/BF9QOBUuIwI.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Philosophy for Children</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/philosophy-for-children/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 19 Dec 2010 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7215</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Because of their innocent approach to things, do children make good philosophers?&#160; Or do they lack the equipment for clear-thinking?&#160; Is exposure to philosophy good for children?&#160; Or will it undermine their sense of security?&#160; John and Ken welcome Jana Mohr Lone, founder and director of the Northwest Center for Philosophy for Children at the University of Washington. Together they&#8217;ll put some classic philosophical questions about Mind/Body, Personal Identity, Ethics, and Social Philosophy to a live &#8212; and questioning &#8212; audience of Seattle schoolchildren.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Because of their innocent approach to things, do children make good philosophers?&#160; Or do they lack the equipment for clear-thinking?&#160; Is exposure to philosophy good for children?&#160; Or will it undermine their sense of security?&#160; John an]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Because of their innocent approach to things, do children make good philosophers?&#160; Or do they lack the equipment for clear-thinking?&#160; Is exposure to philosophy good for children?&#160; Or will it undermine their sense of security?&#160; John and Ken welcome Jana Mohr Lone, founder and director of the Northwest Center for Philosophy for Children at the University of Washington. Together they&#8217;ll put some classic philosophical questions about Mind/Body, Personal Identity, Ethics, and Social Philosophy to a live &#8212; and questioning &#8212; audience of Seattle schoolchildren.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7215/philosophy-for-children.mp3" length="48217281" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Because of their innocent approach to things, do children make good philosophers?&#160; Or do they lack the equipment for clear-thinking?&#160; Is exposure to philosophy good for children?&#160; Or will it undermine their sense of security?&#160; John and Ken welcome Jana Mohr Lone, founder and director of the Northwest Center for Philosophy for Children at the University of Washington. Together they&#8217;ll put some classic philosophical questions about Mind/Body, Personal Identity, Ethics, and Social Philosophy to a live &#8212; and questioning &#8212; audience of Seattle schoolchildren.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/i3INnB3ZHBY.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Because of their innocent approach to things, do children make good philosophers?&#160; Or do they lack the equipment for clear-thinking?&#160; Is exposure to philosophy good for children?&#160; Or will it undermine their sense of security?&#160; John and Ken welcome Jana Mohr Lone, founder and director of the Northwest Center for Philosophy for Children at the University of Washington. Together they&#8217;ll put some classic philosophical questions about Mind/Body, Personal Identity, Ethics, and Social Philosophy to a live &#8212; and questioning &#8212; audience of Seattle schoolchildren.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/i3INnB3ZHBY.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Power of Thought</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-power-of-thought/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Dec 2010 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7118</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Human thought is an amazing thing. It has given us not only science, literature, and morality, but also superstition, slavery, and war.  Thought has the power to uncover the deepest mysteries of the universe.  Or to create new realities – social realities.  But what makes human thought so powerful?  John and Ken put this question and more to renowned cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, author of the best-selling The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language and The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Human thought is an amazing thing. It has given us not only science, literature, and morality, but also superstition, slavery, and war.  Thought has the power to uncover the deepest mysteries of the universe.  Or to create new realities – social realitie]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Human thought is an amazing thing. It has given us not only science, literature, and morality, but also superstition, slavery, and war.  Thought has the power to uncover the deepest mysteries of the universe.  Or to create new realities – social realities.  But what makes human thought so powerful?  John and Ken put this question and more to renowned cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, author of the best-selling The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language and The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7118/the-power-of-thought.mp3" length="48538017" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Human thought is an amazing thing. It has given us not only science, literature, and morality, but also superstition, slavery, and war.  Thought has the power to uncover the deepest mysteries of the universe.  Or to create new realities – social realities.  But what makes human thought so powerful?  John and Ken put this question and more to renowned cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, author of the best-selling The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language and The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/W0BaZnxJgm0.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Human thought is an amazing thing. It has given us not only science, literature, and morality, but also superstition, slavery, and war.  Thought has the power to uncover the deepest mysteries of the universe.  Or to create new realities – social realities.  But what makes human thought so powerful?  John and Ken put this question and more to renowned cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, author of the best-selling The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language and The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/W0BaZnxJgm0.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Disagreement</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/disagreement/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 05 Dec 2010 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7211</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Sometimes people who seem to be your epistemic peers – that is, people as experienced, as well trained, as thoughtful, and as intelligent as you – disagree with you.&#160; Should this shake your confidence in your own beliefs?&#160; When, how much, and under what conditions?&#160; Ken and John search for common ground with Jennifer Lackey from Northwestern University, author of Learning From Words: Testimony as a Source of Knowledge.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Sometimes people who seem to be your epistemic peers – that is, people as experienced, as well trained, as thoughtful, and as intelligent as you – disagree with you.&#160; Should this shake your confidence in your own beliefs?&#160; When, how much, and u]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Sometimes people who seem to be your epistemic peers – that is, people as experienced, as well trained, as thoughtful, and as intelligent as you – disagree with you.&#160; Should this shake your confidence in your own beliefs?&#160; When, how much, and under what conditions?&#160; Ken and John search for common ground with Jennifer Lackey from Northwestern University, author of Learning From Words: Testimony as a Source of Knowledge.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7211/disagreement.mp3" length="47568770" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Sometimes people who seem to be your epistemic peers – that is, people as experienced, as well trained, as thoughtful, and as intelligent as you – disagree with you.&#160; Should this shake your confidence in your own beliefs?&#160; When, how much, and under what conditions?&#160; Ken and John search for common ground with Jennifer Lackey from Northwestern University, author of Learning From Words: Testimony as a Source of Knowledge.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/LHNlKrcxcdQ.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Sometimes people who seem to be your epistemic peers – that is, people as experienced, as well trained, as thoughtful, and as intelligent as you – disagree with you.&#160; Should this shake your confidence in your own beliefs?&#160; When, how much, and under what conditions?&#160; Ken and John search for common ground with Jennifer Lackey from Northwestern University, author of Learning From Words: Testimony as a Source of Knowledge.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/LHNlKrcxcdQ.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Reading, Narrative, and the Self</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/reading-narrative-and-the-self/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 28 Nov 2010 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7252</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Reading is a lot of fun, especially narrative fiction – everyone loves a good story. But maybe there&#8217;s more to it than that. Maybe everyone is, or at least tries to be, a good story themselves. Perhaps our very personal identities rest on narratives we form about ourselves, narratives that give our lives meaning, continuity, and coherence. Will the younger generation fashion lives based on the chaos and violence-based levels of computer games, rather than the carefully constructed lives of great fiction? Or is that just one of the old-fogey hosts grumbling? John and Ken swap stories with Joshua Landy, co-director of the Literature and Philosophy Initiative at Stanford University, for a program recorded in front of a live audience at Congregation Beth Shalom in San Francisco.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Reading is a lot of fun, especially narrative fiction – everyone loves a good story. But maybe there&#8217;s more to it than that. Maybe everyone is, or at least tries to be, a good story themselves. Perhaps our very personal identities rest on narrative]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Reading is a lot of fun, especially narrative fiction – everyone loves a good story. But maybe there&#8217;s more to it than that. Maybe everyone is, or at least tries to be, a good story themselves. Perhaps our very personal identities rest on narratives we form about ourselves, narratives that give our lives meaning, continuity, and coherence. Will the younger generation fashion lives based on the chaos and violence-based levels of computer games, rather than the carefully constructed lives of great fiction? Or is that just one of the old-fogey hosts grumbling? John and Ken swap stories with Joshua Landy, co-director of the Literature and Philosophy Initiative at Stanford University, for a program recorded in front of a live audience at Congregation Beth Shalom in San Francisco.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7252/reading-narrative-and-the-self.mp3" length="48747415" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Reading is a lot of fun, especially narrative fiction – everyone loves a good story. But maybe there&#8217;s more to it than that. Maybe everyone is, or at least tries to be, a good story themselves. Perhaps our very personal identities rest on narratives we form about ourselves, narratives that give our lives meaning, continuity, and coherence. Will the younger generation fashion lives based on the chaos and violence-based levels of computer games, rather than the carefully constructed lives of great fiction? Or is that just one of the old-fogey hosts grumbling? John and Ken swap stories with Joshua Landy, co-director of the Literature and Philosophy Initiative at Stanford University, for a program recorded in front of a live audience at Congregation Beth Shalom in San Francisco.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/mD8aa79CnXs.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Reading is a lot of fun, especially narrative fiction – everyone loves a good story. But maybe there&#8217;s more to it than that. Maybe everyone is, or at least tries to be, a good story themselves. Perhaps our very personal identities rest on narratives we form about ourselves, narratives that give our lives meaning, continuity, and coherence. Will the younger generation fashion lives based on the chaos and violence-based levels of computer games, rather than the carefully constructed lives of great fiction? Or is that just one of the old-fogey hosts grumbling? John and Ken swap stories with Joshua Landy, co-director of the Literature and Philosophy Initiative at Stanford University, for a program recorded in front of a live audience at Congregation Beth Shalom in San Francisco.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/mD8aa79CnXs.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Occult Philosophy</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/occult-philosophy/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 31 Oct 2010 16:44:35 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=12336</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The occult is routinely dismissed in our times as the province of quacks, the irrational, and the superstitious.  But during the Renaissance, many of the best minds in Europe studied the philosophy and science of the occult.  The period witnessed an outpouring of systematic philosophical and scientific treatises on the occult.  References to the occult pervade the works of Shakespeare and other literary writers of the time.  Many scholars believe that The Occult Philosophy and the Occult Sciences, with their search for hidden causes, played a decisive role in the rise of modern science.  In this special Halloween week episode, John and Ken delve into the Occult Philosophy with Christopher Lehrich from Boston University, author of The Occult Mind: Magic in Theory and Practice.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The occult is routinely dismissed in our times as the province of quacks, the irrational, and the superstitious.  But during the Renaissance, many of the best minds in Europe studied the philosophy and science of the occult.  The period witnessed an outp]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The occult is routinely dismissed in our times as the province of quacks, the irrational, and the superstitious.  But during the Renaissance, many of the best minds in Europe studied the philosophy and science of the occult.  The period witnessed an outpouring of systematic philosophical and scientific treatises on the occult.  References to the occult pervade the works of Shakespeare and other literary writers of the time.  Many scholars believe that The Occult Philosophy and the Occult Sciences, with their search for hidden causes, played a decisive role in the rise of modern science.  In this special Halloween week episode, John and Ken delve into the Occult Philosophy with Christopher Lehrich from Boston University, author of The Occult Mind: Magic in Theory and Practice.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/12336/occult-philosophy.mp3" length="47848641" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The occult is routinely dismissed in our times as the province of quacks, the irrational, and the superstitious.  But during the Renaissance, many of the best minds in Europe studied the philosophy and science of the occult.  The period witnessed an outpouring of systematic philosophical and scientific treatises on the occult.  References to the occult pervade the works of Shakespeare and other literary writers of the time.  Many scholars believe that The Occult Philosophy and the Occult Sciences, with their search for hidden causes, played a decisive role in the rise of modern science.  In this special Halloween week episode, John and Ken delve into the Occult Philosophy with Christopher Lehrich from Boston University, author of The Occult Mind: Magic in Theory and Practice.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/xikJ1oFquX8.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The occult is routinely dismissed in our times as the province of quacks, the irrational, and the superstitious.  But during the Renaissance, many of the best minds in Europe studied the philosophy and science of the occult.  The period witnessed an outpouring of systematic philosophical and scientific treatises on the occult.  References to the occult pervade the works of Shakespeare and other literary writers of the time.  Many scholars believe that The Occult Philosophy and the Occult Sciences, with their search for hidden causes, played a decisive role in the rise of modern science.  In this special Halloween week episode, John and Ken delve into the Occult Philosophy with Christopher Lehrich from Boston University, author of The Occult Mind: Magic in Theory and Practice.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/xikJ1oFquX8.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Bargaining with the Devil</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/bargaining-with-the-devil/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 24 Oct 2010 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6538</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Compromise is the condition of peace and progress.&#160; But there are times when we should not compromise – when compromise would undermine integrity and amount to cooperating with evil.&#160; How do we distinguish between when are we &#8216;bargaining with the devil&#8217; and when are we simply trying to be tolerant of alternative lifestyles and political positions?&#160; Is it OK to &#8216;bargain with the devil&#8217; in the name of peace?&#160; When we refuse to compromise on moral grounds, are we imposing our values?&#160; Ken and John negotiate the terms with UC Irvine Law Professor and professional mediator Carrie Menkel-Meadow.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Compromise is the condition of peace and progress.&#160; But there are times when we should not compromise – when compromise would undermine integrity and amount to cooperating with evil.&#160; How do we distinguish between when are we &#8216;bargaining ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Compromise is the condition of peace and progress.&#160; But there are times when we should not compromise – when compromise would undermine integrity and amount to cooperating with evil.&#160; How do we distinguish between when are we &#8216;bargaining with the devil&#8217; and when are we simply trying to be tolerant of alternative lifestyles and political positions?&#160; Is it OK to &#8216;bargain with the devil&#8217; in the name of peace?&#160; When we refuse to compromise on moral grounds, are we imposing our values?&#160; Ken and John negotiate the terms with UC Irvine Law Professor and professional mediator Carrie Menkel-Meadow.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6538/bargaining-with-the-devil.mp3" length="47280796" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Compromise is the condition of peace and progress.&#160; But there are times when we should not compromise – when compromise would undermine integrity and amount to cooperating with evil.&#160; How do we distinguish between when are we &#8216;bargaining with the devil&#8217; and when are we simply trying to be tolerant of alternative lifestyles and political positions?&#160; Is it OK to &#8216;bargain with the devil&#8217; in the name of peace?&#160; When we refuse to compromise on moral grounds, are we imposing our values?&#160; Ken and John negotiate the terms with UC Irvine Law Professor and professional mediator Carrie Menkel-Meadow.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/6nQ1S_1qMZM.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Compromise is the condition of peace and progress.&#160; But there are times when we should not compromise – when compromise would undermine integrity and amount to cooperating with evil.&#160; How do we distinguish between when are we &#8216;bargaining with the devil&#8217; and when are we simply trying to be tolerant of alternative lifestyles and political positions?&#160; Is it OK to &#8216;bargain with the devil&#8217; in the name of peace?&#160; When we refuse to compromise on moral grounds, are we imposing our values?&#160; Ken and John negotiate the terms with UC Irvine Law Professor and professional mediator Carrie Menkel-Meadow.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/6nQ1S_1qMZM.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Philosophy and the Alma Mater</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/philosophy-and-the-alma-mater/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 19 Sep 2010 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6522</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Scholars from Berkeley and from Stanford have played a big role on Philosophy Talk.&#160; Sure, John and Ken are from Stanford, but many of our most frequent and most brilliant guests are from Berkeley: Alison Gopnik, John Searle, Geoff Nunberg, George Lakoff, and many others. But who supports KALW more, Berkeley or Stanford?&#160; We&#8217;ll rely on our Stanford- and Berkeley-connected guests to charge up the Cardinal and Bears in the audience, and see who can raise more money for our beloved radio station.&#160;]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Scholars from Berkeley and from Stanford have played a big role on Philosophy Talk.&#160; Sure, John and Ken are from Stanford, but many of our most frequent and most brilliant guests are from Berkeley: Alison Gopnik, John Searle, Geoff Nunberg, George L]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Scholars from Berkeley and from Stanford have played a big role on Philosophy Talk.&#160; Sure, John and Ken are from Stanford, but many of our most frequent and most brilliant guests are from Berkeley: Alison Gopnik, John Searle, Geoff Nunberg, George Lakoff, and many others. But who supports KALW more, Berkeley or Stanford?&#160; We&#8217;ll rely on our Stanford- and Berkeley-connected guests to charge up the Cardinal and Bears in the audience, and see who can raise more money for our beloved radio station.&#160;]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6522/philosophy-and-the-alma-mater.mp3" length="46462014" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Scholars from Berkeley and from Stanford have played a big role on Philosophy Talk.&#160; Sure, John and Ken are from Stanford, but many of our most frequent and most brilliant guests are from Berkeley: Alison Gopnik, John Searle, Geoff Nunberg, George Lakoff, and many others. But who supports KALW more, Berkeley or Stanford?&#160; We&#8217;ll rely on our Stanford- and Berkeley-connected guests to charge up the Cardinal and Bears in the audience, and see who can raise more money for our beloved radio station.&#160;]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/stanucb.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Scholars from Berkeley and from Stanford have played a big role on Philosophy Talk.&#160; Sure, John and Ken are from Stanford, but many of our most frequent and most brilliant guests are from Berkeley: Alison Gopnik, John Searle, Geoff Nunberg, George Lakoff, and many others. But who supports KALW more, Berkeley or Stanford?&#160; We&#8217;ll rely on our Stanford- and Berkeley-connected guests to charge up the Cardinal and Bears in the audience, and see who can raise more money for our beloved radio station.&#160;]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/stanucb.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Meaning and the Revolution</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/meaning-and-the-revolution/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Sep 2010 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6514</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The American Revolution was saturated with meaning and ambiguity, from the words of the Declaration of Independence, to the beliefs of the founding fathers, to the vagueness, hedges, and contradictions of the Constitution on which the possibility of union between slave and free states rested.&#160; Ken and John examine the personalities, philosophies, and documents of the American Revolution with Pulitzer Prize winning Stanford historian Jack Rakove, author of Revolutionaries: A New History of the Invention of America.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The American Revolution was saturated with meaning and ambiguity, from the words of the Declaration of Independence, to the beliefs of the founding fathers, to the vagueness, hedges, and contradictions of the Constitution on which the possibility of unio]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The American Revolution was saturated with meaning and ambiguity, from the words of the Declaration of Independence, to the beliefs of the founding fathers, to the vagueness, hedges, and contradictions of the Constitution on which the possibility of union between slave and free states rested.&#160; Ken and John examine the personalities, philosophies, and documents of the American Revolution with Pulitzer Prize winning Stanford historian Jack Rakove, author of Revolutionaries: A New History of the Invention of America.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6514/meaning-and-the-revolution.mp3" length="40949551" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The American Revolution was saturated with meaning and ambiguity, from the words of the Declaration of Independence, to the beliefs of the founding fathers, to the vagueness, hedges, and contradictions of the Constitution on which the possibility of union between slave and free states rested.&#160; Ken and John examine the personalities, philosophies, and documents of the American Revolution with Pulitzer Prize winning Stanford historian Jack Rakove, author of Revolutionaries: A New History of the Invention of America.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/1200px-Declaration_of_Independence_1819_by_John_Trumbull.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The American Revolution was saturated with meaning and ambiguity, from the words of the Declaration of Independence, to the beliefs of the founding fathers, to the vagueness, hedges, and contradictions of the Constitution on which the possibility of union between slave and free states rested.&#160; Ken and John examine the personalities, philosophies, and documents of the American Revolution with Pulitzer Prize winning Stanford historian Jack Rakove, author of Revolutionaries: A New History of the Invention of America.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/1200px-Declaration_of_Independence_1819_by_John_Trumbull.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Philosophy for the Young – Corrupting or Empowering?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/philosophy-for-the-young-corrupting-or-empowering/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 05 Sep 2010 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7108</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Socrates was executed for corrupting the youth. In America, youth below college age are usually not exposed to philosophy in the classroom. Is philosophy all that dangerous? Should it be taught to teenagers? Or would this lead to a generation of self-absorbed and skeptical young people, shirking their duties in order to worry about the meaning of life? John and Ken are joined by Jack Bowen, author of The Dream Weaver and If You Can Read This: The Philosophy of Bumper Stickers, for a program recorded with a live audience of young philosophers at Palo Alto High School.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Socrates was executed for corrupting the youth. In America, youth below college age are usually not exposed to philosophy in the classroom. Is philosophy all that dangerous? Should it be taught to teenagers? Or would this lead to a generation of self-abs]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Socrates was executed for corrupting the youth. In America, youth below college age are usually not exposed to philosophy in the classroom. Is philosophy all that dangerous? Should it be taught to teenagers? Or would this lead to a generation of self-absorbed and skeptical young people, shirking their duties in order to worry about the meaning of life? John and Ken are joined by Jack Bowen, author of The Dream Weaver and If You Can Read This: The Philosophy of Bumper Stickers, for a program recorded with a live audience of young philosophers at Palo Alto High School.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7108/philosophy-for-the-young-corrupting-or-empowering.mp3" length="48828755" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Socrates was executed for corrupting the youth. In America, youth below college age are usually not exposed to philosophy in the classroom. Is philosophy all that dangerous? Should it be taught to teenagers? Or would this lead to a generation of self-absorbed and skeptical young people, shirking their duties in order to worry about the meaning of life? John and Ken are joined by Jack Bowen, author of The Dream Weaver and If You Can Read This: The Philosophy of Bumper Stickers, for a program recorded with a live audience of young philosophers at Palo Alto High School.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/WiHlWpRx8XU.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Socrates was executed for corrupting the youth. In America, youth below college age are usually not exposed to philosophy in the classroom. Is philosophy all that dangerous? Should it be taught to teenagers? Or would this lead to a generation of self-absorbed and skeptical young people, shirking their duties in order to worry about the meaning of life? John and Ken are joined by Jack Bowen, author of The Dream Weaver and If You Can Read This: The Philosophy of Bumper Stickers, for a program recorded with a live audience of young philosophers at Palo Alto High School.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/WiHlWpRx8XU.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Self-Deception</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/self-deception/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 29 Aug 2010 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7103</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Self-deception sounds like a contradiction: intentionally convincing yourself of something you know to be untrue.&#160; But it is a pervasive aspect of human nature.&#160; What is the nature of self-deception, and what are its main patterns?&#160; Does it serve any purpose?&#160; Ken and John confront the truths of self-deception with Neil Van Leeuwen from the University of Johannesburg.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Self-deception sounds like a contradiction: intentionally convincing yourself of something you know to be untrue.&#160; But it is a pervasive aspect of human nature.&#160; What is the nature of self-deception, and what are its main patterns?&#160; Does i]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Self-deception sounds like a contradiction: intentionally convincing yourself of something you know to be untrue.&#160; But it is a pervasive aspect of human nature.&#160; What is the nature of self-deception, and what are its main patterns?&#160; Does it serve any purpose?&#160; Ken and John confront the truths of self-deception with Neil Van Leeuwen from the University of Johannesburg.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7103/self-deception.mp3" length="48016242" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Self-deception sounds like a contradiction: intentionally convincing yourself of something you know to be untrue.&#160; But it is a pervasive aspect of human nature.&#160; What is the nature of self-deception, and what are its main patterns?&#160; Does it serve any purpose?&#160; Ken and John confront the truths of self-deception with Neil Van Leeuwen from the University of Johannesburg.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/qNDaLNOY3pg.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Self-deception sounds like a contradiction: intentionally convincing yourself of something you know to be untrue.&#160; But it is a pervasive aspect of human nature.&#160; What is the nature of self-deception, and what are its main patterns?&#160; Does it serve any purpose?&#160; Ken and John confront the truths of self-deception with Neil Van Leeuwen from the University of Johannesburg.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/qNDaLNOY3pg.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Humanism</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/humanism/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 22 Aug 2010 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7098</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Humanism as a movement arose with the Renaissance.&#160; It took powerful expression with the Enlightenment, and deeply influenced the founding of the United States.&#160; But now &#8220;secular humanism&#8221; is widely decried and even derided.&#160; What was Humanism, and what has it become?&#160; In an age of appreciating the interconnectedness of all nature, is the Humanist enterprise out of date?&#160; Ken and John are joined by Jennifer Bardi, editor of The Humanist magazine, for a program recorded live&#160;at the 69th annual conference of the American Humanist Association&#160;in San Jose.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Humanism as a movement arose with the Renaissance.&#160; It took powerful expression with the Enlightenment, and deeply influenced the founding of the United States.&#160; But now &#8220;secular humanism&#8221; is widely decried and even derided.&#160; W]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Humanism as a movement arose with the Renaissance.&#160; It took powerful expression with the Enlightenment, and deeply influenced the founding of the United States.&#160; But now &#8220;secular humanism&#8221; is widely decried and even derided.&#160; What was Humanism, and what has it become?&#160; In an age of appreciating the interconnectedness of all nature, is the Humanist enterprise out of date?&#160; Ken and John are joined by Jennifer Bardi, editor of The Humanist magazine, for a program recorded live&#160;at the 69th annual conference of the American Humanist Association&#160;in San Jose.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7098/humanism.mp3" length="48583575" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Humanism as a movement arose with the Renaissance.&#160; It took powerful expression with the Enlightenment, and deeply influenced the founding of the United States.&#160; But now &#8220;secular humanism&#8221; is widely decried and even derided.&#160; What was Humanism, and what has it become?&#160; In an age of appreciating the interconnectedness of all nature, is the Humanist enterprise out of date?&#160; Ken and John are joined by Jennifer Bardi, editor of The Humanist magazine, for a program recorded live&#160;at the 69th annual conference of the American Humanist Association&#160;in San Jose.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/c0lMQP4LPV4.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Humanism as a movement arose with the Renaissance.&#160; It took powerful expression with the Enlightenment, and deeply influenced the founding of the United States.&#160; But now &#8220;secular humanism&#8221; is widely decried and even derided.&#160; What was Humanism, and what has it become?&#160; In an age of appreciating the interconnectedness of all nature, is the Humanist enterprise out of date?&#160; Ken and John are joined by Jennifer Bardi, editor of The Humanist magazine, for a program recorded live&#160;at the 69th annual conference of the American Humanist Association&#160;in San Jose.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/c0lMQP4LPV4.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Social Reality</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/social-reality/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 01 Aug 2010 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6867</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Few things affect our lives as much as the fact that we are citizens of one country rather than another.&#160; The government of, the economy of, and the rights recognized and opportunities provided by the country we live in shape our lives.&#160; But how real are any of these facts and things?&#160; Without human beliefs, and societies of humans, there would be no states, no facts of citizenship, no money, and few opportunities.&#160; Are our lives built on ontological fluff?&#160; Ken and John discuss the metaphysics of the social with famed philosopher John Searle, author of Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. This program was recorded live&#160;at the Marsh theatre in Berkeley.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Few things affect our lives as much as the fact that we are citizens of one country rather than another.&#160; The government of, the economy of, and the rights recognized and opportunities provided by the country we live in shape our lives.&#160; But ho]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Few things affect our lives as much as the fact that we are citizens of one country rather than another.&#160; The government of, the economy of, and the rights recognized and opportunities provided by the country we live in shape our lives.&#160; But how real are any of these facts and things?&#160; Without human beliefs, and societies of humans, there would be no states, no facts of citizenship, no money, and few opportunities.&#160; Are our lives built on ontological fluff?&#160; Ken and John discuss the metaphysics of the social with famed philosopher John Searle, author of Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. This program was recorded live&#160;at the Marsh theatre in Berkeley.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6867/social-reality.mp3" length="48863446" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Few things affect our lives as much as the fact that we are citizens of one country rather than another.&#160; The government of, the economy of, and the rights recognized and opportunities provided by the country we live in shape our lives.&#160; But how real are any of these facts and things?&#160; Without human beliefs, and societies of humans, there would be no states, no facts of citizenship, no money, and few opportunities.&#160; Are our lives built on ontological fluff?&#160; Ken and John discuss the metaphysics of the social with famed philosopher John Searle, author of Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. This program was recorded live&#160;at the Marsh theatre in Berkeley.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/SOh0zDWTMAo.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Few things affect our lives as much as the fact that we are citizens of one country rather than another.&#160; The government of, the economy of, and the rights recognized and opportunities provided by the country we live in shape our lives.&#160; But how real are any of these facts and things?&#160; Without human beliefs, and societies of humans, there would be no states, no facts of citizenship, no money, and few opportunities.&#160; Are our lives built on ontological fluff?&#160; Ken and John discuss the metaphysics of the social with famed philosopher John Searle, author of Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. This program was recorded live&#160;at the Marsh theatre in Berkeley.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/SOh0zDWTMAo.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Loyalty</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/loyalty/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 18 Jul 2010 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=7113</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Loyalty is usually reckoned to be an important virtue; even loyalty to lost causes is often admired.&#160; But loyalty to evil causes is no virtue.&#160; To whom and what should one be loyal?&#160; When is loyalty a virtue?&#160; When is it wrong?&#160; And when is it stupid?&#160; Ken and John welcome back poet and philosopher Troy Jollimore, author of Friendship and Agent-Relative Morality.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Loyalty is usually reckoned to be an important virtue; even loyalty to lost causes is often admired.&#160; But loyalty to evil causes is no virtue.&#160; To whom and what should one be loyal?&#160; When is loyalty a virtue?&#160; When is it wrong?&#160; ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Loyalty is usually reckoned to be an important virtue; even loyalty to lost causes is often admired.&#160; But loyalty to evil causes is no virtue.&#160; To whom and what should one be loyal?&#160; When is loyalty a virtue?&#160; When is it wrong?&#160; And when is it stupid?&#160; Ken and John welcome back poet and philosopher Troy Jollimore, author of Friendship and Agent-Relative Morality.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/7113/loyalty.mp3" length="47786945" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Loyalty is usually reckoned to be an important virtue; even loyalty to lost causes is often admired.&#160; But loyalty to evil causes is no virtue.&#160; To whom and what should one be loyal?&#160; When is loyalty a virtue?&#160; When is it wrong?&#160; And when is it stupid?&#160; Ken and John welcome back poet and philosopher Troy Jollimore, author of Friendship and Agent-Relative Morality.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/xYJf94BwhYQ.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Loyalty is usually reckoned to be an important virtue; even loyalty to lost causes is often admired.&#160; But loyalty to evil causes is no virtue.&#160; To whom and what should one be loyal?&#160; When is loyalty a virtue?&#160; When is it wrong?&#160; And when is it stupid?&#160; Ken and John welcome back poet and philosopher Troy Jollimore, author of Friendship and Agent-Relative Morality.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/xYJf94BwhYQ.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Democracy and The Press</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/democracy-and-the-press/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 04 Jul 2010 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6857</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Our founding fathers believed that a free press would serve democracy by promoting unfettered political debate and expose the actions of the government to the harsh scrutiny of an informed and engaged populace.&#160; Today, however, large media conglomerates have become part of the entrenched power structure and are driven as much by profit as by a sense of public mission.&#160; Is it still possible to believe that the press lives up to the lofty ideals of our founding fathers?&#160; John and Ken are joined by former TV news anchor and investigative journalist Leslie Griffith for a program recorded live&#160;at the Marsh theatre in Berkeley, California.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Our founding fathers believed that a free press would serve democracy by promoting unfettered political debate and expose the actions of the government to the harsh scrutiny of an informed and engaged populace.&#160; Today, however, large media conglomer]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Our founding fathers believed that a free press would serve democracy by promoting unfettered political debate and expose the actions of the government to the harsh scrutiny of an informed and engaged populace.&#160; Today, however, large media conglomerates have become part of the entrenched power structure and are driven as much by profit as by a sense of public mission.&#160; Is it still possible to believe that the press lives up to the lofty ideals of our founding fathers?&#160; John and Ken are joined by former TV news anchor and investigative journalist Leslie Griffith for a program recorded live&#160;at the Marsh theatre in Berkeley, California.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6857/democracy-and-the-press.mp3" length="49001952" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Our founding fathers believed that a free press would serve democracy by promoting unfettered political debate and expose the actions of the government to the harsh scrutiny of an informed and engaged populace.&#160; Today, however, large media conglomerates have become part of the entrenched power structure and are driven as much by profit as by a sense of public mission.&#160; Is it still possible to believe that the press lives up to the lofty ideals of our founding fathers?&#160; John and Ken are joined by former TV news anchor and investigative journalist Leslie Griffith for a program recorded live&#160;at the Marsh theatre in Berkeley, California.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/lnCVGfPBzG0.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Our founding fathers believed that a free press would serve democracy by promoting unfettered political debate and expose the actions of the government to the harsh scrutiny of an informed and engaged populace.&#160; Today, however, large media conglomerates have become part of the entrenched power structure and are driven as much by profit as by a sense of public mission.&#160; Is it still possible to believe that the press lives up to the lofty ideals of our founding fathers?&#160; John and Ken are joined by former TV news anchor and investigative journalist Leslie Griffith for a program recorded live&#160;at the Marsh theatre in Berkeley, California.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/lnCVGfPBzG0.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>What are Human Rights?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/what-are-human-rights/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jun 2010 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6862</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[According to the Declaration of Independence, the basic human rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are God-given. Whatever the role of God, rights must be recognized by the society in which one lives to be of any use. Are rights universal? God given? Philosophically justified? Or a matter of custom and culture? John and Ken welcome back Helen Stacy, author of Human Rights For the 21st Century: Sovereignty, Civil Society, Culture.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[According to the Declaration of Independence, the basic human rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are God-given. Whatever the role of God, rights must be recognized by the society in which one lives to be of any use. Are rights universal]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[According to the Declaration of Independence, the basic human rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are God-given. Whatever the role of God, rights must be recognized by the society in which one lives to be of any use. Are rights universal? God given? Philosophically justified? Or a matter of custom and culture? John and Ken welcome back Helen Stacy, author of Human Rights For the 21st Century: Sovereignty, Civil Society, Culture.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6862/what-are-human-rights.mp3" length="47961652" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[According to the Declaration of Independence, the basic human rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are God-given. Whatever the role of God, rights must be recognized by the society in which one lives to be of any use. Are rights universal? God given? Philosophically justified? Or a matter of custom and culture? John and Ken welcome back Helen Stacy, author of Human Rights For the 21st Century: Sovereignty, Civil Society, Culture.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/qXyJtvxHv7U.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[According to the Declaration of Independence, the basic human rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are God-given. Whatever the role of God, rights must be recognized by the society in which one lives to be of any use. Are rights universal? God given? Philosophically justified? Or a matter of custom and culture? John and Ken welcome back Helen Stacy, author of Human Rights For the 21st Century: Sovereignty, Civil Society, Culture.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/qXyJtvxHv7U.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Corporation as a Person</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-corporation-as-a-person/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jun 2010 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6846</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court recently decided that corporations had the right of free speech under the U.S. Constitution, since they are persons.&#160; But what does it mean to say corporations are persons?&#160; Why should they have rights?&#160; If they have free speech, should they have the vote?&#160; What sorts of duties do they have?&#160; Where did the idea of a corporation as a person come from, and should it be retired?&#160; Ken and John examine the philosophical bases of corporate personhood with shareholder activist Robert Monks, co-author of Corporate Governance.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The Supreme Court recently decided that corporations had the right of free speech under the U.S. Constitution, since they are persons.&#160; But what does it mean to say corporations are persons?&#160; Why should they have rights?&#160; If they have free]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The Supreme Court recently decided that corporations had the right of free speech under the U.S. Constitution, since they are persons.&#160; But what does it mean to say corporations are persons?&#160; Why should they have rights?&#160; If they have free speech, should they have the vote?&#160; What sorts of duties do they have?&#160; Where did the idea of a corporation as a person come from, and should it be retired?&#160; Ken and John examine the philosophical bases of corporate personhood with shareholder activist Robert Monks, co-author of Corporate Governance.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6846/the-corporation-as-a-person.mp3" length="47650690" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The Supreme Court recently decided that corporations had the right of free speech under the U.S. Constitution, since they are persons.&#160; But what does it mean to say corporations are persons?&#160; Why should they have rights?&#160; If they have free speech, should they have the vote?&#160; What sorts of duties do they have?&#160; Where did the idea of a corporation as a person come from, and should it be retired?&#160; Ken and John examine the philosophical bases of corporate personhood with shareholder activist Robert Monks, co-author of Corporate Governance.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/GQ8wbFqXXmM.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court recently decided that corporations had the right of free speech under the U.S. Constitution, since they are persons.&#160; But what does it mean to say corporations are persons?&#160; Why should they have rights?&#160; If they have free speech, should they have the vote?&#160; What sorts of duties do they have?&#160; Where did the idea of a corporation as a person come from, and should it be retired?&#160; Ken and John examine the philosophical bases of corporate personhood with shareholder activist Robert Monks, co-author of Corporate Governance.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/GQ8wbFqXXmM.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Summer Reading List 2010</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/summer-reading-list-2010/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 23 May 2010 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6486</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues do you want to read up on over the summer?&#160; Heidegger&#8217;s Being and Time probably isn&#8217;t the obvious choice to take on vacation, but there are a lot of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your vacation reading. Not to mention new and classic fiction books with a philosophical bent.&#160; You are invited to join John and Ken to share some of the philosophically-minded reading on your reading list.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues do you want to read up on over the summer?&#160; Heidegger&#8217;s Being and Time probably isn&#8217;t the obvious choice to take on vacation, but there are a lot of readable, beach-friendly classi]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues do you want to read up on over the summer?&#160; Heidegger&#8217;s Being and Time probably isn&#8217;t the obvious choice to take on vacation, but there are a lot of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your vacation reading. Not to mention new and classic fiction books with a philosophical bent.&#160; You are invited to join John and Ken to share some of the philosophically-minded reading on your reading list.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6486/summer-reading-list-2010.mp3" length="47330951" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues do you want to read up on over the summer?&#160; Heidegger&#8217;s Being and Time probably isn&#8217;t the obvious choice to take on vacation, but there are a lot of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your vacation reading. Not to mention new and classic fiction books with a philosophical bent.&#160; You are invited to join John and Ken to share some of the philosophically-minded reading on your reading list.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-04-01T144847.860.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues do you want to read up on over the summer?&#160; Heidegger&#8217;s Being and Time probably isn&#8217;t the obvious choice to take on vacation, but there are a lot of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your vacation reading. Not to mention new and classic fiction books with a philosophical bent.&#160; You are invited to join John and Ken to share some of the philosophically-minded reading on your reading list.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-04-01T144847.860.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Philosophy Talk &#8220;Live&#8221; Highlights</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/philosophy-talk-live-highlights/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 16 May 2010 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6479</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s a Philosophy Talk highlight reel for the membership drive! In this special episode, John and Ken relive some favorite moments from Philosophy Talk episodes recorded in front of live audiences around the country. We start at the Marsh theatre in San Francisco with psychologist Alison Gopnik and political philosopher Judith Butler, followed by philosopher-poet Troy Jollimore in Portland, pop culture philosopher Richard Hanley at the University of Delaware, scientist and entrepreneur Craig Venter at the Smithsonian Institution, and political scientist Rob Reich in Palo Alto, California. Plus selected commentaries from Ian Shoales, the Sixty-Second Philosopher.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[It&#8217;s a Philosophy Talk highlight reel for the membership drive! In this special episode, John and Ken relive some favorite moments from Philosophy Talk episodes recorded in front of live audiences around the country. We start at the Marsh theatre i]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[It&#8217;s a Philosophy Talk highlight reel for the membership drive! In this special episode, John and Ken relive some favorite moments from Philosophy Talk episodes recorded in front of live audiences around the country. We start at the Marsh theatre in San Francisco with psychologist Alison Gopnik and political philosopher Judith Butler, followed by philosopher-poet Troy Jollimore in Portland, pop culture philosopher Richard Hanley at the University of Delaware, scientist and entrepreneur Craig Venter at the Smithsonian Institution, and political scientist Rob Reich in Palo Alto, California. Plus selected commentaries from Ian Shoales, the Sixty-Second Philosopher.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6479/philosophy-talk-live-highlights.mp3" length="46407518" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[It&#8217;s a Philosophy Talk highlight reel for the membership drive! In this special episode, John and Ken relive some favorite moments from Philosophy Talk episodes recorded in front of live audiences around the country. We start at the Marsh theatre in San Francisco with psychologist Alison Gopnik and political philosopher Judith Butler, followed by philosopher-poet Troy Jollimore in Portland, pop culture philosopher Richard Hanley at the University of Delaware, scientist and entrepreneur Craig Venter at the Smithsonian Institution, and political scientist Rob Reich in Palo Alto, California. Plus selected commentaries from Ian Shoales, the Sixty-Second Philosopher.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/303561_10150272474512582_6589504_n.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s a Philosophy Talk highlight reel for the membership drive! In this special episode, John and Ken relive some favorite moments from Philosophy Talk episodes recorded in front of live audiences around the country. We start at the Marsh theatre in San Francisco with psychologist Alison Gopnik and political philosopher Judith Butler, followed by philosopher-poet Troy Jollimore in Portland, pop culture philosopher Richard Hanley at the University of Delaware, scientist and entrepreneur Craig Venter at the Smithsonian Institution, and political scientist Rob Reich in Palo Alto, California. Plus selected commentaries from Ian Shoales, the Sixty-Second Philosopher.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/303561_10150272474512582_6589504_n.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Mental Illness and Culture</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/mental-illness-and-culture/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 09 May 2010 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6475</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Paranoia, depression, schizophrenia, bipolarity, and all the other ways Americans have discovered to be crazy – are they universal phenomena, rooted in human biology?&#160; Or are they cultural kinks, rooted in one society&#8217;s peculiar pressures and institutions?&#160; Are Americans inducing the rest of the world to be crazy like us, so we can market the appropriate cures?&#160; Ken and John maintain their sanity with Ethan Watters, author of Crazy Like Us: The Globalization of the American Psyche.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Paranoia, depression, schizophrenia, bipolarity, and all the other ways Americans have discovered to be crazy – are they universal phenomena, rooted in human biology?&#160; Or are they cultural kinks, rooted in one society&#8217;s peculiar pressures and ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Paranoia, depression, schizophrenia, bipolarity, and all the other ways Americans have discovered to be crazy – are they universal phenomena, rooted in human biology?&#160; Or are they cultural kinks, rooted in one society&#8217;s peculiar pressures and institutions?&#160; Are Americans inducing the rest of the world to be crazy like us, so we can market the appropriate cures?&#160; Ken and John maintain their sanity with Ethan Watters, author of Crazy Like Us: The Globalization of the American Psyche.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6475/mental-illness-and-culture.mp3" length="48105430" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Paranoia, depression, schizophrenia, bipolarity, and all the other ways Americans have discovered to be crazy – are they universal phenomena, rooted in human biology?&#160; Or are they cultural kinks, rooted in one society&#8217;s peculiar pressures and institutions?&#160; Are Americans inducing the rest of the world to be crazy like us, so we can market the appropriate cures?&#160; Ken and John maintain their sanity with Ethan Watters, author of Crazy Like Us: The Globalization of the American Psyche.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-04-01T144644.179.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Paranoia, depression, schizophrenia, bipolarity, and all the other ways Americans have discovered to be crazy – are they universal phenomena, rooted in human biology?&#160; Or are they cultural kinks, rooted in one society&#8217;s peculiar pressures and institutions?&#160; Are Americans inducing the rest of the world to be crazy like us, so we can market the appropriate cures?&#160; Ken and John maintain their sanity with Ethan Watters, author of Crazy Like Us: The Globalization of the American Psyche.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-04-01T144644.179.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Faces, Feelings, and Lies</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/faces-feelings-and-lies/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 18 Apr 2010 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6874</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[According to Proverbs, lying lips are an abomination to the Lord.&#160; But lies on human lips are as common as fleas on a dog.&#160; What is a lie?&#160; Are all untruths lies?&#160; Is lying always immoral?&#160; Do our faces inevitably betray our lies?&#160; Join the hosts as they uncover the concept, practice, and detection of lies with pioneering psychologist Paul Ekman, author of Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics, and Marriage and scientific consultant to the Fox television series Lie To Me.&#160; This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Marsh Theatre in San Francisco.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[According to Proverbs, lying lips are an abomination to the Lord.&#160; But lies on human lips are as common as fleas on a dog.&#160; What is a lie?&#160; Are all untruths lies?&#160; Is lying always immoral?&#160; Do our faces inevitably betray our lies]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[According to Proverbs, lying lips are an abomination to the Lord.&#160; But lies on human lips are as common as fleas on a dog.&#160; What is a lie?&#160; Are all untruths lies?&#160; Is lying always immoral?&#160; Do our faces inevitably betray our lies?&#160; Join the hosts as they uncover the concept, practice, and detection of lies with pioneering psychologist Paul Ekman, author of Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics, and Marriage and scientific consultant to the Fox television series Lie To Me.&#160; This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Marsh Theatre in San Francisco.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6874/faces-feelings-and-lies.mp3" length="48412630" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[According to Proverbs, lying lips are an abomination to the Lord.&#160; But lies on human lips are as common as fleas on a dog.&#160; What is a lie?&#160; Are all untruths lies?&#160; Is lying always immoral?&#160; Do our faces inevitably betray our lies?&#160; Join the hosts as they uncover the concept, practice, and detection of lies with pioneering psychologist Paul Ekman, author of Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics, and Marriage and scientific consultant to the Fox television series Lie To Me.&#160; This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Marsh Theatre in San Francisco.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/UVJHlGuqhgw.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[According to Proverbs, lying lips are an abomination to the Lord.&#160; But lies on human lips are as common as fleas on a dog.&#160; What is a lie?&#160; Are all untruths lies?&#160; Is lying always immoral?&#160; Do our faces inevitably betray our lies?&#160; Join the hosts as they uncover the concept, practice, and detection of lies with pioneering psychologist Paul Ekman, author of Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics, and Marriage and scientific consultant to the Fox television series Lie To Me.&#160; This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Marsh Theatre in San Francisco.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/UVJHlGuqhgw.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Ethics of Torture</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-ethics-of-torture/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 11 Apr 2010 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6842</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[According to former Vice President Cheney, practices widely regarded as torture prevented further attack on America after 9/11.&#160; The facts are in dispute.&#160; But suppose he is correct – can torture be justified on such utilitarian grounds?&#160; What is the philosophical basis of our aversion to using torture?&#160; Is the moral principle not to torture absolute or circumstantial?&#160; Ken and John consider the ethics of torture with Nancy Sherman from Georgetown University, author of The Untold War: Inside the Hearts, Minds, and Souls of Our Soldiers.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[According to former Vice President Cheney, practices widely regarded as torture prevented further attack on America after 9/11.&#160; The facts are in dispute.&#160; But suppose he is correct – can torture be justified on such utilitarian grounds?&#160; ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[According to former Vice President Cheney, practices widely regarded as torture prevented further attack on America after 9/11.&#160; The facts are in dispute.&#160; But suppose he is correct – can torture be justified on such utilitarian grounds?&#160; What is the philosophical basis of our aversion to using torture?&#160; Is the moral principle not to torture absolute or circumstantial?&#160; Ken and John consider the ethics of torture with Nancy Sherman from Georgetown University, author of The Untold War: Inside the Hearts, Minds, and Souls of Our Soldiers.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6842/the-ethics-of-torture.mp3" length="48116297" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[According to former Vice President Cheney, practices widely regarded as torture prevented further attack on America after 9/11.&#160; The facts are in dispute.&#160; But suppose he is correct – can torture be justified on such utilitarian grounds?&#160; What is the philosophical basis of our aversion to using torture?&#160; Is the moral principle not to torture absolute or circumstantial?&#160; Ken and John consider the ethics of torture with Nancy Sherman from Georgetown University, author of The Untold War: Inside the Hearts, Minds, and Souls of Our Soldiers.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/FomEpVnKn_E.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[According to former Vice President Cheney, practices widely regarded as torture prevented further attack on America after 9/11.&#160; The facts are in dispute.&#160; But suppose he is correct – can torture be justified on such utilitarian grounds?&#160; What is the philosophical basis of our aversion to using torture?&#160; Is the moral principle not to torture absolute or circumstantial?&#160; Ken and John consider the ethics of torture with Nancy Sherman from Georgetown University, author of The Untold War: Inside the Hearts, Minds, and Souls of Our Soldiers.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/FomEpVnKn_E.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>What Is a Wife?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/what-is-a-wife/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 04 Apr 2010 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6837</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The concept of a wife has been embedded in cultures, religious practices, social customs and economic patterns of wildly different sorts.&#160; Is there a core concept of what it is to be a wife?&#160; Is it a good concept, or one that deserves to be thrown on the trash heap of intellectual history because it perpetrates corrosive stereotypes of women?&#160; What conceptions of being a wife do Americans have today?&#160; Join John and Ken as they discuss the topic with Marilyn Yalom, author of A History of the Wife.&#160; This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Marsh Theatre in San Francisco.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The concept of a wife has been embedded in cultures, religious practices, social customs and economic patterns of wildly different sorts.&#160; Is there a core concept of what it is to be a wife?&#160; Is it a good concept, or one that deserves to be thr]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The concept of a wife has been embedded in cultures, religious practices, social customs and economic patterns of wildly different sorts.&#160; Is there a core concept of what it is to be a wife?&#160; Is it a good concept, or one that deserves to be thrown on the trash heap of intellectual history because it perpetrates corrosive stereotypes of women?&#160; What conceptions of being a wife do Americans have today?&#160; Join John and Ken as they discuss the topic with Marilyn Yalom, author of A History of the Wife.&#160; This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Marsh Theatre in San Francisco.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6837/what-is-a-wife.mp3" length="24236873" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The concept of a wife has been embedded in cultures, religious practices, social customs and economic patterns of wildly different sorts.&#160; Is there a core concept of what it is to be a wife?&#160; Is it a good concept, or one that deserves to be thrown on the trash heap of intellectual history because it perpetrates corrosive stereotypes of women?&#160; What conceptions of being a wife do Americans have today?&#160; Join John and Ken as they discuss the topic with Marilyn Yalom, author of A History of the Wife.&#160; This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Marsh Theatre in San Francisco.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/TuAYjoSteE.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The concept of a wife has been embedded in cultures, religious practices, social customs and economic patterns of wildly different sorts.&#160; Is there a core concept of what it is to be a wife?&#160; Is it a good concept, or one that deserves to be thrown on the trash heap of intellectual history because it perpetrates corrosive stereotypes of women?&#160; What conceptions of being a wife do Americans have today?&#160; Join John and Ken as they discuss the topic with Marilyn Yalom, author of A History of the Wife.&#160; This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Marsh Theatre in San Francisco.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/TuAYjoSteE.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Fear</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/fear/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 28 Mar 2010 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6812</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Fear is an emotion, but it is one with a long history in both political theory and politics in the real world. In many versions of social contract theory, it is a fear of the state of nature that leads to government in the first place. From McCarthy to post-9/11 politics, fear has played a leading role in American public discourse. Ken and John examine fear as theme in politics and political philosophy with Corey Robin from the City University of New York, author of Fear: The History of a Political Idea.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Fear is an emotion, but it is one with a long history in both political theory and politics in the real world. In many versions of social contract theory, it is a fear of the state of nature that leads to government in the first place. From McCarthy to p]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Fear is an emotion, but it is one with a long history in both political theory and politics in the real world. In many versions of social contract theory, it is a fear of the state of nature that leads to government in the first place. From McCarthy to post-9/11 politics, fear has played a leading role in American public discourse. Ken and John examine fear as theme in politics and political philosophy with Corey Robin from the City University of New York, author of Fear: The History of a Political Idea.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6812/fear.mp3" length="47439203" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Fear is an emotion, but it is one with a long history in both political theory and politics in the real world. In many versions of social contract theory, it is a fear of the state of nature that leads to government in the first place. From McCarthy to post-9/11 politics, fear has played a leading role in American public discourse. Ken and John examine fear as theme in politics and political philosophy with Corey Robin from the City University of New York, author of Fear: The History of a Political Idea.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/GaiA92Z4g9A.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Fear is an emotion, but it is one with a long history in both political theory and politics in the real world. In many versions of social contract theory, it is a fear of the state of nature that leads to government in the first place. From McCarthy to post-9/11 politics, fear has played a leading role in American public discourse. Ken and John examine fear as theme in politics and political philosophy with Corey Robin from the City University of New York, author of Fear: The History of a Political Idea.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/GaiA92Z4g9A.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>What is &#8216;Normal&#8217;?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/what-is-normal/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6832</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What does it mean to be normal? And abnormal? Who gets to decide, and what are the repercussions? When do we applaud deviations from the norm, when do we condemn them, and why? Ken and John take a look at the uses and abuses of making judgments about normality with Charles Scott from Vanderbilt University, author of Living With Indifference.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What does it mean to be normal? And abnormal? Who gets to decide, and what are the repercussions? When do we applaud deviations from the norm, when do we condemn them, and why? Ken and John take a look at the uses and abuses of making judgments about nor]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What does it mean to be normal? And abnormal? Who gets to decide, and what are the repercussions? When do we applaud deviations from the norm, when do we condemn them, and why? Ken and John take a look at the uses and abuses of making judgments about normality with Charles Scott from Vanderbilt University, author of Living With Indifference.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6832/what-is-normal.mp3" length="47718817" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What does it mean to be normal? And abnormal? Who gets to decide, and what are the repercussions? When do we applaud deviations from the norm, when do we condemn them, and why? Ken and John take a look at the uses and abuses of making judgments about normality with Charles Scott from Vanderbilt University, author of Living With Indifference.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/yGe6dkfQFYw.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What does it mean to be normal? And abnormal? Who gets to decide, and what are the repercussions? When do we applaud deviations from the norm, when do we condemn them, and why? Ken and John take a look at the uses and abuses of making judgments about normality with Charles Scott from Vanderbilt University, author of Living With Indifference.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/yGe6dkfQFYw.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Movie Show 2010</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-movie-show-2010/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 28 Feb 2010 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6449</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Movies play a large role in modern life. We enjoy watching them; we idolize the actors and actresses who appear in them; we analyze the directors. But how well do movies tackle bigger philosophical questions? With the help of listeners, John and Ken present their second annual Dionysus Awards for the most philosophically-rich films of the past year.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Movies play a large role in modern life. We enjoy watching them; we idolize the actors and actresses who appear in them; we analyze the directors. But how well do movies tackle bigger philosophical questions? With the help of listeners, John and Ken pres]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Movies play a large role in modern life. We enjoy watching them; we idolize the actors and actresses who appear in them; we analyze the directors. But how well do movies tackle bigger philosophical questions? With the help of listeners, John and Ken present their second annual Dionysus Awards for the most philosophically-rich films of the past year.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6449/the-movie-show-2010.mp3" length="24169372" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Movies play a large role in modern life. We enjoy watching them; we idolize the actors and actresses who appear in them; we analyze the directors. But how well do movies tackle bigger philosophical questions? With the help of listeners, John and Ken present their second annual Dionysus Awards for the most philosophically-rich films of the past year.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/orHWW0-pQoQ.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Movies play a large role in modern life. We enjoy watching them; we idolize the actors and actresses who appear in them; we analyze the directors. But how well do movies tackle bigger philosophical questions? With the help of listeners, John and Ken present their second annual Dionysus Awards for the most philosophically-rich films of the past year.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/orHWW0-pQoQ.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Mind Reading</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/mind-reading/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 21 Feb 2010 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6851</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[We base many decisions every day not only on the belief that other people have minds, but on detailed beliefs about what is going on in those minds: what these other people believe, feel, hope, and fear. The basis of our ability to &#8220;read&#8221; the minds of others is a lively area of research in psychology and the philosophy of psychology. Ken and John discuss mind-reading with Shaun Nichols from the University of Arizona, author of Mindreading: An Integrated Account of Pretense, Self-awareness and Understanding Other Minds. This program was recorded in front of a live audience at Pacific University in Forest Grove, Oregon.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[We base many decisions every day not only on the belief that other people have minds, but on detailed beliefs about what is going on in those minds: what these other people believe, feel, hope, and fear. The basis of our ability to &#8220;read&#8221; the]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[We base many decisions every day not only on the belief that other people have minds, but on detailed beliefs about what is going on in those minds: what these other people believe, feel, hope, and fear. The basis of our ability to &#8220;read&#8221; the minds of others is a lively area of research in psychology and the philosophy of psychology. Ken and John discuss mind-reading with Shaun Nichols from the University of Arizona, author of Mindreading: An Integrated Account of Pretense, Self-awareness and Understanding Other Minds. This program was recorded in front of a live audience at Pacific University in Forest Grove, Oregon.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6851/mind-reading.mp3" length="48934499" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[We base many decisions every day not only on the belief that other people have minds, but on detailed beliefs about what is going on in those minds: what these other people believe, feel, hope, and fear. The basis of our ability to &#8220;read&#8221; the minds of others is a lively area of research in psychology and the philosophy of psychology. Ken and John discuss mind-reading with Shaun Nichols from the University of Arizona, author of Mindreading: An Integrated Account of Pretense, Self-awareness and Understanding Other Minds. This program was recorded in front of a live audience at Pacific University in Forest Grove, Oregon.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/qJjFBQ3cb70.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[We base many decisions every day not only on the belief that other people have minds, but on detailed beliefs about what is going on in those minds: what these other people believe, feel, hope, and fear. The basis of our ability to &#8220;read&#8221; the minds of others is a lively area of research in psychology and the philosophy of psychology. Ken and John discuss mind-reading with Shaun Nichols from the University of Arizona, author of Mindreading: An Integrated Account of Pretense, Self-awareness and Understanding Other Minds. This program was recorded in front of a live audience at Pacific University in Forest Grove, Oregon.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/qJjFBQ3cb70.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Philosophy in Fiction</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/philosophy-in-fiction/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 07 Feb 2010 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6826</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Philosophers think a lot about fiction. But do novelists think about philosophy? Do philosophers make good fictional characters? Can good stories be built around philosophical problems? When awarding its Genius prize to philosopher-novelist Rebecca Goldstein, the MacArthur Foundation said &#8220;[her] writings emerge as brilliant arguments for the belief that fiction in our time may be the best vehicle for involving readers in questions of morality and existence.&#8221; Ken and John explore philosophy in fiction with Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, author of The Mind-Body Problem and 36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Philosophers think a lot about fiction. But do novelists think about philosophy? Do philosophers make good fictional characters? Can good stories be built around philosophical problems? When awarding its Genius prize to philosopher-novelist Rebecca Golds]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Philosophers think a lot about fiction. But do novelists think about philosophy? Do philosophers make good fictional characters? Can good stories be built around philosophical problems? When awarding its Genius prize to philosopher-novelist Rebecca Goldstein, the MacArthur Foundation said &#8220;[her] writings emerge as brilliant arguments for the belief that fiction in our time may be the best vehicle for involving readers in questions of morality and existence.&#8221; Ken and John explore philosophy in fiction with Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, author of The Mind-Body Problem and 36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6826/philosophy-in-fiction.mp3" length="47748331" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Philosophers think a lot about fiction. But do novelists think about philosophy? Do philosophers make good fictional characters? Can good stories be built around philosophical problems? When awarding its Genius prize to philosopher-novelist Rebecca Goldstein, the MacArthur Foundation said &#8220;[her] writings emerge as brilliant arguments for the belief that fiction in our time may be the best vehicle for involving readers in questions of morality and existence.&#8221; Ken and John explore philosophy in fiction with Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, author of The Mind-Body Problem and 36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/SVM12Nyg0TQ.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Philosophers think a lot about fiction. But do novelists think about philosophy? Do philosophers make good fictional characters? Can good stories be built around philosophical problems? When awarding its Genius prize to philosopher-novelist Rebecca Goldstein, the MacArthur Foundation said &#8220;[her] writings emerge as brilliant arguments for the belief that fiction in our time may be the best vehicle for involving readers in questions of morality and existence.&#8221; Ken and John explore philosophy in fiction with Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, author of The Mind-Body Problem and 36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/SVM12Nyg0TQ.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Paradoxes</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/paradoxes/</link>
	<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6441</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[A paradox is a persuasive argument that something, which we judge must be false, is true. Zeno&#8217;s Paradox, for example, is a convincing argument that it&#8217;s impossible to move. Paradoxes are valuable in philosophy because they help us become aware of forms of argument that are deceptively convincing yet logically fallacious. John and Ken are joined by Roy Sorensen from Dartmouth College, author of A Brief History of the Paradox, to consider what we can learn from paradoxes.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[A paradox is a persuasive argument that something, which we judge must be false, is true. Zeno&#8217;s Paradox, for example, is a convincing argument that it&#8217;s impossible to move. Paradoxes are valuable in philosophy because they help us become awa]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[A paradox is a persuasive argument that something, which we judge must be false, is true. Zeno&#8217;s Paradox, for example, is a convincing argument that it&#8217;s impossible to move. Paradoxes are valuable in philosophy because they help us become aware of forms of argument that are deceptively convincing yet logically fallacious. John and Ken are joined by Roy Sorensen from Dartmouth College, author of A Brief History of the Paradox, to consider what we can learn from paradoxes.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6441/paradoxes.mp3" length="48224130" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[A paradox is a persuasive argument that something, which we judge must be false, is true. Zeno&#8217;s Paradox, for example, is a convincing argument that it&#8217;s impossible to move. Paradoxes are valuable in philosophy because they help us become aware of forms of argument that are deceptively convincing yet logically fallacious. John and Ken are joined by Roy Sorensen from Dartmouth College, author of A Brief History of the Paradox, to consider what we can learn from paradoxes.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/5hdBNhVDbHQ.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[A paradox is a persuasive argument that something, which we judge must be false, is true. Zeno&#8217;s Paradox, for example, is a convincing argument that it&#8217;s impossible to move. Paradoxes are valuable in philosophy because they help us become aware of forms of argument that are deceptively convincing yet logically fallacious. John and Ken are joined by Roy Sorensen from Dartmouth College, author of A Brief History of the Paradox, to consider what we can learn from paradoxes.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/5hdBNhVDbHQ.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Nihilism and Meaning</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/nihilism-and-meaning/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6820</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The ancients believed in an enchanted universe – a universe suffused with meaning and purpose. But with the dawn of modernity, philosophy and science conspired together to disenchant the universe, to reveal it as entirely devoid of meaning and purpose. Must any rational and reflective person living in the 21st century accept such nihilism? Or is there a way to re-infuse the disenchanted universe with meaning and purpose? Join John and Ken for a thought-provoking discussion of nihilism and meaning with Hubert Dreyfus, co-author of All Things Shining: Reading the Western Classics to Find Meaning in a Secular Age.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The ancients believed in an enchanted universe – a universe suffused with meaning and purpose. But with the dawn of modernity, philosophy and science conspired together to disenchant the universe, to reveal it as entirely devoid of meaning and purpose. M]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The ancients believed in an enchanted universe – a universe suffused with meaning and purpose. But with the dawn of modernity, philosophy and science conspired together to disenchant the universe, to reveal it as entirely devoid of meaning and purpose. Must any rational and reflective person living in the 21st century accept such nihilism? Or is there a way to re-infuse the disenchanted universe with meaning and purpose? Join John and Ken for a thought-provoking discussion of nihilism and meaning with Hubert Dreyfus, co-author of All Things Shining: Reading the Western Classics to Find Meaning in a Secular Age.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6820/nihilism-and-meaning.mp3" length="23911296" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The ancients believed in an enchanted universe – a universe suffused with meaning and purpose. But with the dawn of modernity, philosophy and science conspired together to disenchant the universe, to reveal it as entirely devoid of meaning and purpose. Must any rational and reflective person living in the 21st century accept such nihilism? Or is there a way to re-infuse the disenchanted universe with meaning and purpose? Join John and Ken for a thought-provoking discussion of nihilism and meaning with Hubert Dreyfus, co-author of All Things Shining: Reading the Western Classics to Find Meaning in a Secular Age.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/G_1mtxb2jBE.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The ancients believed in an enchanted universe – a universe suffused with meaning and purpose. But with the dawn of modernity, philosophy and science conspired together to disenchant the universe, to reveal it as entirely devoid of meaning and purpose. Must any rational and reflective person living in the 21st century accept such nihilism? Or is there a way to re-infuse the disenchanted universe with meaning and purpose? Join John and Ken for a thought-provoking discussion of nihilism and meaning with Hubert Dreyfus, co-author of All Things Shining: Reading the Western Classics to Find Meaning in a Secular Age.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/G_1mtxb2jBE.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Kierkegaard</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/kierkegaard/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jan 2010 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6766</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Philosophy usually suggests a striving for rationality and objectivity. But the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard advocated subjectivity and the leap of faith—his conception of how an individual would believe in God or act in love. Kierkegaard, whose best-known work is Fear and Trembling, is often considered the father of Existentialism. Ken and John explore the life and thought of this passionate philosopher with Lanier Anderson from Stanford University.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Philosophy usually suggests a striving for rationality and objectivity. But the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard advocated subjectivity and the leap of faith—his conception of how an individual would believe in God or act in love. Kierkegaard, whose ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Philosophy usually suggests a striving for rationality and objectivity. But the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard advocated subjectivity and the leap of faith—his conception of how an individual would believe in God or act in love. Kierkegaard, whose best-known work is Fear and Trembling, is often considered the father of Existentialism. Ken and John explore the life and thought of this passionate philosopher with Lanier Anderson from Stanford University.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6766/kierkegaard.mp3" length="47643423" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Philosophy usually suggests a striving for rationality and objectivity. But the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard advocated subjectivity and the leap of faith—his conception of how an individual would believe in God or act in love. Kierkegaard, whose best-known work is Fear and Trembling, is often considered the father of Existentialism. Ken and John explore the life and thought of this passionate philosopher with Lanier Anderson from Stanford University.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/7ld2jENFWOg.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Philosophy usually suggests a striving for rationality and objectivity. But the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard advocated subjectivity and the leap of faith—his conception of how an individual would believe in God or act in love. Kierkegaard, whose best-known work is Fear and Trembling, is often considered the father of Existentialism. Ken and John explore the life and thought of this passionate philosopher with Lanier Anderson from Stanford University.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/7ld2jENFWOg.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Is It Wrong to Wreck the Earth?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/is-it-wrong-to-wreck-the-earth/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 03 Jan 2010 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6816</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[There are too many people, doing too much damage to the ecosystem, essentially guaranteeing that future generations will have a damaged Earth, and will have to invest incredible amounts of time, money and labor to repairing what can be repaired. But future generations are made up of people who don&#8217;t yet exist – what obligations do we have to them? And what obligations, if any, do we have to our fellow fauna and the flora we all depend on? Ken and John welcome environmental ethicist and celebrated author Kathleen Moore for a program recorded&#160;live&#160;at Oregon State University in Corvallis.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[There are too many people, doing too much damage to the ecosystem, essentially guaranteeing that future generations will have a damaged Earth, and will have to invest incredible amounts of time, money and labor to repairing what can be repaired. But futu]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[There are too many people, doing too much damage to the ecosystem, essentially guaranteeing that future generations will have a damaged Earth, and will have to invest incredible amounts of time, money and labor to repairing what can be repaired. But future generations are made up of people who don&#8217;t yet exist – what obligations do we have to them? And what obligations, if any, do we have to our fellow fauna and the flora we all depend on? Ken and John welcome environmental ethicist and celebrated author Kathleen Moore for a program recorded&#160;live&#160;at Oregon State University in Corvallis.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6816/is-it-wrong-to-wreck-the-earth.mp3" length="46459089" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[There are too many people, doing too much damage to the ecosystem, essentially guaranteeing that future generations will have a damaged Earth, and will have to invest incredible amounts of time, money and labor to repairing what can be repaired. But future generations are made up of people who don&#8217;t yet exist – what obligations do we have to them? And what obligations, if any, do we have to our fellow fauna and the flora we all depend on? Ken and John welcome environmental ethicist and celebrated author Kathleen Moore for a program recorded&#160;live&#160;at Oregon State University in Corvallis.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/aP_wt6Y-TII.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[There are too many people, doing too much damage to the ecosystem, essentially guaranteeing that future generations will have a damaged Earth, and will have to invest incredible amounts of time, money and labor to repairing what can be repaired. But future generations are made up of people who don&#8217;t yet exist – what obligations do we have to them? And what obligations, if any, do we have to our fellow fauna and the flora we all depend on? Ken and John welcome environmental ethicist and celebrated author Kathleen Moore for a program recorded&#160;live&#160;at Oregon State University in Corvallis.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/aP_wt6Y-TII.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>How Relevant Is Jesus?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/how-relevant-is-jesus/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6695</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Some people think Jesus was the son of God, though many who are skeptical about that still think he was a great moral teacher. But if we really knew what Jesus would think about moral issues that he didn&#8217;t confront while he lived – abortion, terrorism, euthanasia, gay marriage or the destruction of old-growth redwoods – would it be that helpful? Would his moral vision have any implications for these issues? John and Ken question the moral philosophy of Jesus and its contemporary relevance with Andrew Fiala, Director of the Ethics Center at Fresno State University and author of What Would Jesus Really Do? The Power and Limits of Jesus&#8217; Moral Teachings. This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the College of the Sequoias in Visalia, California.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Some people think Jesus was the son of God, though many who are skeptical about that still think he was a great moral teacher. But if we really knew what Jesus would think about moral issues that he didn&#8217;t confront while he lived – abortion, terror]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Some people think Jesus was the son of God, though many who are skeptical about that still think he was a great moral teacher. But if we really knew what Jesus would think about moral issues that he didn&#8217;t confront while he lived – abortion, terrorism, euthanasia, gay marriage or the destruction of old-growth redwoods – would it be that helpful? Would his moral vision have any implications for these issues? John and Ken question the moral philosophy of Jesus and its contemporary relevance with Andrew Fiala, Director of the Ethics Center at Fresno State University and author of What Would Jesus Really Do? The Power and Limits of Jesus&#8217; Moral Teachings. This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the College of the Sequoias in Visalia, California.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6695/how-relevant-is-jesus.mp3" length="48760320" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Some people think Jesus was the son of God, though many who are skeptical about that still think he was a great moral teacher. But if we really knew what Jesus would think about moral issues that he didn&#8217;t confront while he lived – abortion, terrorism, euthanasia, gay marriage or the destruction of old-growth redwoods – would it be that helpful? Would his moral vision have any implications for these issues? John and Ken question the moral philosophy of Jesus and its contemporary relevance with Andrew Fiala, Director of the Ethics Center at Fresno State University and author of What Would Jesus Really Do? The Power and Limits of Jesus&#8217; Moral Teachings. This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the College of the Sequoias in Visalia, California.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AL4LoRfco8s-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:48</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Some people think Jesus was the son of God, though many who are skeptical about that still think he was a great moral teacher. But if we really knew what Jesus would think about moral issues that he didn&#8217;t confront while he lived – abortion, terrorism, euthanasia, gay marriage or the destruction of old-growth redwoods – would it be that helpful? Would his moral vision have any implications for these issues? John and Ken question the moral philosophy of Jesus and its contemporary relevance with Andrew Fiala, Director of the Ethics Center at Fresno State University and author of What Would Jesus Really Do? The Power and Limits of Jesus&#8217; Moral Teachings. This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the College of the Sequoias in Visalia, California.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AL4LoRfco8s-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Philosophical Legacy of Darwin</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-philosophical-legacy-of-darwin/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 06 Dec 2009 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6746</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[More than a century and a half after On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin&#8217;s theory of evolution continues to shape our thinking, not only in biology, but also in psychology, economics, and all other attempts to understand human beings including philosophy.  Ken and John delve into Darwin&#8217;s theory and its implications for philosophy with Daniel Dennett from Tufts University, author of Darwin&#8217;s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[More than a century and a half after On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin&#8217;s theory of evolution continues to shape our thinking, not only in biology, but also in psychology, economics, and all other attempts to understand human beings including]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[More than a century and a half after On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin&#8217;s theory of evolution continues to shape our thinking, not only in biology, but also in psychology, economics, and all other attempts to understand human beings including philosophy.  Ken and John delve into Darwin&#8217;s theory and its implications for philosophy with Daniel Dennett from Tufts University, author of Darwin&#8217;s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6746/the-philosophical-legacy-of-darwin.mp3" length="48112953" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[More than a century and a half after On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin&#8217;s theory of evolution continues to shape our thinking, not only in biology, but also in psychology, economics, and all other attempts to understand human beings including philosophy.  Ken and John delve into Darwin&#8217;s theory and its implications for philosophy with Daniel Dennett from Tufts University, author of Darwin&#8217;s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/gltcYZZMOmw.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:07</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[More than a century and a half after On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin&#8217;s theory of evolution continues to shape our thinking, not only in biology, but also in psychology, economics, and all other attempts to understand human beings including philosophy.  Ken and John delve into Darwin&#8217;s theory and its implications for philosophy with Daniel Dennett from Tufts University, author of Darwin&#8217;s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/gltcYZZMOmw.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>From the Minds of Babies</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/from-the-minds-of-babies/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6808</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Consciousness, morality, meaning and truth have perplexed and puzzled generations upon generations of philosophers. But could it be that we have been looking in all the wrong places to solve these imponderable mysteries? Could the minds of babies hold the key to philosophical progress? John and Ken are joined by renowned developmental psychologist Alison Gopnik, author of The Philosophical Baby: What Children&#8217;s Minds Tell us about Truth, Love, and the Meaning of Life, for a program recorded in front of a live audience at the Marsh theatre in San Francisco.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Consciousness, morality, meaning and truth have perplexed and puzzled generations upon generations of philosophers. But could it be that we have been looking in all the wrong places to solve these imponderable mysteries? Could the minds of babies hold th]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Consciousness, morality, meaning and truth have perplexed and puzzled generations upon generations of philosophers. But could it be that we have been looking in all the wrong places to solve these imponderable mysteries? Could the minds of babies hold the key to philosophical progress? John and Ken are joined by renowned developmental psychologist Alison Gopnik, author of The Philosophical Baby: What Children&#8217;s Minds Tell us about Truth, Love, and the Meaning of Life, for a program recorded in front of a live audience at the Marsh theatre in San Francisco.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6808/from-the-minds-of-babies.mp3" length="48006791" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Consciousness, morality, meaning and truth have perplexed and puzzled generations upon generations of philosophers. But could it be that we have been looking in all the wrong places to solve these imponderable mysteries? Could the minds of babies hold the key to philosophical progress? John and Ken are joined by renowned developmental psychologist Alison Gopnik, author of The Philosophical Baby: What Children&#8217;s Minds Tell us about Truth, Love, and the Meaning of Life, for a program recorded in front of a live audience at the Marsh theatre in San Francisco.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/LgbU-0fnJjA.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Consciousness, morality, meaning and truth have perplexed and puzzled generations upon generations of philosophers. But could it be that we have been looking in all the wrong places to solve these imponderable mysteries? Could the minds of babies hold the key to philosophical progress? John and Ken are joined by renowned developmental psychologist Alison Gopnik, author of The Philosophical Baby: What Children&#8217;s Minds Tell us about Truth, Love, and the Meaning of Life, for a program recorded in front of a live audience at the Marsh theatre in San Francisco.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/LgbU-0fnJjA.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>200 and Counting</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/200-and-counting/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6425</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The program that questions everything – except your intelligence – started off questioning the conventional wisdom that there would be no audience for a radio show about philosophy.&#160; One hundred and ninety-nine programs later, Ken and John are hanging in there with large loyal audiences in the Bay Area and Oregon, outposts at over fifty stations across North America, and a huge internet following. &#160;In their 200th program Ken and John compile a list of the Top 10 most&#160;pressing philosophical issues for the 21st century with help from you, their listeners, and three past guests: Jenann Ismael, Brian Leiter, and Martha Nussbaum.&#160;]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The program that questions everything – except your intelligence – started off questioning the conventional wisdom that there would be no audience for a radio show about philosophy.&#160; One hundred and ninety-nine programs later, Ken and John are hangi]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The program that questions everything – except your intelligence – started off questioning the conventional wisdom that there would be no audience for a radio show about philosophy.&#160; One hundred and ninety-nine programs later, Ken and John are hanging in there with large loyal audiences in the Bay Area and Oregon, outposts at over fifty stations across North America, and a huge internet following. &#160;In their 200th program Ken and John compile a list of the Top 10 most&#160;pressing philosophical issues for the 21st century with help from you, their listeners, and three past guests: Jenann Ismael, Brian Leiter, and Martha Nussbaum.&#160;]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6425/200-and-counting.mp3" length="47271601" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The program that questions everything – except your intelligence – started off questioning the conventional wisdom that there would be no audience for a radio show about philosophy.&#160; One hundred and ninety-nine programs later, Ken and John are hanging in there with large loyal audiences in the Bay Area and Oregon, outposts at over fifty stations across North America, and a huge internet following. &#160;In their 200th program Ken and John compile a list of the Top 10 most&#160;pressing philosophical issues for the 21st century with help from you, their listeners, and three past guests: Jenann Ismael, Brian Leiter, and Martha Nussbaum.&#160;]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/x_d8ehW5U3A.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The program that questions everything – except your intelligence – started off questioning the conventional wisdom that there would be no audience for a radio show about philosophy.&#160; One hundred and ninety-nine programs later, Ken and John are hanging in there with large loyal audiences in the Bay Area and Oregon, outposts at over fifty stations across North America, and a huge internet following. &#160;In their 200th program Ken and John compile a list of the Top 10 most&#160;pressing philosophical issues for the 21st century with help from you, their listeners, and three past guests: Jenann Ismael, Brian Leiter, and Martha Nussbaum.&#160;]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/x_d8ehW5U3A.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Health Care: Right or Privilege?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/health-care-right-or-privilege/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 01 Nov 2009 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6798</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Do we have a right to healthcare, and to good high quality healthcare, in any precise and defensible sense?&#160; Or is the &#8220;right to healthcare&#8221; just a nice way to say it would be very nice if everyone had healthcare?&#160; John and Ken take a philosophical lens to the alleged right to healthcare and health insurance with Laurence Baker from the Center for Health Policy at Stanford University.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Do we have a right to healthcare, and to good high quality healthcare, in any precise and defensible sense?&#160; Or is the &#8220;right to healthcare&#8221; just a nice way to say it would be very nice if everyone had healthcare?&#160; John and Ken take]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Do we have a right to healthcare, and to good high quality healthcare, in any precise and defensible sense?&#160; Or is the &#8220;right to healthcare&#8221; just a nice way to say it would be very nice if everyone had healthcare?&#160; John and Ken take a philosophical lens to the alleged right to healthcare and health insurance with Laurence Baker from the Center for Health Policy at Stanford University.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6798/health-care-right-or-privilege.mp3" length="48069741" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Do we have a right to healthcare, and to good high quality healthcare, in any precise and defensible sense?&#160; Or is the &#8220;right to healthcare&#8221; just a nice way to say it would be very nice if everyone had healthcare?&#160; John and Ken take a philosophical lens to the alleged right to healthcare and health insurance with Laurence Baker from the Center for Health Policy at Stanford University.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/jeEyMCrP6I4.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Do we have a right to healthcare, and to good high quality healthcare, in any precise and defensible sense?&#160; Or is the &#8220;right to healthcare&#8221; just a nice way to say it would be very nice if everyone had healthcare?&#160; John and Ken take a philosophical lens to the alleged right to healthcare and health insurance with Laurence Baker from the Center for Health Policy at Stanford University.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/jeEyMCrP6I4.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Schizophrenia and the Mind</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/schizophrenia-and-mind/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 18 Oct 2009 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/schizophrenia-and-mind/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[To be human, philosophers have often said, is to be rational. But many people, for biological reasons, are clearly not rational. Schizophrenia is not only a malady, it is also a window on how the human mind works, and what it means to be human. Ken and John examine schizophrenia and its lessons for philosophers with John Campbell from UC Berkeley, author of Reference and Consciousness.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[To be human, philosophers have often said, is to be rational. But many people, for biological reasons, are clearly not rational. Schizophrenia is not only a malady, it is also a window on how the human mind works, and what it means to be human. Ken and J]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[To be human, philosophers have often said, is to be rational. But many people, for biological reasons, are clearly not rational. Schizophrenia is not only a malady, it is also a window on how the human mind works, and what it means to be human. Ken and John examine schizophrenia and its lessons for philosophers with John Campbell from UC Berkeley, author of Reference and Consciousness.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/479/schizophrenia-and-mind.mp3" length="47807007" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[To be human, philosophers have often said, is to be rational. But many people, for biological reasons, are clearly not rational. Schizophrenia is not only a malady, it is also a window on how the human mind works, and what it means to be human. Ken and John examine schizophrenia and its lessons for philosophers with John Campbell from UC Berkeley, author of Reference and Consciousness.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/schizophrenia-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[To be human, philosophers have often said, is to be rational. But many people, for biological reasons, are clearly not rational. Schizophrenia is not only a malady, it is also a window on how the human mind works, and what it means to be human. Ken and John examine schizophrenia and its lessons for philosophers with John Campbell from UC Berkeley, author of Reference and Consciousness.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/schizophrenia-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>War, Sacrifice, and the Media</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/war-sacrifice-and-the-media/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 04 Oct 2009 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6804</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The media often present a sanitized and one sided narrative of war, torture and other forms of violence that blots out the faces and silences the voices of many of the main victims: the refugees, the victims of unjust imprisonment and torture, and the immigrants virtually enslaved by their starvation and legal disenfranchisement.&#160; John and Ken probe the limits of the media representations of war and other forms of violence with renowned UC Berkeley professor Judith Butler, author of Frames of War: When Is Life Grievable?&#160; This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Marsh Theatre in San Francisco.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The media often present a sanitized and one sided narrative of war, torture and other forms of violence that blots out the faces and silences the voices of many of the main victims: the refugees, the victims of unjust imprisonment and torture, and the im]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The media often present a sanitized and one sided narrative of war, torture and other forms of violence that blots out the faces and silences the voices of many of the main victims: the refugees, the victims of unjust imprisonment and torture, and the immigrants virtually enslaved by their starvation and legal disenfranchisement.&#160; John and Ken probe the limits of the media representations of war and other forms of violence with renowned UC Berkeley professor Judith Butler, author of Frames of War: When Is Life Grievable?&#160; This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Marsh Theatre in San Francisco.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6804/war-sacrifice-and-the-media.mp3" length="48798406" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The media often present a sanitized and one sided narrative of war, torture and other forms of violence that blots out the faces and silences the voices of many of the main victims: the refugees, the victims of unjust imprisonment and torture, and the immigrants virtually enslaved by their starvation and legal disenfranchisement.&#160; John and Ken probe the limits of the media representations of war and other forms of violence with renowned UC Berkeley professor Judith Butler, author of Frames of War: When Is Life Grievable?&#160; This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Marsh Theatre in San Francisco.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/pjCZz5S60Wc.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The media often present a sanitized and one sided narrative of war, torture and other forms of violence that blots out the faces and silences the voices of many of the main victims: the refugees, the victims of unjust imprisonment and torture, and the immigrants virtually enslaved by their starvation and legal disenfranchisement.&#160; John and Ken probe the limits of the media representations of war and other forms of violence with renowned UC Berkeley professor Judith Butler, author of Frames of War: When Is Life Grievable?&#160; This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Marsh Theatre in San Francisco.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/pjCZz5S60Wc.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>What are Words Worth?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/what-are-words-worth/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 27 Sep 2009 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6789</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[How do words shape our minds?&#160; Do the French suffer because they have no word for berry or cozy?&#160; Do we suffer because we have no word for schadenfreude?&#160; Why do we adopt new words, or give old words new meaning?&#160; Can we eliminate a concept by renaming it, or eliminating the word for it?&#160; Ken and John welcome back Geoff Nunberg, author of The Years of Talking Dangerously, for a program recorded in front of a live audience at the Marsh theatre in San Francisco.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[How do words shape our minds?&#160; Do the French suffer because they have no word for berry or cozy?&#160; Do we suffer because we have no word for schadenfreude?&#160; Why do we adopt new words, or give old words new meaning?&#160; Can we eliminate a c]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[How do words shape our minds?&#160; Do the French suffer because they have no word for berry or cozy?&#160; Do we suffer because we have no word for schadenfreude?&#160; Why do we adopt new words, or give old words new meaning?&#160; Can we eliminate a concept by renaming it, or eliminating the word for it?&#160; Ken and John welcome back Geoff Nunberg, author of The Years of Talking Dangerously, for a program recorded in front of a live audience at the Marsh theatre in San Francisco.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6789/what-are-words-worth.mp3" length="49069500" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[How do words shape our minds?&#160; Do the French suffer because they have no word for berry or cozy?&#160; Do we suffer because we have no word for schadenfreude?&#160; Why do we adopt new words, or give old words new meaning?&#160; Can we eliminate a concept by renaming it, or eliminating the word for it?&#160; Ken and John welcome back Geoff Nunberg, author of The Years of Talking Dangerously, for a program recorded in front of a live audience at the Marsh theatre in San Francisco.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Y8GX3yPiwto.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[How do words shape our minds?&#160; Do the French suffer because they have no word for berry or cozy?&#160; Do we suffer because we have no word for schadenfreude?&#160; Why do we adopt new words, or give old words new meaning?&#160; Can we eliminate a concept by renaming it, or eliminating the word for it?&#160; Ken and John welcome back Geoff Nunberg, author of The Years of Talking Dangerously, for a program recorded in front of a live audience at the Marsh theatre in San Francisco.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Y8GX3yPiwto.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Philosophy Talk Highlights</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/philosophy-talk-highlights/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 20 Sep 2009 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6400</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s a Philosophy Talk highlight reel for the membership drive. In this special episode, John and Ken relive some favorite moments from the Philosophy Talk archives. Listen to cognitive scientist Margaret Boden on creativity, computers, and the emotions, Stanford University&#8217;s Kara Dansky on the nature of crime and punishment, Georgetown Provost James O&#8217;Donnell on the contemporary relevance of Saint Augustine, Stanford&#8217;s Michele Elam on biracial identities in the age of Obama, and Berkeley psychologist Alison Gopnik on her favorite philosophical movie. Plus selected commentaries from Ian Shoales, the Sixty-Second Philosopher.&#160;]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[It&#8217;s a Philosophy Talk highlight reel for the membership drive. In this special episode, John and Ken relive some favorite moments from the Philosophy Talk archives. Listen to cognitive scientist Margaret Boden on creativity, computers, and the emo]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[It&#8217;s a Philosophy Talk highlight reel for the membership drive. In this special episode, John and Ken relive some favorite moments from the Philosophy Talk archives. Listen to cognitive scientist Margaret Boden on creativity, computers, and the emotions, Stanford University&#8217;s Kara Dansky on the nature of crime and punishment, Georgetown Provost James O&#8217;Donnell on the contemporary relevance of Saint Augustine, Stanford&#8217;s Michele Elam on biracial identities in the age of Obama, and Berkeley psychologist Alison Gopnik on her favorite philosophical movie. Plus selected commentaries from Ian Shoales, the Sixty-Second Philosopher.&#160;]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6400/philosophy-talk-highlights.mp3" length="48967363" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[It&#8217;s a Philosophy Talk highlight reel for the membership drive. In this special episode, John and Ken relive some favorite moments from the Philosophy Talk archives. Listen to cognitive scientist Margaret Boden on creativity, computers, and the emotions, Stanford University&#8217;s Kara Dansky on the nature of crime and punishment, Georgetown Provost James O&#8217;Donnell on the contemporary relevance of Saint Augustine, Stanford&#8217;s Michele Elam on biracial identities in the age of Obama, and Berkeley psychologist Alison Gopnik on her favorite philosophical movie. Plus selected commentaries from Ian Shoales, the Sixty-Second Philosopher.&#160;]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/PT-website-rounded2.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s a Philosophy Talk highlight reel for the membership drive. In this special episode, John and Ken relive some favorite moments from the Philosophy Talk archives. Listen to cognitive scientist Margaret Boden on creativity, computers, and the emotions, Stanford University&#8217;s Kara Dansky on the nature of crime and punishment, Georgetown Provost James O&#8217;Donnell on the contemporary relevance of Saint Augustine, Stanford&#8217;s Michele Elam on biracial identities in the age of Obama, and Berkeley psychologist Alison Gopnik on her favorite philosophical movie. Plus selected commentaries from Ian Shoales, the Sixty-Second Philosopher.&#160;]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/PT-website-rounded2.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Postmodern Family</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-postmodern-family/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 13 Sep 2009 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6348</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What is a family, and what distinguishes it from other kinds of associations?&#160; Is the traditional role of the family merely grounded in custom and habit, or is there a deeper philosophical justification for it?&#160; How has the structure of families changed over the ages, and how does it differ across cultures?&#160; John and Ken examine the structure and function of the family in relation to morality, values, and evolution with Stanford sociologist Michael Rosenfeld, author of The Age of Independence: Interracial Unions, Same-Sex Unions and the Changing American Family.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What is a family, and what distinguishes it from other kinds of associations?&#160; Is the traditional role of the family merely grounded in custom and habit, or is there a deeper philosophical justification for it?&#160; How has the structure of familie]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What is a family, and what distinguishes it from other kinds of associations?&#160; Is the traditional role of the family merely grounded in custom and habit, or is there a deeper philosophical justification for it?&#160; How has the structure of families changed over the ages, and how does it differ across cultures?&#160; John and Ken examine the structure and function of the family in relation to morality, values, and evolution with Stanford sociologist Michael Rosenfeld, author of The Age of Independence: Interracial Unions, Same-Sex Unions and the Changing American Family.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6348/the-postmodern-family.mp3" length="42178769" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What is a family, and what distinguishes it from other kinds of associations?&#160; Is the traditional role of the family merely grounded in custom and habit, or is there a deeper philosophical justification for it?&#160; How has the structure of families changed over the ages, and how does it differ across cultures?&#160; John and Ken examine the structure and function of the family in relation to morality, values, and evolution with Stanford sociologist Michael Rosenfeld, author of The Age of Independence: Interracial Unions, Same-Sex Unions and the Changing American Family.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Modern-Family-Season-10.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What is a family, and what distinguishes it from other kinds of associations?&#160; Is the traditional role of the family merely grounded in custom and habit, or is there a deeper philosophical justification for it?&#160; How has the structure of families changed over the ages, and how does it differ across cultures?&#160; John and Ken examine the structure and function of the family in relation to morality, values, and evolution with Stanford sociologist Michael Rosenfeld, author of The Age of Independence: Interracial Unions, Same-Sex Unions and the Changing American Family.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Modern-Family-Season-10.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Pornography</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/pornography/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6623</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Is pornography an art form, or simply anything that depicts genitals in action?&#160; Where does mere eroticism end and pornography begin?&#160; In the internet age, pornography appears to have become not only more accessible but also more acceptable in American society – is this a welcome loosening up of a conservative tradition, or is it the path to moral degradation?&#160; John and Ken probe the philosophical implications of pornography with Rae Langton, author of Sexual Solipsism: Philosophical Essays on Pornography and Objectification.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Is pornography an art form, or simply anything that depicts genitals in action?&#160; Where does mere eroticism end and pornography begin?&#160; In the internet age, pornography appears to have become not only more accessible but also more acceptable in ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Is pornography an art form, or simply anything that depicts genitals in action?&#160; Where does mere eroticism end and pornography begin?&#160; In the internet age, pornography appears to have become not only more accessible but also more acceptable in American society – is this a welcome loosening up of a conservative tradition, or is it the path to moral degradation?&#160; John and Ken probe the philosophical implications of pornography with Rae Langton, author of Sexual Solipsism: Philosophical Essays on Pornography and Objectification.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6623/pornography.mp3" length="23652519" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Is pornography an art form, or simply anything that depicts genitals in action?&#160; Where does mere eroticism end and pornography begin?&#160; In the internet age, pornography appears to have become not only more accessible but also more acceptable in American society – is this a welcome loosening up of a conservative tradition, or is it the path to moral degradation?&#160; John and Ken probe the philosophical implications of pornography with Rae Langton, author of Sexual Solipsism: Philosophical Essays on Pornography and Objectification.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/X2XEJst50Dc.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Is pornography an art form, or simply anything that depicts genitals in action?&#160; Where does mere eroticism end and pornography begin?&#160; In the internet age, pornography appears to have become not only more accessible but also more acceptable in American society – is this a welcome loosening up of a conservative tradition, or is it the path to moral degradation?&#160; John and Ken probe the philosophical implications of pornography with Rae Langton, author of Sexual Solipsism: Philosophical Essays on Pornography and Objectification.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/X2XEJst50Dc.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Money and Morality</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/money-and-morality/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 16 Aug 2009 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6594</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Does our system of credit and money make upward social mobility possible for anyone willing to work hard?&#160; Or is it just a big Ponzi scheme?&#160; Are corporations the essential structures necessary to harness the capital, energy, intelligence, and leadership on a scale large enough to make and market the inventions that define modern life?&#160; Or are they just devices for evading responsibility and rewarding greed?&#160;&#160; Ken and John put these questions and more to Neil Malhotra from the Stanford Graduate School of Business, in a program recorded in front of a live audience at the Classic Residence by Hyatt in Palo Alto, California.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Does our system of credit and money make upward social mobility possible for anyone willing to work hard?&#160; Or is it just a big Ponzi scheme?&#160; Are corporations the essential structures necessary to harness the capital, energy, intelligence, and ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Does our system of credit and money make upward social mobility possible for anyone willing to work hard?&#160; Or is it just a big Ponzi scheme?&#160; Are corporations the essential structures necessary to harness the capital, energy, intelligence, and leadership on a scale large enough to make and market the inventions that define modern life?&#160; Or are they just devices for evading responsibility and rewarding greed?&#160;&#160; Ken and John put these questions and more to Neil Malhotra from the Stanford Graduate School of Business, in a program recorded in front of a live audience at the Classic Residence by Hyatt in Palo Alto, California.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6594/money-and-morality.mp3" length="47284140" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Does our system of credit and money make upward social mobility possible for anyone willing to work hard?&#160; Or is it just a big Ponzi scheme?&#160; Are corporations the essential structures necessary to harness the capital, energy, intelligence, and leadership on a scale large enough to make and market the inventions that define modern life?&#160; Or are they just devices for evading responsibility and rewarding greed?&#160;&#160; Ken and John put these questions and more to Neil Malhotra from the Stanford Graduate School of Business, in a program recorded in front of a live audience at the Classic Residence by Hyatt in Palo Alto, California.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/WWqDeQj-5c.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Does our system of credit and money make upward social mobility possible for anyone willing to work hard?&#160; Or is it just a big Ponzi scheme?&#160; Are corporations the essential structures necessary to harness the capital, energy, intelligence, and leadership on a scale large enough to make and market the inventions that define modern life?&#160; Or are they just devices for evading responsibility and rewarding greed?&#160;&#160; Ken and John put these questions and more to Neil Malhotra from the Stanford Graduate School of Business, in a program recorded in front of a live audience at the Classic Residence by Hyatt in Palo Alto, California.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/WWqDeQj-5c.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Prison System</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-prison-system/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 26 Jul 2009 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6618</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[As of June 30, 2007, the prisons and jails in the land of the free held 2,299,116 inmates; one in every 31 American adults is in prison, on parole, or on probation.&#160; The state of California has more people in jail than China does, and this year expects to spend more on prisons than on higher education.&#160; Is something wrong with this picture?&#160; John and Ken explore the nature of incarceration and rehabilitation with Kara Dansky, Executive Director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[As of June 30, 2007, the prisons and jails in the land of the free held 2,299,116 inmates; one in every 31 American adults is in prison, on parole, or on probation.&#160; The state of California has more people in jail than China does, and this year expe]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[As of June 30, 2007, the prisons and jails in the land of the free held 2,299,116 inmates; one in every 31 American adults is in prison, on parole, or on probation.&#160; The state of California has more people in jail than China does, and this year expects to spend more on prisons than on higher education.&#160; Is something wrong with this picture?&#160; John and Ken explore the nature of incarceration and rehabilitation with Kara Dansky, Executive Director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6618/the-prison-system.mp3" length="47602207" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[As of June 30, 2007, the prisons and jails in the land of the free held 2,299,116 inmates; one in every 31 American adults is in prison, on parole, or on probation.&#160; The state of California has more people in jail than China does, and this year expects to spend more on prisons than on higher education.&#160; Is something wrong with this picture?&#160; John and Ken explore the nature of incarceration and rehabilitation with Kara Dansky, Executive Director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/ha7Lk2wOUXc.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[As of June 30, 2007, the prisons and jails in the land of the free held 2,299,116 inmates; one in every 31 American adults is in prison, on parole, or on probation.&#160; The state of California has more people in jail than China does, and this year expects to spend more on prisons than on higher education.&#160; Is something wrong with this picture?&#160; John and Ken explore the nature of incarceration and rehabilitation with Kara Dansky, Executive Director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/ha7Lk2wOUXc.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Social Networking</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/social-networking/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jul 2009 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6604</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[From online bulletin boards at the dawn of the internet to the modern mammoths of Facebook and MySpace, people have used communications technology to associate in innovative ways.&#160; How do our old-fashioned values fit in to our new digital playgrounds?&#160; John and Ken network with Malcolm Parks from the University of Washington, author of Personal Relationships and Personal Networks, for a program recorded in front of a live audience at Pacific University in Forest Grove, Oregon.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[From online bulletin boards at the dawn of the internet to the modern mammoths of Facebook and MySpace, people have used communications technology to associate in innovative ways.&#160; How do our old-fashioned values fit in to our new digital playground]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[From online bulletin boards at the dawn of the internet to the modern mammoths of Facebook and MySpace, people have used communications technology to associate in innovative ways.&#160; How do our old-fashioned values fit in to our new digital playgrounds?&#160; John and Ken network with Malcolm Parks from the University of Washington, author of Personal Relationships and Personal Networks, for a program recorded in front of a live audience at Pacific University in Forest Grove, Oregon.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6604/social-networking.mp3" length="48981890" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[From online bulletin boards at the dawn of the internet to the modern mammoths of Facebook and MySpace, people have used communications technology to associate in innovative ways.&#160; How do our old-fashioned values fit in to our new digital playgrounds?&#160; John and Ken network with Malcolm Parks from the University of Washington, author of Personal Relationships and Personal Networks, for a program recorded in front of a live audience at Pacific University in Forest Grove, Oregon.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2wMv1qYi66M.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[From online bulletin boards at the dawn of the internet to the modern mammoths of Facebook and MySpace, people have used communications technology to associate in innovative ways.&#160; How do our old-fashioned values fit in to our new digital playgrounds?&#160; John and Ken network with Malcolm Parks from the University of Washington, author of Personal Relationships and Personal Networks, for a program recorded in front of a live audience at Pacific University in Forest Grove, Oregon.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2wMv1qYi66M.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Summer Reading List 2009</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/summer-reading-list-2009/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 14 Jun 2009 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6275</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Even if you&#8217;re not going to Biarritz for the summer as usual, you can relax in the sun and read.&#160; There are a lot of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your Summer Reading.&#160; Join Ken and John to share some of the philosophically-minded reading on your list for this summer.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Even if you&#8217;re not going to Biarritz for the summer as usual, you can relax in the sun and read.&#160; There are a lot of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your Summer Reading.&#160; Join Ken and John ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Even if you&#8217;re not going to Biarritz for the summer as usual, you can relax in the sun and read.&#160; There are a lot of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your Summer Reading.&#160; Join Ken and John to share some of the philosophically-minded reading on your list for this summer.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6275/summer-reading-list-2009.mp3" length="48038138" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Even if you&#8217;re not going to Biarritz for the summer as usual, you can relax in the sun and read.&#160; There are a lot of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your Summer Reading.&#160; Join Ken and John to share some of the philosophically-minded reading on your list for this summer.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture31.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Even if you&#8217;re not going to Biarritz for the summer as usual, you can relax in the sun and read.&#160; There are a lot of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your Summer Reading.&#160; Join Ken and John to share some of the philosophically-minded reading on your list for this summer.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture31.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Mind and the World</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-mind-and-the-world/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 07 Jun 2009 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6265</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What kinds of contact can the mind have with the world?&#160; Can we know how the world is in itself, or can we only know shadows of the world in our own minds?&#160; Are we trapped behind a veil of our own mental states?&#160; Is there a world outside my mind – or our minds – at all?&#160; John and Ken tackle the big questions of perception, the external world, and the nature of reality, with Howard Robinson from the Central European University, author of Perception.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What kinds of contact can the mind have with the world?&#160; Can we know how the world is in itself, or can we only know shadows of the world in our own minds?&#160; Are we trapped behind a veil of our own mental states?&#160; Is there a world outside m]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What kinds of contact can the mind have with the world?&#160; Can we know how the world is in itself, or can we only know shadows of the world in our own minds?&#160; Are we trapped behind a veil of our own mental states?&#160; Is there a world outside my mind – or our minds – at all?&#160; John and Ken tackle the big questions of perception, the external world, and the nature of reality, with Howard Robinson from the Central European University, author of Perception.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6265/the-mind-and-the-world.mp3" length="48194873" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What kinds of contact can the mind have with the world?&#160; Can we know how the world is in itself, or can we only know shadows of the world in our own minds?&#160; Are we trapped behind a veil of our own mental states?&#160; Is there a world outside my mind – or our minds – at all?&#160; John and Ken tackle the big questions of perception, the external world, and the nature of reality, with Howard Robinson from the Central European University, author of Perception.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture30.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What kinds of contact can the mind have with the world?&#160; Can we know how the world is in itself, or can we only know shadows of the world in our own minds?&#160; Are we trapped behind a veil of our own mental states?&#160; Is there a world outside my mind – or our minds – at all?&#160; John and Ken tackle the big questions of perception, the external world, and the nature of reality, with Howard Robinson from the Central European University, author of Perception.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture30.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Lincoln as a Philosopher</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/lincoln-as-a-philosopher/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 17 May 2009 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6686</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[More than any other President, Abraham Lincoln is known for his words, from the Lincoln-Douglass debates to the second inaugural address, as well as his deeds.  What was Lincoln&#8217;s basic philosophy, and did it change over the course of his Presidency?  Ken and John welcome back Chicago Public Radio&#8217;s Resident Philosopher, Al Gini, to celebrate the bicentennial of Lincoln, the man and his ideas.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[More than any other President, Abraham Lincoln is known for his words, from the Lincoln-Douglass debates to the second inaugural address, as well as his deeds.  What was Lincoln&#8217;s basic philosophy, and did it change over the course of his Presidenc]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[More than any other President, Abraham Lincoln is known for his words, from the Lincoln-Douglass debates to the second inaugural address, as well as his deeds.  What was Lincoln&#8217;s basic philosophy, and did it change over the course of his Presidency?  Ken and John welcome back Chicago Public Radio&#8217;s Resident Philosopher, Al Gini, to celebrate the bicentennial of Lincoln, the man and his ideas.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6686/lincoln-as-a-philosopher.mp3" length="48984398" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[More than any other President, Abraham Lincoln is known for his words, from the Lincoln-Douglass debates to the second inaugural address, as well as his deeds.  What was Lincoln&#8217;s basic philosophy, and did it change over the course of his Presidency?  Ken and John welcome back Chicago Public Radio&#8217;s Resident Philosopher, Al Gini, to celebrate the bicentennial of Lincoln, the man and his ideas.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/ULk3BtN4WLc.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>51:02</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[More than any other President, Abraham Lincoln is known for his words, from the Lincoln-Douglass debates to the second inaugural address, as well as his deeds.  What was Lincoln&#8217;s basic philosophy, and did it change over the course of his Presidency?  Ken and John welcome back Chicago Public Radio&#8217;s Resident Philosopher, Al Gini, to celebrate the bicentennial of Lincoln, the man and his ideas.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/ULk3BtN4WLc.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Worship</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/worship/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 10 May 2009 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6608</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Worship is the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for something.&#160; The attitude of worship towards God or gods or ancestors is a universal of human culture.&#160; But why do we worship?&#160; Do objects of worship need to fulfill certain criteria?&#160; Does worship play a positive or negative role in human culture?&#160; Is it clear that a perfect, omnipotent and omniscient God truly wants to be worshipped?&#160; Some pagan religions worship the earth, or the aspects of nature that make human life possible and rewarding.&#160; Does this make more sense than worshipping an imperfect God?&#160; The Philosophers express their reverence with Daniel Speak from Loyola Marymount University.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Worship is the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for something.&#160; The attitude of worship towards God or gods or ancestors is a universal of human culture.&#160; But why do we worship?&#160; Do objects of worship need to fulfill certai]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Worship is the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for something.&#160; The attitude of worship towards God or gods or ancestors is a universal of human culture.&#160; But why do we worship?&#160; Do objects of worship need to fulfill certain criteria?&#160; Does worship play a positive or negative role in human culture?&#160; Is it clear that a perfect, omnipotent and omniscient God truly wants to be worshipped?&#160; Some pagan religions worship the earth, or the aspects of nature that make human life possible and rewarding.&#160; Does this make more sense than worshipping an imperfect God?&#160; The Philosophers express their reverence with Daniel Speak from Loyola Marymount University.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6608/worship.mp3" length="47145377" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Worship is the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for something.&#160; The attitude of worship towards God or gods or ancestors is a universal of human culture.&#160; But why do we worship?&#160; Do objects of worship need to fulfill certain criteria?&#160; Does worship play a positive or negative role in human culture?&#160; Is it clear that a perfect, omnipotent and omniscient God truly wants to be worshipped?&#160; Some pagan religions worship the earth, or the aspects of nature that make human life possible and rewarding.&#160; Does this make more sense than worshipping an imperfect God?&#160; The Philosophers express their reverence with Daniel Speak from Loyola Marymount University.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/5rdeux60k2k.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Worship is the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for something.&#160; The attitude of worship towards God or gods or ancestors is a universal of human culture.&#160; But why do we worship?&#160; Do objects of worship need to fulfill certain criteria?&#160; Does worship play a positive or negative role in human culture?&#160; Is it clear that a perfect, omnipotent and omniscient God truly wants to be worshipped?&#160; Some pagan religions worship the earth, or the aspects of nature that make human life possible and rewarding.&#160; Does this make more sense than worshipping an imperfect God?&#160; The Philosophers express their reverence with Daniel Speak from Loyola Marymount University.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/5rdeux60k2k.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Beliefs Gone Wild</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/beliefs-gone-wild/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 03 May 2009 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6613</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Our brains evolved on the African savannah, but are now expected to deal with complex statistical information and other intricate concepts every day.&#160; The result: beliefs gone wild.&#160; Ken and John reveal the traps that the mismatch between our brains and the world we live in pose for ordinary mortals with their guest, The Undercover Philosopher, Michael Philips.&#160; This program was recorded&#160;live&#160;at the Illahee Institute in Portland, Oregon.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Our brains evolved on the African savannah, but are now expected to deal with complex statistical information and other intricate concepts every day.&#160; The result: beliefs gone wild.&#160; Ken and John reveal the traps that the mismatch between our b]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Our brains evolved on the African savannah, but are now expected to deal with complex statistical information and other intricate concepts every day.&#160; The result: beliefs gone wild.&#160; Ken and John reveal the traps that the mismatch between our brains and the world we live in pose for ordinary mortals with their guest, The Undercover Philosopher, Michael Philips.&#160; This program was recorded&#160;live&#160;at the Illahee Institute in Portland, Oregon.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6613/beliefs-gone-wild.mp3" length="48759954" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Our brains evolved on the African savannah, but are now expected to deal with complex statistical information and other intricate concepts every day.&#160; The result: beliefs gone wild.&#160; Ken and John reveal the traps that the mismatch between our brains and the world we live in pose for ordinary mortals with their guest, The Undercover Philosopher, Michael Philips.&#160; This program was recorded&#160;live&#160;at the Illahee Institute in Portland, Oregon.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/1dFL2A3UqZk.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Our brains evolved on the African savannah, but are now expected to deal with complex statistical information and other intricate concepts every day.&#160; The result: beliefs gone wild.&#160; Ken and John reveal the traps that the mismatch between our brains and the world we live in pose for ordinary mortals with their guest, The Undercover Philosopher, Michael Philips.&#160; This program was recorded&#160;live&#160;at the Illahee Institute in Portland, Oregon.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/1dFL2A3UqZk.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Desire</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/desire/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Apr 2009 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6599</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[There are two ways to have your desires fulfilled: you can either get what you want (if you&#8217;re lucky enough) or change your desires.  If we can fit our desires to what we have, we&#8217;re likely to be a lot happier.  So why do we desire things that are out of reach?  Why do we have desires that make us unhappy?  And what can we do about it?  John and Ken explore the relationship between desire and happiness with William Irvine, author of On Desire: Why We Want What We Want, in a program recorded live at the Illahee Institute in Portland, Oregon.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[There are two ways to have your desires fulfilled: you can either get what you want (if you&#8217;re lucky enough) or change your desires.  If we can fit our desires to what we have, we&#8217;re likely to be a lot happier.  So why do we desire things tha]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[There are two ways to have your desires fulfilled: you can either get what you want (if you&#8217;re lucky enough) or change your desires.  If we can fit our desires to what we have, we&#8217;re likely to be a lot happier.  So why do we desire things that are out of reach?  Why do we have desires that make us unhappy?  And what can we do about it?  John and Ken explore the relationship between desire and happiness with William Irvine, author of On Desire: Why We Want What We Want, in a program recorded live at the Illahee Institute in Portland, Oregon.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6599/desire.mp3" length="48408868" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[There are two ways to have your desires fulfilled: you can either get what you want (if you&#8217;re lucky enough) or change your desires.  If we can fit our desires to what we have, we&#8217;re likely to be a lot happier.  So why do we desire things that are out of reach?  Why do we have desires that make us unhappy?  And what can we do about it?  John and Ken explore the relationship between desire and happiness with William Irvine, author of On Desire: Why We Want What We Want, in a program recorded live at the Illahee Institute in Portland, Oregon.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/7oZwEzvnjw8.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[There are two ways to have your desires fulfilled: you can either get what you want (if you&#8217;re lucky enough) or change your desires.  If we can fit our desires to what we have, we&#8217;re likely to be a lot happier.  So why do we desire things that are out of reach?  Why do we have desires that make us unhappy?  And what can we do about it?  John and Ken explore the relationship between desire and happiness with William Irvine, author of On Desire: Why We Want What We Want, in a program recorded live at the Illahee Institute in Portland, Oregon.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/7oZwEzvnjw8.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Too Much Information</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/too-much-information/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 05 Apr 2009 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6574</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[“We’re just never going to catch up,” writes David Weinberger in Everything Is Miscellaneous.&#160; That is, we&#8217;re never going to catch up with the flood of information that is thrown at us by modern technology, especially the internet.&#160; We can never get all of our email filed, our digital pictures labeled, our calendars updated, our computers organized.&#160; Is the problem too much information, or out-of-date expectations about how information should be organized?&#160; Ken and John try to make sense of the flood of information with author and philosopher David Weinberger.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[“We’re just never going to catch up,” writes David Weinberger in Everything Is Miscellaneous.&#160; That is, we&#8217;re never going to catch up with the flood of information that is thrown at us by modern technology, especially the internet.&#160; We ca]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[“We’re just never going to catch up,” writes David Weinberger in Everything Is Miscellaneous.&#160; That is, we&#8217;re never going to catch up with the flood of information that is thrown at us by modern technology, especially the internet.&#160; We can never get all of our email filed, our digital pictures labeled, our calendars updated, our computers organized.&#160; Is the problem too much information, or out-of-date expectations about how information should be organized?&#160; Ken and John try to make sense of the flood of information with author and philosopher David Weinberger.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6574/too-much-information.mp3" length="47629792" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[“We’re just never going to catch up,” writes David Weinberger in Everything Is Miscellaneous.&#160; That is, we&#8217;re never going to catch up with the flood of information that is thrown at us by modern technology, especially the internet.&#160; We can never get all of our email filed, our digital pictures labeled, our calendars updated, our computers organized.&#160; Is the problem too much information, or out-of-date expectations about how information should be organized?&#160; Ken and John try to make sense of the flood of information with author and philosopher David Weinberger.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/4RJxt56LTpQ.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[“We’re just never going to catch up,” writes David Weinberger in Everything Is Miscellaneous.&#160; That is, we&#8217;re never going to catch up with the flood of information that is thrown at us by modern technology, especially the internet.&#160; We can never get all of our email filed, our digital pictures labeled, our calendars updated, our computers organized.&#160; Is the problem too much information, or out-of-date expectations about how information should be organized?&#160; Ken and John try to make sense of the flood of information with author and philosopher David Weinberger.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/4RJxt56LTpQ.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Root of All Evil?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-root-of-all-evil/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2009 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6245</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Money makes the world go around.&#160; But what sort of thing is money? &#160;Bits of paper and metal?&#160; An elaborate set of IOUs to be redeemed with more IOUs?&#160; An abstract accounting tool?&#160; If money is real, how can billions disappear on the stock market?&#160; And where does it go?&#160; Ken and John follow the money – its nature, its utility, and whether it is the root of all evil – with Stanford Economist Alex Gould.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Money makes the world go around.&#160; But what sort of thing is money? &#160;Bits of paper and metal?&#160; An elaborate set of IOUs to be redeemed with more IOUs?&#160; An abstract accounting tool?&#160; If money is real, how can billions disappear on ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Money makes the world go around.&#160; But what sort of thing is money? &#160;Bits of paper and metal?&#160; An elaborate set of IOUs to be redeemed with more IOUs?&#160; An abstract accounting tool?&#160; If money is real, how can billions disappear on the stock market?&#160; And where does it go?&#160; Ken and John follow the money – its nature, its utility, and whether it is the root of all evil – with Stanford Economist Alex Gould.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6245/the-root-of-all-evil.mp3" length="43680496" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Money makes the world go around.&#160; But what sort of thing is money? &#160;Bits of paper and metal?&#160; An elaborate set of IOUs to be redeemed with more IOUs?&#160; An abstract accounting tool?&#160; If money is real, how can billions disappear on the stock market?&#160; And where does it go?&#160; Ken and John follow the money – its nature, its utility, and whether it is the root of all evil – with Stanford Economist Alex Gould.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/dollar-551932_960_720.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Money makes the world go around.&#160; But what sort of thing is money? &#160;Bits of paper and metal?&#160; An elaborate set of IOUs to be redeemed with more IOUs?&#160; An abstract accounting tool?&#160; If money is real, how can billions disappear on the stock market?&#160; And where does it go?&#160; Ken and John follow the money – its nature, its utility, and whether it is the root of all evil – with Stanford Economist Alex Gould.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/dollar-551932_960_720.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Copyright Wars</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-copyright-wars/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 22 Mar 2009 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6237</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Today there is an entire generation of people who have never paid for music.&#160; From Napster to YouTube, some of our most innovative and inventive young people have been the targets of lawsuits by entertainment industry lawyers for violating copyright laws.&#160; What are the ideas behind copyright protection?&#160; What is the philosophical and practical basis of copyright?&#160; Can rethinking the issues suggest the form of a truce between generations?&#160; Ken and John sample the copyright debate with Larry Lessig, author of Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Today there is an entire generation of people who have never paid for music.&#160; From Napster to YouTube, some of our most innovative and inventive young people have been the targets of lawsuits by entertainment industry lawyers for violating copyright]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Today there is an entire generation of people who have never paid for music.&#160; From Napster to YouTube, some of our most innovative and inventive young people have been the targets of lawsuits by entertainment industry lawyers for violating copyright laws.&#160; What are the ideas behind copyright protection?&#160; What is the philosophical and practical basis of copyright?&#160; Can rethinking the issues suggest the form of a truce between generations?&#160; Ken and John sample the copyright debate with Larry Lessig, author of Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6237/the-copyright-wars.mp3" length="39275206" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Today there is an entire generation of people who have never paid for music.&#160; From Napster to YouTube, some of our most innovative and inventive young people have been the targets of lawsuits by entertainment industry lawyers for violating copyright laws.&#160; What are the ideas behind copyright protection?&#160; What is the philosophical and practical basis of copyright?&#160; Can rethinking the issues suggest the form of a truce between generations?&#160; Ken and John sample the copyright debate with Larry Lessig, author of Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/copyright-wars.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Today there is an entire generation of people who have never paid for music.&#160; From Napster to YouTube, some of our most innovative and inventive young people have been the targets of lawsuits by entertainment industry lawyers for violating copyright laws.&#160; What are the ideas behind copyright protection?&#160; What is the philosophical and practical basis of copyright?&#160; Can rethinking the issues suggest the form of a truce between generations?&#160; Ken and John sample the copyright debate with Larry Lessig, author of Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/copyright-wars.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Challenges to Free Will</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/challenges-to-free-will/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2009 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6588</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[We seem to be able to decide our behavior for ourselves – what we do is up to us.&#160; But if everything that we do can be explained by physics, does this leave room for freedom?&#160; Are all of our actions pre-determined?&#160; Are we slaves to fate?&#160; Is freedom compatible with determinism, or does science teach us that we&#8217;re nothing but complex machines, following out a complicated program that a good enough physicist could have predicted centuries ago?&#160; And what are the implications for morality and responsibility?&#160; John and Ken exercise their will with Manuel Vargas from the University of San Francisco.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[We seem to be able to decide our behavior for ourselves – what we do is up to us.&#160; But if everything that we do can be explained by physics, does this leave room for freedom?&#160; Are all of our actions pre-determined?&#160; Are we slaves to fate?&]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[We seem to be able to decide our behavior for ourselves – what we do is up to us.&#160; But if everything that we do can be explained by physics, does this leave room for freedom?&#160; Are all of our actions pre-determined?&#160; Are we slaves to fate?&#160; Is freedom compatible with determinism, or does science teach us that we&#8217;re nothing but complex machines, following out a complicated program that a good enough physicist could have predicted centuries ago?&#160; And what are the implications for morality and responsibility?&#160; John and Ken exercise their will with Manuel Vargas from the University of San Francisco.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6588/challenges-to-free-will.mp3" length="47810769" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[We seem to be able to decide our behavior for ourselves – what we do is up to us.&#160; But if everything that we do can be explained by physics, does this leave room for freedom?&#160; Are all of our actions pre-determined?&#160; Are we slaves to fate?&#160; Is freedom compatible with determinism, or does science teach us that we&#8217;re nothing but complex machines, following out a complicated program that a good enough physicist could have predicted centuries ago?&#160; And what are the implications for morality and responsibility?&#160; John and Ken exercise their will with Manuel Vargas from the University of San Francisco.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/feu-Zk9lHpM.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[We seem to be able to decide our behavior for ourselves – what we do is up to us.&#160; But if everything that we do can be explained by physics, does this leave room for freedom?&#160; Are all of our actions pre-determined?&#160; Are we slaves to fate?&#160; Is freedom compatible with determinism, or does science teach us that we&#8217;re nothing but complex machines, following out a complicated program that a good enough physicist could have predicted centuries ago?&#160; And what are the implications for morality and responsibility?&#160; John and Ken exercise their will with Manuel Vargas from the University of San Francisco.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/feu-Zk9lHpM.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Biracial Identities</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/biracial-identities/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 01 Mar 2009 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6583</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Many people identify strongly with the ethnic or racial group to which they belong – as Jews, or African-Americans, or Latinos.&#160; But to which groups does a person truly belong?&#160; President Obama has a white mother from Kansas and an African father from Kenya.&#160; Why is he seen as our first African-American President, rather than our forty-fourth white president?&#160; How does racial identity work?&#160; Is such identification a positive or a negative factor in a person&#8217;s life?&#160; Must we choose among our potential identities?&#160; Ken and John discuss racial and bi-racial identity with Michele Elam from Stanford University, author of Mixed Race in the New Millennium.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Many people identify strongly with the ethnic or racial group to which they belong – as Jews, or African-Americans, or Latinos.&#160; But to which groups does a person truly belong?&#160; President Obama has a white mother from Kansas and an African fath]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Many people identify strongly with the ethnic or racial group to which they belong – as Jews, or African-Americans, or Latinos.&#160; But to which groups does a person truly belong?&#160; President Obama has a white mother from Kansas and an African father from Kenya.&#160; Why is he seen as our first African-American President, rather than our forty-fourth white president?&#160; How does racial identity work?&#160; Is such identification a positive or a negative factor in a person&#8217;s life?&#160; Must we choose among our potential identities?&#160; Ken and John discuss racial and bi-racial identity with Michele Elam from Stanford University, author of Mixed Race in the New Millennium.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6583/biracial-identities.mp3" length="23938944" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Many people identify strongly with the ethnic or racial group to which they belong – as Jews, or African-Americans, or Latinos.&#160; But to which groups does a person truly belong?&#160; President Obama has a white mother from Kansas and an African father from Kenya.&#160; Why is he seen as our first African-American President, rather than our forty-fourth white president?&#160; How does racial identity work?&#160; Is such identification a positive or a negative factor in a person&#8217;s life?&#160; Must we choose among our potential identities?&#160; Ken and John discuss racial and bi-racial identity with Michele Elam from Stanford University, author of Mixed Race in the New Millennium.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/bD-frTXzyLI.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Many people identify strongly with the ethnic or racial group to which they belong – as Jews, or African-Americans, or Latinos.&#160; But to which groups does a person truly belong?&#160; President Obama has a white mother from Kansas and an African father from Kenya.&#160; Why is he seen as our first African-American President, rather than our forty-fourth white president?&#160; How does racial identity work?&#160; Is such identification a positive or a negative factor in a person&#8217;s life?&#160; Must we choose among our potential identities?&#160; Ken and John discuss racial and bi-racial identity with Michele Elam from Stanford University, author of Mixed Race in the New Millennium.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/bD-frTXzyLI.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Different Cultures, Different Selves</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/different-cultures-different-selves/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 22 Feb 2009 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6568</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Why do we do what we do? To please others? To live up to what culture expects? Or for our own reasons –- as &#8220;autonomous agents&#8221;? Americans tend to admire (at least in theory) the autonomous individual, the person who knows what he wants, and sets out to get it, no matter what the world might think. Is this true of all cultures? John and Ken are joined by Stanford Psychologist Hazel Markus to explore differences in motivation and action across cultures.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Why do we do what we do? To please others? To live up to what culture expects? Or for our own reasons –- as &#8220;autonomous agents&#8221;? Americans tend to admire (at least in theory) the autonomous individual, the person who knows what he wants, and ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Why do we do what we do? To please others? To live up to what culture expects? Or for our own reasons –- as &#8220;autonomous agents&#8221;? Americans tend to admire (at least in theory) the autonomous individual, the person who knows what he wants, and sets out to get it, no matter what the world might think. Is this true of all cultures? John and Ken are joined by Stanford Psychologist Hazel Markus to explore differences in motivation and action across cultures.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6568/different-cultures-different-selves.mp3" length="47848385" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Why do we do what we do? To please others? To live up to what culture expects? Or for our own reasons –- as &#8220;autonomous agents&#8221;? Americans tend to admire (at least in theory) the autonomous individual, the person who knows what he wants, and sets out to get it, no matter what the world might think. Is this true of all cultures? John and Ken are joined by Stanford Psychologist Hazel Markus to explore differences in motivation and action across cultures.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/WGrSXz63F_Y.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Why do we do what we do? To please others? To live up to what culture expects? Or for our own reasons –- as &#8220;autonomous agents&#8221;? Americans tend to admire (at least in theory) the autonomous individual, the person who knows what he wants, and sets out to get it, no matter what the world might think. Is this true of all cultures? John and Ken are joined by Stanford Psychologist Hazel Markus to explore differences in motivation and action across cultures.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/WGrSXz63F_Y.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Movie Show</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-movie-show/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 08 Feb 2009 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6225</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Movies play a large role in modern life.&#160; We enjoy watching them; we idolize the actors and actresses who appear in them; we analyze the directors. What is special about cinema as an art form, a mode of learning, a technique of propaganda?&#160; Do movies pose special problems for aesthetics?&#160; With the Oscars coming, Ken and John discuss the most philosophically-oriented films of this and past years, announcing the recipients of Philosophy Talk&#8217;s first annual Dionysus Awards.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Movies play a large role in modern life.&#160; We enjoy watching them; we idolize the actors and actresses who appear in them; we analyze the directors. What is special about cinema as an art form, a mode of learning, a technique of propaganda?&#160; Do ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Movies play a large role in modern life.&#160; We enjoy watching them; we idolize the actors and actresses who appear in them; we analyze the directors. What is special about cinema as an art form, a mode of learning, a technique of propaganda?&#160; Do movies pose special problems for aesthetics?&#160; With the Oscars coming, Ken and John discuss the most philosophically-oriented films of this and past years, announcing the recipients of Philosophy Talk&#8217;s first annual Dionysus Awards.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6225/the-movie-show.mp3" length="24201299" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Movies play a large role in modern life.&#160; We enjoy watching them; we idolize the actors and actresses who appear in them; we analyze the directors. What is special about cinema as an art form, a mode of learning, a technique of propaganda?&#160; Do movies pose special problems for aesthetics?&#160; With the Oscars coming, Ken and John discuss the most philosophically-oriented films of this and past years, announcing the recipients of Philosophy Talk&#8217;s first annual Dionysus Awards.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture25.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Movies play a large role in modern life.&#160; We enjoy watching them; we idolize the actors and actresses who appear in them; we analyze the directors. What is special about cinema as an art form, a mode of learning, a technique of propaganda?&#160; Do movies pose special problems for aesthetics?&#160; With the Oscars coming, Ken and John discuss the most philosophically-oriented films of this and past years, announcing the recipients of Philosophy Talk&#8217;s first annual Dionysus Awards.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture25.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Creativity</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/creativity/</link>
	<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6533</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What makes an idea or work of art creative?  Can creativity be measured?  Can a computer be creative?  What is the relationship between creativity and consciousness? John and Ken explore their creative sides with Margaret Boden from the University of Sussex, author of The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What makes an idea or work of art creative?  Can creativity be measured?  Can a computer be creative?  What is the relationship between creativity and consciousness? John and Ken explore their creative sides with Margaret Boden from the University of Sus]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What makes an idea or work of art creative?  Can creativity be measured?  Can a computer be creative?  What is the relationship between creativity and consciousness? John and Ken explore their creative sides with Margaret Boden from the University of Sussex, author of The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6533/creativity.mp3" length="47637315" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What makes an idea or work of art creative?  Can creativity be measured?  Can a computer be creative?  What is the relationship between creativity and consciousness? John and Ken explore their creative sides with Margaret Boden from the University of Sussex, author of The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/gtz2x43K3B0.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What makes an idea or work of art creative?  Can creativity be measured?  Can a computer be creative?  What is the relationship between creativity and consciousness? John and Ken explore their creative sides with Margaret Boden from the University of Sussex, author of The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/gtz2x43K3B0.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Civil Disobedience</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/civil-disobedience/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 18 Jan 2009 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6550</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Thoreau, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King all engaged in civil disobedience, and are widely admired for doing so.&#160; But how can democratic society function if each person&#8217;s conscience has to be satisfied for a law to be obeyed?&#160; When is civil disobedience justified?&#160; When is it required?&#160; How does the concept fit with the great ethical and political philosophies?&#160; John and Ken discuss the ethics of protest and punishment with Kimberley Brownlee from the University of Manchester.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Thoreau, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King all engaged in civil disobedience, and are widely admired for doing so.&#160; But how can democratic society function if each person&#8217;s conscience has to be satisfied for a law to be obeyed?&#160; When is civi]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Thoreau, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King all engaged in civil disobedience, and are widely admired for doing so.&#160; But how can democratic society function if each person&#8217;s conscience has to be satisfied for a law to be obeyed?&#160; When is civil disobedience justified?&#160; When is it required?&#160; How does the concept fit with the great ethical and political philosophies?&#160; John and Ken discuss the ethics of protest and punishment with Kimberley Brownlee from the University of Manchester.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6550/civil-disobedience.mp3" length="50868186" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Thoreau, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King all engaged in civil disobedience, and are widely admired for doing so.&#160; But how can democratic society function if each person&#8217;s conscience has to be satisfied for a law to be obeyed?&#160; When is civil disobedience justified?&#160; When is it required?&#160; How does the concept fit with the great ethical and political philosophies?&#160; John and Ken discuss the ethics of protest and punishment with Kimberley Brownlee from the University of Manchester.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/aF4LJVGheRY.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Thoreau, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King all engaged in civil disobedience, and are widely admired for doing so.&#160; But how can democratic society function if each person&#8217;s conscience has to be satisfied for a law to be obeyed?&#160; When is civil disobedience justified?&#160; When is it required?&#160; How does the concept fit with the great ethical and political philosophies?&#160; John and Ken discuss the ethics of protest and punishment with Kimberley Brownlee from the University of Manchester.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/aF4LJVGheRY.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Philosophy of History</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/philosophy-of-history/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6559</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Is history just a series of events, or an interpretation of those events?&#160; Is there progress in history?&#160; Can history be objective, or is it, as Napoleon said, just the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon?&#160; Ken and John delve into the past and its meaning with Daniel Little, Chancellor of the University of Michigan-Dearborn and author of History&#8217;s Pathways and Varieties of Social Explanation.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Is history just a series of events, or an interpretation of those events?&#160; Is there progress in history?&#160; Can history be objective, or is it, as Napoleon said, just the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon?&#160; Ken an]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Is history just a series of events, or an interpretation of those events?&#160; Is there progress in history?&#160; Can history be objective, or is it, as Napoleon said, just the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon?&#160; Ken and John delve into the past and its meaning with Daniel Little, Chancellor of the University of Michigan-Dearborn and author of History&#8217;s Pathways and Varieties of Social Explanation.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6559/philosophy-of-history.mp3" length="50871942" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Is history just a series of events, or an interpretation of those events?&#160; Is there progress in history?&#160; Can history be objective, or is it, as Napoleon said, just the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon?&#160; Ken and John delve into the past and its meaning with Daniel Little, Chancellor of the University of Michigan-Dearborn and author of History&#8217;s Pathways and Varieties of Social Explanation.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/kv9U7btthYg.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Is history just a series of events, or an interpretation of those events?&#160; Is there progress in history?&#160; Can history be objective, or is it, as Napoleon said, just the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon?&#160; Ken and John delve into the past and its meaning with Daniel Little, Chancellor of the University of Michigan-Dearborn and author of History&#8217;s Pathways and Varieties of Social Explanation.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/kv9U7btthYg.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Idea of the University</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-idea-of-the-university/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 04 Jan 2009 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6542</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Is a university a research institute with students, or and educational institution with research around the edges – or something in between?  To whom does the university answer – the trustees?  The administration?  The faculty?  The students?  Or something more abstract, like knowledge and wisdom?  John and Ken examine the very idea of a university with Stanford Provost John Etchemendy, in a program recorded before a live audience at the Annenberg Auditorium on the Stanford campus.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Is a university a research institute with students, or and educational institution with research around the edges – or something in between?  To whom does the university answer – the trustees?  The administration?  The faculty?  The students?  Or somethi]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Is a university a research institute with students, or and educational institution with research around the edges – or something in between?  To whom does the university answer – the trustees?  The administration?  The faculty?  The students?  Or something more abstract, like knowledge and wisdom?  John and Ken examine the very idea of a university with Stanford Provost John Etchemendy, in a program recorded before a live audience at the Annenberg Auditorium on the Stanford campus.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6542/the-idea-of-the-university.mp3" length="48893283" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Is a university a research institute with students, or and educational institution with research around the edges – or something in between?  To whom does the university answer – the trustees?  The administration?  The faculty?  The students?  Or something more abstract, like knowledge and wisdom?  John and Ken examine the very idea of a university with Stanford Provost John Etchemendy, in a program recorded before a live audience at the Annenberg Auditorium on the Stanford campus.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/XO_jpZpGS_0.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Is a university a research institute with students, or and educational institution with research around the edges – or something in between?  To whom does the university answer – the trustees?  The administration?  The faculty?  The students?  Or something more abstract, like knowledge and wisdom?  John and Ken examine the very idea of a university with Stanford Provost John Etchemendy, in a program recorded before a live audience at the Annenberg Auditorium on the Stanford campus.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/XO_jpZpGS_0.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>John Rawls</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/john-rawls/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6958</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[John Rawls was one of the most influential political philosophers of the twentieth century. In his book A Theory of Justice he articulated a concept of justice as fairness, which won many fans among liberals, and provoked important responses from thoughtful libertarians such as Robert Nozick. Ken and John discuss the life and ideas of John Rawls with Joshua Cohen, Professor of Political Science, Philosophy, and Law at Stanford University and co-author of Associations and Democracy.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[John Rawls was one of the most influential political philosophers of the twentieth century. In his book A Theory of Justice he articulated a concept of justice as fairness, which won many fans among liberals, and provoked important responses from thought]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[John Rawls was one of the most influential political philosophers of the twentieth century. In his book A Theory of Justice he articulated a concept of justice as fairness, which won many fans among liberals, and provoked important responses from thoughtful libertarians such as Robert Nozick. Ken and John discuss the life and ideas of John Rawls with Joshua Cohen, Professor of Political Science, Philosophy, and Law at Stanford University and co-author of Associations and Democracy.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6958/john-rawls.mp3" length="23784960" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[John Rawls was one of the most influential political philosophers of the twentieth century. In his book A Theory of Justice he articulated a concept of justice as fairness, which won many fans among liberals, and provoked important responses from thoughtful libertarians such as Robert Nozick. Ken and John discuss the life and ideas of John Rawls with Joshua Cohen, Professor of Political Science, Philosophy, and Law at Stanford University and co-author of Associations and Democracy.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/oOWbYvNZ1Qg.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[John Rawls was one of the most influential political philosophers of the twentieth century. In his book A Theory of Justice he articulated a concept of justice as fairness, which won many fans among liberals, and provoked important responses from thoughtful libertarians such as Robert Nozick. Ken and John discuss the life and ideas of John Rawls with Joshua Cohen, Professor of Political Science, Philosophy, and Law at Stanford University and co-author of Associations and Democracy.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/oOWbYvNZ1Qg.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Bodies For Sale</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/bodies-for-sale/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 07 Dec 2008 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6510</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[I can sell my house, the things I make, and the services I provide.&#160; So why can&#8217;t I sell one of my kidneys?&#160; What is the philosophical basis for the taboo against selling parts of our bodies?&#160; There is an (illegal) market in body parts; shouldn&#8217;t we trust the wisdom of the market and make it legitimate?&#160; Or would doing so undermine the very dignity of persons and human life?&#160; Ken and John dissect the issues with Stanford Philosopher Debra Satz, author of Why Some Things Should Not Be for Sale: On The Limits of Markets.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[I can sell my house, the things I make, and the services I provide.&#160; So why can&#8217;t I sell one of my kidneys?&#160; What is the philosophical basis for the taboo against selling parts of our bodies?&#160; There is an (illegal) market in body par]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[I can sell my house, the things I make, and the services I provide.&#160; So why can&#8217;t I sell one of my kidneys?&#160; What is the philosophical basis for the taboo against selling parts of our bodies?&#160; There is an (illegal) market in body parts; shouldn&#8217;t we trust the wisdom of the market and make it legitimate?&#160; Or would doing so undermine the very dignity of persons and human life?&#160; Ken and John dissect the issues with Stanford Philosopher Debra Satz, author of Why Some Things Should Not Be for Sale: On The Limits of Markets.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6510/bodies-for-sale.mp3" length="50883186" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[I can sell my house, the things I make, and the services I provide.&#160; So why can&#8217;t I sell one of my kidneys?&#160; What is the philosophical basis for the taboo against selling parts of our bodies?&#160; There is an (illegal) market in body parts; shouldn&#8217;t we trust the wisdom of the market and make it legitimate?&#160; Or would doing so undermine the very dignity of persons and human life?&#160; Ken and John dissect the issues with Stanford Philosopher Debra Satz, author of Why Some Things Should Not Be for Sale: On The Limits of Markets.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/vs9QbhaHGTI.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[I can sell my house, the things I make, and the services I provide.&#160; So why can&#8217;t I sell one of my kidneys?&#160; What is the philosophical basis for the taboo against selling parts of our bodies?&#160; There is an (illegal) market in body parts; shouldn&#8217;t we trust the wisdom of the market and make it legitimate?&#160; Or would doing so undermine the very dignity of persons and human life?&#160; Ken and John dissect the issues with Stanford Philosopher Debra Satz, author of Why Some Things Should Not Be for Sale: On The Limits of Markets.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/vs9QbhaHGTI.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Levels of Reality</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/levels-of-reality/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 23 Nov 2008 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6546</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Are there levels of reality, with each level emerging from the other in a way that provides a truly new aspect of reality?&#160; The concept of emergence has been seen as an alternative to mere reducibility in discussion of the relation of the physical world to the biological world, consciousness, the social world, and God.&#160; Ken and John probe the nature of reality with Tim O&#8217;Connor, Professor of Philosophy at Indiana University and author of Theism and Ultimate Explanation.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Are there levels of reality, with each level emerging from the other in a way that provides a truly new aspect of reality?&#160; The concept of emergence has been seen as an alternative to mere reducibility in discussion of the relation of the physical w]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Are there levels of reality, with each level emerging from the other in a way that provides a truly new aspect of reality?&#160; The concept of emergence has been seen as an alternative to mere reducibility in discussion of the relation of the physical world to the biological world, consciousness, the social world, and God.&#160; Ken and John probe the nature of reality with Tim O&#8217;Connor, Professor of Philosophy at Indiana University and author of Theism and Ultimate Explanation.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6546/levels-of-reality.mp3" length="47892689" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Are there levels of reality, with each level emerging from the other in a way that provides a truly new aspect of reality?&#160; The concept of emergence has been seen as an alternative to mere reducibility in discussion of the relation of the physical world to the biological world, consciousness, the social world, and God.&#160; Ken and John probe the nature of reality with Tim O&#8217;Connor, Professor of Philosophy at Indiana University and author of Theism and Ultimate Explanation.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/7lr2dMMjRw4.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Are there levels of reality, with each level emerging from the other in a way that provides a truly new aspect of reality?&#160; The concept of emergence has been seen as an alternative to mere reducibility in discussion of the relation of the physical world to the biological world, consciousness, the social world, and God.&#160; Ken and John probe the nature of reality with Tim O&#8217;Connor, Professor of Philosophy at Indiana University and author of Theism and Ultimate Explanation.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/7lr2dMMjRw4.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Gandhi as a Philosopher</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/gandhi-as-a-philosopher/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6786</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Gandhi is famous as the leader of the movement for Indian independence, which he based on his philosophy of non-violence, an important influence on Martin Luther King Jr. Gandhi&#8217;s ideas and the effects of his leadership continue to influence the world and its leaders.  What was the philosophical basis of these ideas?  Is non-violence a strategy for a certain purpose, or the basis for a way of life?  Ken and John welcome Akeel Bilgrami, Director of the Heyman Center for the Humanities at Columbia University and author of &#8220;Gandhi, the Philosopher.&#8221;]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Gandhi is famous as the leader of the movement for Indian independence, which he based on his philosophy of non-violence, an important influence on Martin Luther King Jr. Gandhi&#8217;s ideas and the effects of his leadership continue to influence the wo]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Gandhi is famous as the leader of the movement for Indian independence, which he based on his philosophy of non-violence, an important influence on Martin Luther King Jr. Gandhi&#8217;s ideas and the effects of his leadership continue to influence the world and its leaders.  What was the philosophical basis of these ideas?  Is non-violence a strategy for a certain purpose, or the basis for a way of life?  Ken and John welcome Akeel Bilgrami, Director of the Heyman Center for the Humanities at Columbia University and author of &#8220;Gandhi, the Philosopher.&#8221;]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6786/gandhi-as-a-philosopher.mp3" length="95899062" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Gandhi is famous as the leader of the movement for Indian independence, which he based on his philosophy of non-violence, an important influence on Martin Luther King Jr. Gandhi&#8217;s ideas and the effects of his leadership continue to influence the world and its leaders.  What was the philosophical basis of these ideas?  Is non-violence a strategy for a certain purpose, or the basis for a way of life?  Ken and John welcome Akeel Bilgrami, Director of the Heyman Center for the Humanities at Columbia University and author of &#8220;Gandhi, the Philosopher.&#8221;]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/gbLtV50D_3o.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>49:57</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Gandhi is famous as the leader of the movement for Indian independence, which he based on his philosophy of non-violence, an important influence on Martin Luther King Jr. Gandhi&#8217;s ideas and the effects of his leadership continue to influence the world and its leaders.  What was the philosophical basis of these ideas?  Is non-violence a strategy for a certain purpose, or the basis for a way of life?  Ken and John welcome Akeel Bilgrami, Director of the Heyman Center for the Humanities at Columbia University and author of &#8220;Gandhi, the Philosopher.&#8221;]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/gbLtV50D_3o.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>William James</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/william-james/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 09 Nov 2008 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6504</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[William James is a great figure, historically important as a philosopher (pragmatism and radical empiricism), a student of religion (author of the monumental Varieties of Religious Experience), and psychology.&#160; Ken and John examine the life and ideas of this towering figure with Russell Goodman, a leading scholar of Pragmatism and editor of Pragmatism: A Contemporary Reader.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[William James is a great figure, historically important as a philosopher (pragmatism and radical empiricism), a student of religion (author of the monumental Varieties of Religious Experience), and psychology.&#160; Ken and John examine the life and idea]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[William James is a great figure, historically important as a philosopher (pragmatism and radical empiricism), a student of religion (author of the monumental Varieties of Religious Experience), and psychology.&#160; Ken and John examine the life and ideas of this towering figure with Russell Goodman, a leading scholar of Pragmatism and editor of Pragmatism: A Contemporary Reader.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6504/william-james.mp3" length="23789376" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[William James is a great figure, historically important as a philosopher (pragmatism and radical empiricism), a student of religion (author of the monumental Varieties of Religious Experience), and psychology.&#160; Ken and John examine the life and ideas of this towering figure with Russell Goodman, a leading scholar of Pragmatism and editor of Pragmatism: A Contemporary Reader.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/RfSAuwdGstY.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[William James is a great figure, historically important as a philosopher (pragmatism and radical empiricism), a student of religion (author of the monumental Varieties of Religious Experience), and psychology.&#160; Ken and John examine the life and ideas of this towering figure with Russell Goodman, a leading scholar of Pragmatism and editor of Pragmatism: A Contemporary Reader.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/RfSAuwdGstY.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Making Decisions</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/making-decisions/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 02 Nov 2008 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6500</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[When we make decisions we think we&#8217;re in control, making rational choices. But are we? This is the central question posed by Dan Ariely, Professor of Behavioral Economics at Duke University, in his book Predictably Irrational.&#160; Ken and John discuss irrationality, its dangers, and perhaps also its benefits, with this philosophical and fascinating economist.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[When we make decisions we think we&#8217;re in control, making rational choices. But are we? This is the central question posed by Dan Ariely, Professor of Behavioral Economics at Duke University, in his book Predictably Irrational.&#160; Ken and John di]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[When we make decisions we think we&#8217;re in control, making rational choices. But are we? This is the central question posed by Dan Ariely, Professor of Behavioral Economics at Duke University, in his book Predictably Irrational.&#160; Ken and John discuss irrationality, its dangers, and perhaps also its benefits, with this philosophical and fascinating economist.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6500/making-decisions.mp3" length="47824561" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[When we make decisions we think we&#8217;re in control, making rational choices. But are we? This is the central question posed by Dan Ariely, Professor of Behavioral Economics at Duke University, in his book Predictably Irrational.&#160; Ken and John discuss irrationality, its dangers, and perhaps also its benefits, with this philosophical and fascinating economist.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/4qqvqGWwdU.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[When we make decisions we think we&#8217;re in control, making rational choices. But are we? This is the central question posed by Dan Ariely, Professor of Behavioral Economics at Duke University, in his book Predictably Irrational.&#160; Ken and John discuss irrationality, its dangers, and perhaps also its benefits, with this philosophical and fascinating economist.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/4qqvqGWwdU.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Digital Selves</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/digital-selves/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 19 Oct 2008 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6529</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Second Life and dozens of other online adventures involve creating digital selves, and millions of users are taking advantage of the opportunity to develop new personas. Cyberpunk literature, like William Gibson&#8217;s Neuromancer, describes worlds in which the line between digital selves and real selves is hard to draw.&#160; What makes your digital self you?&#160; What does your choice of digital selves show about you?&#160; And what makes onscreen representation more or less effective as digital selves?&#160; John and Ken are joined by Jeremy Bailenson, Director of Stanford&#8217;s Virtual Human Interaction Lab, for a program recorded before a live audience at The Marsh theater in San Francisco.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Second Life and dozens of other online adventures involve creating digital selves, and millions of users are taking advantage of the opportunity to develop new personas. Cyberpunk literature, like William Gibson&#8217;s Neuromancer, describes worlds in w]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Second Life and dozens of other online adventures involve creating digital selves, and millions of users are taking advantage of the opportunity to develop new personas. Cyberpunk literature, like William Gibson&#8217;s Neuromancer, describes worlds in which the line between digital selves and real selves is hard to draw.&#160; What makes your digital self you?&#160; What does your choice of digital selves show about you?&#160; And what makes onscreen representation more or less effective as digital selves?&#160; John and Ken are joined by Jeremy Bailenson, Director of Stanford&#8217;s Virtual Human Interaction Lab, for a program recorded before a live audience at The Marsh theater in San Francisco.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6529/digital-selves.mp3" length="24158667" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Second Life and dozens of other online adventures involve creating digital selves, and millions of users are taking advantage of the opportunity to develop new personas. Cyberpunk literature, like William Gibson&#8217;s Neuromancer, describes worlds in which the line between digital selves and real selves is hard to draw.&#160; What makes your digital self you?&#160; What does your choice of digital selves show about you?&#160; And what makes onscreen representation more or less effective as digital selves?&#160; John and Ken are joined by Jeremy Bailenson, Director of Stanford&#8217;s Virtual Human Interaction Lab, for a program recorded before a live audience at The Marsh theater in San Francisco.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/pjV8V32ItvM.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Second Life and dozens of other online adventures involve creating digital selves, and millions of users are taking advantage of the opportunity to develop new personas. Cyberpunk literature, like William Gibson&#8217;s Neuromancer, describes worlds in which the line between digital selves and real selves is hard to draw.&#160; What makes your digital self you?&#160; What does your choice of digital selves show about you?&#160; And what makes onscreen representation more or less effective as digital selves?&#160; John and Ken are joined by Jeremy Bailenson, Director of Stanford&#8217;s Virtual Human Interaction Lab, for a program recorded before a live audience at The Marsh theater in San Francisco.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/pjV8V32ItvM.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Overcoming the Terror of Death</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/overcoming-the-terror-of-death/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Oct 2008 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6525</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[To many death is terrifying. But why? As David Hume pointed out, all the years we didn&#8217;t exist before we were born seemed painless enough. Why worry about future non-existence? Is the real worry that we will continue to exist? Ken and John confront mortality with psychiatrist and novelist Irv Yalom, author of Staring at the Sun: Overcoming the Terror of Death. This program was recorded before a live audience at The Marsh theater in San Francisco.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[To many death is terrifying. But why? As David Hume pointed out, all the years we didn&#8217;t exist before we were born seemed painless enough. Why worry about future non-existence? Is the real worry that we will continue to exist? Ken and John confront]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[To many death is terrifying. But why? As David Hume pointed out, all the years we didn&#8217;t exist before we were born seemed painless enough. Why worry about future non-existence? Is the real worry that we will continue to exist? Ken and John confront mortality with psychiatrist and novelist Irv Yalom, author of Staring at the Sun: Overcoming the Terror of Death. This program was recorded before a live audience at The Marsh theater in San Francisco.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6525/overcoming-the-terror-of-death.mp3" length="24837009" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[To many death is terrifying. But why? As David Hume pointed out, all the years we didn&#8217;t exist before we were born seemed painless enough. Why worry about future non-existence? Is the real worry that we will continue to exist? Ken and John confront mortality with psychiatrist and novelist Irv Yalom, author of Staring at the Sun: Overcoming the Terror of Death. This program was recorded before a live audience at The Marsh theater in San Francisco.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/sLSIqwXnDFc.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[To many death is terrifying. But why? As David Hume pointed out, all the years we didn&#8217;t exist before we were born seemed painless enough. Why worry about future non-existence? Is the real worry that we will continue to exist? Ken and John confront mortality with psychiatrist and novelist Irv Yalom, author of Staring at the Sun: Overcoming the Terror of Death. This program was recorded before a live audience at The Marsh theater in San Francisco.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/sLSIqwXnDFc.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Morality of Food</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-morality-of-food/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 21 Sep 2008 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6183</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Veganism, freeganism, organic, sustainability, simplicity, biofuel, animal rights, worker&#8217;s rights, nutrition, preventing hunger, reducing waste and protecting the environment.&#160; What obligations do we have when it comes to buying, eating and producing food?&#160; How should we balance moral and practical concerns?&#160; John and Ken chew on these questions with Michael Pollan from the UC Berkeley School of Journalism, author of The Omnivore&#8217;s Dilemma and In Defense of Food.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Veganism, freeganism, organic, sustainability, simplicity, biofuel, animal rights, worker&#8217;s rights, nutrition, preventing hunger, reducing waste and protecting the environment.&#160; What obligations do we have when it comes to buying, eating and p]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Veganism, freeganism, organic, sustainability, simplicity, biofuel, animal rights, worker&#8217;s rights, nutrition, preventing hunger, reducing waste and protecting the environment.&#160; What obligations do we have when it comes to buying, eating and producing food?&#160; How should we balance moral and practical concerns?&#160; John and Ken chew on these questions with Michael Pollan from the UC Berkeley School of Journalism, author of The Omnivore&#8217;s Dilemma and In Defense of Food.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6183/the-morality-of-food.mp3" length="25530515" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Veganism, freeganism, organic, sustainability, simplicity, biofuel, animal rights, worker&#8217;s rights, nutrition, preventing hunger, reducing waste and protecting the environment.&#160; What obligations do we have when it comes to buying, eating and producing food?&#160; How should we balance moral and practical concerns?&#160; John and Ken chew on these questions with Michael Pollan from the UC Berkeley School of Journalism, author of The Omnivore&#8217;s Dilemma and In Defense of Food.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-04-01T100832.779.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Veganism, freeganism, organic, sustainability, simplicity, biofuel, animal rights, worker&#8217;s rights, nutrition, preventing hunger, reducing waste and protecting the environment.&#160; What obligations do we have when it comes to buying, eating and producing food?&#160; How should we balance moral and practical concerns?&#160; John and Ken chew on these questions with Michael Pollan from the UC Berkeley School of Journalism, author of The Omnivore&#8217;s Dilemma and In Defense of Food.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-04-01T100832.779.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Utilitarianism</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/utilitarianism/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 07 Sep 2008 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6178</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Can morality be quantified?&#160; Can the good be calculated?&#160; Utilitarianism says the right action is the one which leads to the most overall happiness -– a deceptively simple theory, but not without its detractors.&#160; Is utilitarianism compatible with the idea that people have inalienable rights?&#160; Should we be so focused on the consequences of our actions?&#160; John and Ken welcome Wayne Sumner from the University of Toronto, author of The Hateful and the Obscene: Studies in the Limits of Free Expression.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Can morality be quantified?&#160; Can the good be calculated?&#160; Utilitarianism says the right action is the one which leads to the most overall happiness -– a deceptively simple theory, but not without its detractors.&#160; Is utilitarianism compatib]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Can morality be quantified?&#160; Can the good be calculated?&#160; Utilitarianism says the right action is the one which leads to the most overall happiness -– a deceptively simple theory, but not without its detractors.&#160; Is utilitarianism compatible with the idea that people have inalienable rights?&#160; Should we be so focused on the consequences of our actions?&#160; John and Ken welcome Wayne Sumner from the University of Toronto, author of The Hateful and the Obscene: Studies in the Limits of Free Expression.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6178/utilitarianism.mp3" length="48915017" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Can morality be quantified?&#160; Can the good be calculated?&#160; Utilitarianism says the right action is the one which leads to the most overall happiness -– a deceptively simple theory, but not without its detractors.&#160; Is utilitarianism compatible with the idea that people have inalienable rights?&#160; Should we be so focused on the consequences of our actions?&#160; John and Ken welcome Wayne Sumner from the University of Toronto, author of The Hateful and the Obscene: Studies in the Limits of Free Expression.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture19.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Can morality be quantified?&#160; Can the good be calculated?&#160; Utilitarianism says the right action is the one which leads to the most overall happiness -– a deceptively simple theory, but not without its detractors.&#160; Is utilitarianism compatible with the idea that people have inalienable rights?&#160; Should we be so focused on the consequences of our actions?&#160; John and Ken welcome Wayne Sumner from the University of Toronto, author of The Hateful and the Obscene: Studies in the Limits of Free Expression.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture19.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Global Justice and Human Right</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/global-justice-and-human-right/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 24 Aug 2008 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6142</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What constitutes a just society?&#160; What are the obligations of liberal democracies to ensure the rights and well-being of the citizens of other countries?&#160; What kinds of interventions and institutions are most suitable to the task of preventing war, disease, and poverty in the world today?&#160; John and Ken discuss the requirements of justice with Helen Stacy from Stanford Law School.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What constitutes a just society?&#160; What are the obligations of liberal democracies to ensure the rights and well-being of the citizens of other countries?&#160; What kinds of interventions and institutions are most suitable to the task of preventing ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What constitutes a just society?&#160; What are the obligations of liberal democracies to ensure the rights and well-being of the citizens of other countries?&#160; What kinds of interventions and institutions are most suitable to the task of preventing war, disease, and poverty in the world today?&#160; John and Ken discuss the requirements of justice with Helen Stacy from Stanford Law School.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6142/global-justice-and-human-right.mp3" length="29998237" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What constitutes a just society?&#160; What are the obligations of liberal democracies to ensure the rights and well-being of the citizens of other countries?&#160; What kinds of interventions and institutions are most suitable to the task of preventing war, disease, and poverty in the world today?&#160; John and Ken discuss the requirements of justice with Helen Stacy from Stanford Law School.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/WW49zYmxE7I.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What constitutes a just society?&#160; What are the obligations of liberal democracies to ensure the rights and well-being of the citizens of other countries?&#160; What kinds of interventions and institutions are most suitable to the task of preventing war, disease, and poverty in the world today?&#160; John and Ken discuss the requirements of justice with Helen Stacy from Stanford Law School.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/WW49zYmxE7I.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Dualism</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/dualism/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 10 Aug 2008 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6518</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What is the relationship between the mind and the brain?&#160; Monists believe that there is only one substance or property in the Universe, be it physical (Materialists) or mental (Idealists).&#160; But Dualists, like the 17th Century French philosopher Rene Descartes, hold that mental stuff exists side by side with physical stuff.&#160; Can this view be defended, in light of modern science?&#160; John and Ken probe the mind-body with David Rosenthal from City University of New York, author of Consciousness and Mind.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What is the relationship between the mind and the brain?&#160; Monists believe that there is only one substance or property in the Universe, be it physical (Materialists) or mental (Idealists).&#160; But Dualists, like the 17th Century French philosopher]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What is the relationship between the mind and the brain?&#160; Monists believe that there is only one substance or property in the Universe, be it physical (Materialists) or mental (Idealists).&#160; But Dualists, like the 17th Century French philosopher Rene Descartes, hold that mental stuff exists side by side with physical stuff.&#160; Can this view be defended, in light of modern science?&#160; John and Ken probe the mind-body with David Rosenthal from City University of New York, author of Consciousness and Mind.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6518/dualism.mp3" length="48123820" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What is the relationship between the mind and the brain?&#160; Monists believe that there is only one substance or property in the Universe, be it physical (Materialists) or mental (Idealists).&#160; But Dualists, like the 17th Century French philosopher Rene Descartes, hold that mental stuff exists side by side with physical stuff.&#160; Can this view be defended, in light of modern science?&#160; John and Ken probe the mind-body with David Rosenthal from City University of New York, author of Consciousness and Mind.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/K0t_VvtG6S8.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What is the relationship between the mind and the brain?&#160; Monists believe that there is only one substance or property in the Universe, be it physical (Materialists) or mental (Idealists).&#160; But Dualists, like the 17th Century French philosopher Rene Descartes, hold that mental stuff exists side by side with physical stuff.&#160; Can this view be defended, in light of modern science?&#160; John and Ken probe the mind-body with David Rosenthal from City University of New York, author of Consciousness and Mind.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/K0t_VvtG6S8.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Philosophy and Pop Culture</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/philosophy-and-pop-culture/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 03 Aug 2008 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6125</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[From Star Trek and the Grateful Dead to South Park and Stephen Colbert, philosophical questions are everywhere in popular culture: Is time travel possible?&#160; Can a person survive being disintegrated and reassembled?&#160; Does humor enable the expression of deep truths, political or otherwise?&#160; John and Ken look at the Big Questions in pop culture with Richard Hanley from the University of Delaware, author of South Park and Philosophy.&#160; This program was recorded live at the University of Delaware in Newark, DE.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[From Star Trek and the Grateful Dead to South Park and Stephen Colbert, philosophical questions are everywhere in popular culture: Is time travel possible?&#160; Can a person survive being disintegrated and reassembled?&#160; Does humor enable the expres]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[From Star Trek and the Grateful Dead to South Park and Stephen Colbert, philosophical questions are everywhere in popular culture: Is time travel possible?&#160; Can a person survive being disintegrated and reassembled?&#160; Does humor enable the expression of deep truths, political or otherwise?&#160; John and Ken look at the Big Questions in pop culture with Richard Hanley from the University of Delaware, author of South Park and Philosophy.&#160; This program was recorded live at the University of Delaware in Newark, DE.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6125/philosophy-and-pop-culture.mp3" length="24418429" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[From Star Trek and the Grateful Dead to South Park and Stephen Colbert, philosophical questions are everywhere in popular culture: Is time travel possible?&#160; Can a person survive being disintegrated and reassembled?&#160; Does humor enable the expression of deep truths, political or otherwise?&#160; John and Ken look at the Big Questions in pop culture with Richard Hanley from the University of Delaware, author of South Park and Philosophy.&#160; This program was recorded live at the University of Delaware in Newark, DE.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/awOyblUfYpo.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[From Star Trek and the Grateful Dead to South Park and Stephen Colbert, philosophical questions are everywhere in popular culture: Is time travel possible?&#160; Can a person survive being disintegrated and reassembled?&#160; Does humor enable the expression of deep truths, political or otherwise?&#160; John and Ken look at the Big Questions in pop culture with Richard Hanley from the University of Delaware, author of South Park and Philosophy.&#160; This program was recorded live at the University of Delaware in Newark, DE.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/awOyblUfYpo.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Giving and Keeping</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/giving-and-keeping/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jul 2008 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6202</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[How should people allocate their assets – however modest or grand – ethically and effectively?&#160; What kinds of giving should the government encourage through tax incentives and other measures?&#160; Is providing for loved ones more worthy than self-expression through philanthropy?&#160; John and Ken are joined by Rob Reich, Associate Professor of Political Science and Ethics in Society at Stanford University, for a program recorded before a live audience at the Classic Residence by Hyatt in Palo Alto, CA.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[How should people allocate their assets – however modest or grand – ethically and effectively?&#160; What kinds of giving should the government encourage through tax incentives and other measures?&#160; Is providing for loved ones more worthy than self-e]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[How should people allocate their assets – however modest or grand – ethically and effectively?&#160; What kinds of giving should the government encourage through tax incentives and other measures?&#160; Is providing for loved ones more worthy than self-expression through philanthropy?&#160; John and Ken are joined by Rob Reich, Associate Professor of Political Science and Ethics in Society at Stanford University, for a program recorded before a live audience at the Classic Residence by Hyatt in Palo Alto, CA.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6202/giving-and-keeping.mp3" length="24509544" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[How should people allocate their assets – however modest or grand – ethically and effectively?&#160; What kinds of giving should the government encourage through tax incentives and other measures?&#160; Is providing for loved ones more worthy than self-expression through philanthropy?&#160; John and Ken are joined by Rob Reich, Associate Professor of Political Science and Ethics in Society at Stanford University, for a program recorded before a live audience at the Classic Residence by Hyatt in Palo Alto, CA.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/399306691_.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[How should people allocate their assets – however modest or grand – ethically and effectively?&#160; What kinds of giving should the government encourage through tax incentives and other measures?&#160; Is providing for loved ones more worthy than self-expression through philanthropy?&#160; John and Ken are joined by Rob Reich, Associate Professor of Political Science and Ethics in Society at Stanford University, for a program recorded before a live audience at the Classic Residence by Hyatt in Palo Alto, CA.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/399306691_.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Luck of the Draw</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-luck-of-the-draw/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jul 2008 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6471</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Sometimes it isn&#8217;t possible to distribute goods evenly. When this happens, we often leave it up to randomness – in the form of lotteries – to decide who gets what.&#160; Is this just?&#160; Or is it merely the best we can do?&#160; What distinguishes fair systems of randomization from unfair ones?&#160; John and Ken take their chances with Stanford political scientist Peter Stone.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Sometimes it isn&#8217;t possible to distribute goods evenly. When this happens, we often leave it up to randomness – in the form of lotteries – to decide who gets what.&#160; Is this just?&#160; Or is it merely the best we can do?&#160; What distinguish]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Sometimes it isn&#8217;t possible to distribute goods evenly. When this happens, we often leave it up to randomness – in the form of lotteries – to decide who gets what.&#160; Is this just?&#160; Or is it merely the best we can do?&#160; What distinguishes fair systems of randomization from unfair ones?&#160; John and Ken take their chances with Stanford political scientist Peter Stone.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6471/the-luck-of-the-draw.mp3" length="48255895" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Sometimes it isn&#8217;t possible to distribute goods evenly. When this happens, we often leave it up to randomness – in the form of lotteries – to decide who gets what.&#160; Is this just?&#160; Or is it merely the best we can do?&#160; What distinguishes fair systems of randomization from unfair ones?&#160; John and Ken take their chances with Stanford political scientist Peter Stone.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/JGdcrYyTWGI.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Sometimes it isn&#8217;t possible to distribute goods evenly. When this happens, we often leave it up to randomness – in the form of lotteries – to decide who gets what.&#160; Is this just?&#160; Or is it merely the best we can do?&#160; What distinguishes fair systems of randomization from unfair ones?&#160; John and Ken take their chances with Stanford political scientist Peter Stone.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/JGdcrYyTWGI.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Altruism</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/altruism/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jun 2008 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6494</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Are people genuinely altruistic, or is altruism just a type of selfish-behavior?&#160; Are other animals altruistic? Should we strive to be altruistic, or is selfishness a higher virtue?&#160; John and Ken take the moral high ground with their guest Jeff Schloss, Professor and Chair of Biology at Westmont College and co-editor of Altruism and Altruistic Love: Science, Philosophy, and Religion in Dialogue.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Are people genuinely altruistic, or is altruism just a type of selfish-behavior?&#160; Are other animals altruistic? Should we strive to be altruistic, or is selfishness a higher virtue?&#160; John and Ken take the moral high ground with their guest Jeff]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Are people genuinely altruistic, or is altruism just a type of selfish-behavior?&#160; Are other animals altruistic? Should we strive to be altruistic, or is selfishness a higher virtue?&#160; John and Ken take the moral high ground with their guest Jeff Schloss, Professor and Chair of Biology at Westmont College and co-editor of Altruism and Altruistic Love: Science, Philosophy, and Religion in Dialogue.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6494/altruism.mp3" length="23919224" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Are people genuinely altruistic, or is altruism just a type of selfish-behavior?&#160; Are other animals altruistic? Should we strive to be altruistic, or is selfishness a higher virtue?&#160; John and Ken take the moral high ground with their guest Jeff Schloss, Professor and Chair of Biology at Westmont College and co-editor of Altruism and Altruistic Love: Science, Philosophy, and Religion in Dialogue.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/DymfD46ADSQ.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Are people genuinely altruistic, or is altruism just a type of selfish-behavior?&#160; Are other animals altruistic? Should we strive to be altruistic, or is selfishness a higher virtue?&#160; John and Ken take the moral high ground with their guest Jeff Schloss, Professor and Chair of Biology at Westmont College and co-editor of Altruism and Altruistic Love: Science, Philosophy, and Religion in Dialogue.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/DymfD46ADSQ.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Hannah Arendt</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/hannah-arendt/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jun 2008 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6962</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Hannah Arendt was one of the most original and influential philosophers of the 20th century.  Her work considered historical and contemporary political events, such as the rise and fall of Nazism, and drew conclusions about the relation between the individual and society. John and Ken tackle Arendt&#8217;s political philosophy and its enduring influence with Seyla Benhabib from Yale University, editor of Politics in Dark Times: Encounters with Hannah Arendt. ]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Hannah Arendt was one of the most original and influential philosophers of the 20th century.  Her work considered historical and contemporary political events, such as the rise and fall of Nazism, and drew conclusions about the relation between the indiv]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Hannah Arendt was one of the most original and influential philosophers of the 20th century.  Her work considered historical and contemporary political events, such as the rise and fall of Nazism, and drew conclusions about the relation between the individual and society. John and Ken tackle Arendt&#8217;s political philosophy and its enduring influence with Seyla Benhabib from Yale University, editor of Politics in Dark Times: Encounters with Hannah Arendt. ]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6962/hannah-arendt.mp3" length="48355369" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Hannah Arendt was one of the most original and influential philosophers of the 20th century.  Her work considered historical and contemporary political events, such as the rise and fall of Nazism, and drew conclusions about the relation between the individual and society. John and Ken tackle Arendt&#8217;s political philosophy and its enduring influence with Seyla Benhabib from Yale University, editor of Politics in Dark Times: Encounters with Hannah Arendt. ]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/moY9bzYG7qY.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:22</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Hannah Arendt was one of the most original and influential philosophers of the 20th century.  Her work considered historical and contemporary political events, such as the rise and fall of Nazism, and drew conclusions about the relation between the individual and society. John and Ken tackle Arendt&#8217;s political philosophy and its enduring influence with Seyla Benhabib from Yale University, editor of Politics in Dark Times: Encounters with Hannah Arendt. ]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/moY9bzYG7qY.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Problem of Evil</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-problem-of-evil/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jun 2008 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6087</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Many religions tell us that God is perfect: all-knowing, all-powerful, and beneficent.&#160; Why then do bad things happen?&#160; John and Ken discuss the problem of evil with their guest, Michael Tooley from the University of Colorado at Boulder, co-author of Knowledge of God.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Many religions tell us that God is perfect: all-knowing, all-powerful, and beneficent.&#160; Why then do bad things happen?&#160; John and Ken discuss the problem of evil with their guest, Michael Tooley from the University of Colorado at Boulder, co-aut]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Many religions tell us that God is perfect: all-knowing, all-powerful, and beneficent.&#160; Why then do bad things happen?&#160; John and Ken discuss the problem of evil with their guest, Michael Tooley from the University of Colorado at Boulder, co-author of Knowledge of God.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6087/the-problem-of-evil.mp3" length="29586808" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Many religions tell us that God is perfect: all-knowing, all-powerful, and beneficent.&#160; Why then do bad things happen?&#160; John and Ken discuss the problem of evil with their guest, Michael Tooley from the University of Colorado at Boulder, co-author of Knowledge of God.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture15.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Many religions tell us that God is perfect: all-knowing, all-powerful, and beneficent.&#160; Why then do bad things happen?&#160; John and Ken discuss the problem of evil with their guest, Michael Tooley from the University of Colorado at Boulder, co-author of Knowledge of God.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture15.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Summer Reading List 2008</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/summer-reading-list-2008/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 01 Jun 2008 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6078</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Summer&#8217;s just around the corner – what books are you going to pack with your Speedo? John and Ken leaf through some of this summer&#8217;s philosophy, fiction, and non-fiction reading with Danielle Marshall from Powell&#8217;s City of Books.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Summer&#8217;s just around the corner – what books are you going to pack with your Speedo? John and Ken leaf through some of this summer&#8217;s philosophy, fiction, and non-fiction reading with Danielle Marshall from Powell&#8217;s City of Books.]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Summer&#8217;s just around the corner – what books are you going to pack with your Speedo? John and Ken leaf through some of this summer&#8217;s philosophy, fiction, and non-fiction reading with Danielle Marshall from Powell&#8217;s City of Books.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6078/summer-reading-list-2008.mp3" length="29924833" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Summer&#8217;s just around the corner – what books are you going to pack with your Speedo? John and Ken leaf through some of this summer&#8217;s philosophy, fiction, and non-fiction reading with Danielle Marshall from Powell&#8217;s City of Books.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture14.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Summer&#8217;s just around the corner – what books are you going to pack with your Speedo? John and Ken leaf through some of this summer&#8217;s philosophy, fiction, and non-fiction reading with Danielle Marshall from Powell&#8217;s City of Books.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture14.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Promises</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/promises/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 11 May 2008 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6489</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What is a promise: a prediction?&#160; A statement of intention?&#160; Is promising rational?&#160; Does it create an obligation?&#160; John and Ken promise to raise these issues and more with Sir Neil MacCormick from the University of Edinburgh, author of Rhetoric and the Rule of Law.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What is a promise: a prediction?&#160; A statement of intention?&#160; Is promising rational?&#160; Does it create an obligation?&#160; John and Ken promise to raise these issues and more with Sir Neil MacCormick from the University of Edinburgh, author ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What is a promise: a prediction?&#160; A statement of intention?&#160; Is promising rational?&#160; Does it create an obligation?&#160; John and Ken promise to raise these issues and more with Sir Neil MacCormick from the University of Edinburgh, author of Rhetoric and the Rule of Law.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6489/promises.mp3" length="47921946" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What is a promise: a prediction?&#160; A statement of intention?&#160; Is promising rational?&#160; Does it create an obligation?&#160; John and Ken promise to raise these issues and more with Sir Neil MacCormick from the University of Edinburgh, author of Rhetoric and the Rule of Law.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/XrUFQPZduT8.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What is a promise: a prediction?&#160; A statement of intention?&#160; Is promising rational?&#160; Does it create an obligation?&#160; John and Ken promise to raise these issues and more with Sir Neil MacCormick from the University of Edinburgh, author of Rhetoric and the Rule of Law.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/XrUFQPZduT8.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Experimental Philosophy</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/experimental-philosophy/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 04 May 2008 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6468</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Philosophical reasoning relies on intuitions.&#160; John Rawls called this method &#8220;reflective equilibrium.” But where do we get our data about &#8220;intuitions&#8221;? John and Ken welcome back Anthony Appiah from Princeton University, author of Experiments in Ethics.&#160; They discuss psychological experiments that determine what people really think.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Philosophical reasoning relies on intuitions.&#160; John Rawls called this method &#8220;reflective equilibrium.” But where do we get our data about &#8220;intuitions&#8221;? John and Ken welcome back Anthony Appiah from Princeton University, author of E]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Philosophical reasoning relies on intuitions.&#160; John Rawls called this method &#8220;reflective equilibrium.” But where do we get our data about &#8220;intuitions&#8221;? John and Ken welcome back Anthony Appiah from Princeton University, author of Experiments in Ethics.&#160; They discuss psychological experiments that determine what people really think.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6468/experimental-philosophy.mp3" length="48474070" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Philosophical reasoning relies on intuitions.&#160; John Rawls called this method &#8220;reflective equilibrium.” But where do we get our data about &#8220;intuitions&#8221;? John and Ken welcome back Anthony Appiah from Princeton University, author of Experiments in Ethics.&#160; They discuss psychological experiments that determine what people really think.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/GCglr9zOhhI.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Philosophical reasoning relies on intuitions.&#160; John Rawls called this method &#8220;reflective equilibrium.” But where do we get our data about &#8220;intuitions&#8221;? John and Ken welcome back Anthony Appiah from Princeton University, author of Experiments in Ethics.&#160; They discuss psychological experiments that determine what people really think.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/GCglr9zOhhI.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Varieties of Love</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/varieties-love/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2008 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/varieties-love/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Is love a single thing, or just a word we use to express any number of unrelated emotions? Is love intrinsically irrational? What have philosophers said about love? Did they know what they were talking about? Christopher Phillips, author of Socrates in Love: Philosophy for a Die-Hard Romantic, joins John and Ken for a program recorded live at Powell&#8217;s City of Books in Portland, Oregon.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Is love a single thing, or just a word we use to express any number of unrelated emotions? Is love intrinsically irrational? What have philosophers said about love? Did they know what they were talking about? Christopher Phillips, author of Socrates in L]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Is love a single thing, or just a word we use to express any number of unrelated emotions? Is love intrinsically irrational? What have philosophers said about love? Did they know what they were talking about? Christopher Phillips, author of Socrates in Love: Philosophy for a Die-Hard Romantic, joins John and Ken for a program recorded live at Powell&#8217;s City of Books in Portland, Oregon.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/485/varieties-love.mp3" length="48314827" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Is love a single thing, or just a word we use to express any number of unrelated emotions? Is love intrinsically irrational? What have philosophers said about love? Did they know what they were talking about? Christopher Phillips, author of Socrates in Love: Philosophy for a Die-Hard Romantic, joins John and Ken for a program recorded live at Powell&#8217;s City of Books in Portland, Oregon.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/varietyoflove.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Is love a single thing, or just a word we use to express any number of unrelated emotions? Is love intrinsically irrational? What have philosophers said about love? Did they know what they were talking about? Christopher Phillips, author of Socrates in Love: Philosophy for a Die-Hard Romantic, joins John and Ken for a program recorded live at Powell&#8217;s City of Books in Portland, Oregon.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/varietyoflove.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Politics and Cognitive Science</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/politics-and-cognitive-science/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6062</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Can cognitive science explain the difference between liberals and conservatives?&#160; Do we elect our presidents on the basis of stale metaphors and the manipulations of pernicious language mavens? We put these questions to George Lakoff, Professor of Linguistics at UC Berkeley and author of Thinking Points: Communicating Our American Values and Vision.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Can cognitive science explain the difference between liberals and conservatives?&#160; Do we elect our presidents on the basis of stale metaphors and the manipulations of pernicious language mavens? We put these questions to George Lakoff, Professor of L]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Can cognitive science explain the difference between liberals and conservatives?&#160; Do we elect our presidents on the basis of stale metaphors and the manipulations of pernicious language mavens? We put these questions to George Lakoff, Professor of Linguistics at UC Berkeley and author of Thinking Points: Communicating Our American Values and Vision.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6062/politics-and-cognitive-science.mp3" length="27185894" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Can cognitive science explain the difference between liberals and conservatives?&#160; Do we elect our presidents on the basis of stale metaphors and the manipulations of pernicious language mavens? We put these questions to George Lakoff, Professor of Linguistics at UC Berkeley and author of Thinking Points: Communicating Our American Values and Vision.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-04-01T095904.755.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Can cognitive science explain the difference between liberals and conservatives?&#160; Do we elect our presidents on the basis of stale metaphors and the manipulations of pernicious language mavens? We put these questions to George Lakoff, Professor of Linguistics at UC Berkeley and author of Thinking Points: Communicating Our American Values and Vision.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-04-01T095904.755.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Philosophy of Wine</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/philosophy-of-wine/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 06 Apr 2008 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6052</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The discriminating wine palate: bouquet, nose, great vintages, genius vintners.&#160; Are these just myths perpetrated by winemakers and taken up by snobs with too much money to spend?&#160; John and Ken raise a philosophical glass with Barry Smith from the University of London, editor of Questions of Taste: The Philosophy of Wine.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The discriminating wine palate: bouquet, nose, great vintages, genius vintners.&#160; Are these just myths perpetrated by winemakers and taken up by snobs with too much money to spend?&#160; John and Ken raise a philosophical glass with Barry Smith from ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The discriminating wine palate: bouquet, nose, great vintages, genius vintners.&#160; Are these just myths perpetrated by winemakers and taken up by snobs with too much money to spend?&#160; John and Ken raise a philosophical glass with Barry Smith from the University of London, editor of Questions of Taste: The Philosophy of Wine.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6052/philosophy-of-wine.mp3" length="44685431" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The discriminating wine palate: bouquet, nose, great vintages, genius vintners.&#160; Are these just myths perpetrated by winemakers and taken up by snobs with too much money to spend?&#160; John and Ken raise a philosophical glass with Barry Smith from the University of London, editor of Questions of Taste: The Philosophy of Wine.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-04-01T094840.778.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The discriminating wine palate: bouquet, nose, great vintages, genius vintners.&#160; Are these just myths perpetrated by winemakers and taken up by snobs with too much money to spend?&#160; John and Ken raise a philosophical glass with Barry Smith from the University of London, editor of Questions of Taste: The Philosophy of Wine.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-04-01T094840.778.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Apologizing</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/apologizing/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 30 Mar 2008 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6464</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Can you be sorry without intending to change your behavior in the future? Without being ashamed? Do other cultures have different concepts of sorrow and guilt? John and Ken unapologetically explore the language and philosophy of contrition with Nick Smith from the University of New Hampshire, author of&#160;I Was Wrong: The Meanings of Apologies.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Can you be sorry without intending to change your behavior in the future? Without being ashamed? Do other cultures have different concepts of sorrow and guilt? John and Ken unapologetically explore the language and philosophy of contrition with Nick Smit]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Can you be sorry without intending to change your behavior in the future? Without being ashamed? Do other cultures have different concepts of sorrow and guilt? John and Ken unapologetically explore the language and philosophy of contrition with Nick Smith from the University of New Hampshire, author of&#160;I Was Wrong: The Meanings of Apologies.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6464/apologizing.mp3" length="47569606" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Can you be sorry without intending to change your behavior in the future? Without being ashamed? Do other cultures have different concepts of sorrow and guilt? John and Ken unapologetically explore the language and philosophy of contrition with Nick Smith from the University of New Hampshire, author of&#160;I Was Wrong: The Meanings of Apologies.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/s4KZhiiDoWk.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Can you be sorry without intending to change your behavior in the future? Without being ashamed? Do other cultures have different concepts of sorrow and guilt? John and Ken unapologetically explore the language and philosophy of contrition with Nick Smith from the University of New Hampshire, author of&#160;I Was Wrong: The Meanings of Apologies.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/s4KZhiiDoWk.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Science vs. Pseudo-science</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/science-vs-pseudo-science/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2008 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6459</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Astronomy is science; Astrology is pseudo-science. Evolutionary Biology is science; Creationism is pseudo-science. How about cultural anthropology, abstract economics, string-theory, and evolutionary psychology – science or pseudo-science? Is pseudo-science just politically incorrect science? Or is there an objective difference? John and Ken tackle these questions with Stuart Vyse from Connecticut College, author of Believing in Magic: The Psychology of Superstition.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Astronomy is science; Astrology is pseudo-science. Evolutionary Biology is science; Creationism is pseudo-science. How about cultural anthropology, abstract economics, string-theory, and evolutionary psychology – science or pseudo-science? Is pseudo-scie]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Astronomy is science; Astrology is pseudo-science. Evolutionary Biology is science; Creationism is pseudo-science. How about cultural anthropology, abstract economics, string-theory, and evolutionary psychology – science or pseudo-science? Is pseudo-science just politically incorrect science? Or is there an objective difference? John and Ken tackle these questions with Stuart Vyse from Connecticut College, author of Believing in Magic: The Psychology of Superstition.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6459/science-vs-pseudo-science.mp3" length="47639823" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Astronomy is science; Astrology is pseudo-science. Evolutionary Biology is science; Creationism is pseudo-science. How about cultural anthropology, abstract economics, string-theory, and evolutionary psychology – science or pseudo-science? Is pseudo-science just politically incorrect science? Or is there an objective difference? John and Ken tackle these questions with Stuart Vyse from Connecticut College, author of Believing in Magic: The Psychology of Superstition.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/I6EU4OZ7YAc.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Astronomy is science; Astrology is pseudo-science. Evolutionary Biology is science; Creationism is pseudo-science. How about cultural anthropology, abstract economics, string-theory, and evolutionary psychology – science or pseudo-science? Is pseudo-science just politically incorrect science? Or is there an objective difference? John and Ken tackle these questions with Stuart Vyse from Connecticut College, author of Believing in Magic: The Psychology of Superstition.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/I6EU4OZ7YAc.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Infinity</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/infinity/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 24 Feb 2008 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6454</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[&#160;Infinity is a puzzling concept. Mathematicians say there are as many odd numbers as there are numbers altogether. That seems like saying there are as many men as there are people altogether –&#160;which we know is untrue. And if you subtract infinity from infinity, you are still left with infinity – but which infinity? Some infinities are larger than others – how can this be? John and Ken unravel the paradoxes of infinity with Rudy Rucker, Professor Emeritus of Computer Science at San Jose State University and author of Infinity and the Mind: The Science and Philosophy of the Infinite.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[&#160;Infinity is a puzzling concept. Mathematicians say there are as many odd numbers as there are numbers altogether. That seems like saying there are as many men as there are people altogether –&#160;which we know is untrue. And if you subtract infini]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[&#160;Infinity is a puzzling concept. Mathematicians say there are as many odd numbers as there are numbers altogether. That seems like saying there are as many men as there are people altogether –&#160;which we know is untrue. And if you subtract infinity from infinity, you are still left with infinity – but which infinity? Some infinities are larger than others – how can this be? John and Ken unravel the paradoxes of infinity with Rudy Rucker, Professor Emeritus of Computer Science at San Jose State University and author of Infinity and the Mind: The Science and Philosophy of the Infinite.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6454/infinity.mp3" length="47541185" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[&#160;Infinity is a puzzling concept. Mathematicians say there are as many odd numbers as there are numbers altogether. That seems like saying there are as many men as there are people altogether –&#160;which we know is untrue. And if you subtract infinity from infinity, you are still left with infinity – but which infinity? Some infinities are larger than others – how can this be? John and Ken unravel the paradoxes of infinity with Rudy Rucker, Professor Emeritus of Computer Science at San Jose State University and author of Infinity and the Mind: The Science and Philosophy of the Infinite.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/dFOR7gvGHX0.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[&#160;Infinity is a puzzling concept. Mathematicians say there are as many odd numbers as there are numbers altogether. That seems like saying there are as many men as there are people altogether –&#160;which we know is untrue. And if you subtract infinity from infinity, you are still left with infinity – but which infinity? Some infinities are larger than others – how can this be? John and Ken unravel the paradoxes of infinity with Rudy Rucker, Professor Emeritus of Computer Science at San Jose State University and author of Infinity and the Mind: The Science and Philosophy of the Infinite.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/dFOR7gvGHX0.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Connectionism</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/connectionism/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 17 Feb 2008 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6445</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Does the human mind work like a computer? If so, what kind of computer? A theory known as connectionism offers a revolutionary perspective on these issues. Ken and John delve into cutting-edge cognitive science with Jay McClelland from Stanford University, an architect of the connectionist view.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Does the human mind work like a computer? If so, what kind of computer? A theory known as connectionism offers a revolutionary perspective on these issues. Ken and John delve into cutting-edge cognitive science with Jay McClelland from Stanford Universit]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Does the human mind work like a computer? If so, what kind of computer? A theory known as connectionism offers a revolutionary perspective on these issues. Ken and John delve into cutting-edge cognitive science with Jay McClelland from Stanford University, an architect of the connectionist view.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6445/connectionism.mp3" length="29539266" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Does the human mind work like a computer? If so, what kind of computer? A theory known as connectionism offers a revolutionary perspective on these issues. Ken and John delve into cutting-edge cognitive science with Jay McClelland from Stanford University, an architect of the connectionist view.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/1rqew1_-W1w.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Does the human mind work like a computer? If so, what kind of computer? A theory known as connectionism offers a revolutionary perspective on these issues. Ken and John delve into cutting-edge cognitive science with Jay McClelland from Stanford University, an architect of the connectionist view.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/1rqew1_-W1w.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Saint Augustine</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/6430/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jan 2008 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6430</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The philosopher Saint Augustine of Hippo is one of the most important figures in the history of Christianity. His efforts against the Manichean, Arian and Pelagain heresies shaped the fundamentals of Christian doctrine. His Confessions tells the story of his own conversion from Manicheanism to Christianity. His philosophical ideas anticipated Saint Thomas Aquinas and Descartes. His three-volume City of God remains a classic of Christian apologetics. And many find the roots of some of the darker sides of Christian doctrine, from the emphasis on original sin to the second-rate status for women, in his works. John and Ken welcome Georgetown University Provost James O&#8217;Donnell, author of Augustine, Sinner &#38; Saint: A New Biography.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The philosopher Saint Augustine of Hippo is one of the most important figures in the history of Christianity. His efforts against the Manichean, Arian and Pelagain heresies shaped the fundamentals of Christian doctrine. His Confessions tells the story of]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The philosopher Saint Augustine of Hippo is one of the most important figures in the history of Christianity. His efforts against the Manichean, Arian and Pelagain heresies shaped the fundamentals of Christian doctrine. His Confessions tells the story of his own conversion from Manicheanism to Christianity. His philosophical ideas anticipated Saint Thomas Aquinas and Descartes. His three-volume City of God remains a classic of Christian apologetics. And many find the roots of some of the darker sides of Christian doctrine, from the emphasis on original sin to the second-rate status for women, in his works. John and Ken welcome Georgetown University Provost James O&#8217;Donnell, author of Augustine, Sinner &#38; Saint: A New Biography.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6430/6430.mp3" length="46476481" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The philosopher Saint Augustine of Hippo is one of the most important figures in the history of Christianity. His efforts against the Manichean, Arian and Pelagain heresies shaped the fundamentals of Christian doctrine. His Confessions tells the story of his own conversion from Manicheanism to Christianity. His philosophical ideas anticipated Saint Thomas Aquinas and Descartes. His three-volume City of God remains a classic of Christian apologetics. And many find the roots of some of the darker sides of Christian doctrine, from the emphasis on original sin to the second-rate status for women, in his works. John and Ken welcome Georgetown University Provost James O&#8217;Donnell, author of Augustine, Sinner &#38; Saint: A New Biography.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/DlbMj3wfZHo.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The philosopher Saint Augustine of Hippo is one of the most important figures in the history of Christianity. His efforts against the Manichean, Arian and Pelagain heresies shaped the fundamentals of Christian doctrine. His Confessions tells the story of his own conversion from Manicheanism to Christianity. His philosophical ideas anticipated Saint Thomas Aquinas and Descartes. His three-volume City of God remains a classic of Christian apologetics. And many find the roots of some of the darker sides of Christian doctrine, from the emphasis on original sin to the second-rate status for women, in his works. John and Ken welcome Georgetown University Provost James O&#8217;Donnell, author of Augustine, Sinner &#38; Saint: A New Biography.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/DlbMj3wfZHo.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Persons, Selves, Souls, and Loops</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/persons-selves-souls-and-loops/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jan 2008 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6436</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Can a self, a consciousness, an &#8220;I&#8221; arise out of mere matter? If it cannot, then how can you or I be here? And if it can, how does THAT work? These and other questions of identity are central to I Am A Strange Loop, the latest book by Indiana University Philosopher Douglas Hofstadter, author of the acclaimed Godel, Escher, Bach. He joins John and Ken for a probing discussion of the self, the soul, and the strange loop that binds them.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Can a self, a consciousness, an &#8220;I&#8221; arise out of mere matter? If it cannot, then how can you or I be here? And if it can, how does THAT work? These and other questions of identity are central to I Am A Strange Loop, the latest book by Indiana]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Can a self, a consciousness, an &#8220;I&#8221; arise out of mere matter? If it cannot, then how can you or I be here? And if it can, how does THAT work? These and other questions of identity are central to I Am A Strange Loop, the latest book by Indiana University Philosopher Douglas Hofstadter, author of the acclaimed Godel, Escher, Bach. He joins John and Ken for a probing discussion of the self, the soul, and the strange loop that binds them.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6436/persons-selves-souls-and-loops.mp3" length="48263000" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Can a self, a consciousness, an &#8220;I&#8221; arise out of mere matter? If it cannot, then how can you or I be here? And if it can, how does THAT work? These and other questions of identity are central to I Am A Strange Loop, the latest book by Indiana University Philosopher Douglas Hofstadter, author of the acclaimed Godel, Escher, Bach. He joins John and Ken for a probing discussion of the self, the soul, and the strange loop that binds them.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Y8tu6HQXOx4.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Can a self, a consciousness, an &#8220;I&#8221; arise out of mere matter? If it cannot, then how can you or I be here? And if it can, how does THAT work? These and other questions of identity are central to I Am A Strange Loop, the latest book by Indiana University Philosopher Douglas Hofstadter, author of the acclaimed Godel, Escher, Bach. He joins John and Ken for a probing discussion of the self, the soul, and the strange loop that binds them.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Y8tu6HQXOx4.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Why Music Matters</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/why-music-matters/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jan 2008 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6419</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[There is something deeply mysterious about music. Why does it affect us so powerfully? Is it like a language, telling us something? A subtle form of communication? Are there universal interpretations of the emotions that various pieces of music expresses? Or does one need to be part of a music &#8220;community&#8221; in order to appreciate musical expression? John and Ken explore how music matters with musician and founding member of the Kronos Quartet David Harrington, in a program recorded live&#160;at Biscuits and Blues in San Francisco.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[There is something deeply mysterious about music. Why does it affect us so powerfully? Is it like a language, telling us something? A subtle form of communication? Are there universal interpretations of the emotions that various pieces of music expresses]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[There is something deeply mysterious about music. Why does it affect us so powerfully? Is it like a language, telling us something? A subtle form of communication? Are there universal interpretations of the emotions that various pieces of music expresses? Or does one need to be part of a music &#8220;community&#8221; in order to appreciate musical expression? John and Ken explore how music matters with musician and founding member of the Kronos Quartet David Harrington, in a program recorded live&#160;at Biscuits and Blues in San Francisco.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6419/why-music-matters.mp3" length="24444672" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[There is something deeply mysterious about music. Why does it affect us so powerfully? Is it like a language, telling us something? A subtle form of communication? Are there universal interpretations of the emotions that various pieces of music expresses? Or does one need to be part of a music &#8220;community&#8221; in order to appreciate musical expression? John and Ken explore how music matters with musician and founding member of the Kronos Quartet David Harrington, in a program recorded live&#160;at Biscuits and Blues in San Francisco.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/5TjvrYggRwc.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[There is something deeply mysterious about music. Why does it affect us so powerfully? Is it like a language, telling us something? A subtle form of communication? Are there universal interpretations of the emotions that various pieces of music expresses? Or does one need to be part of a music &#8220;community&#8221; in order to appreciate musical expression? John and Ken explore how music matters with musician and founding member of the Kronos Quartet David Harrington, in a program recorded live&#160;at Biscuits and Blues in San Francisco.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/5TjvrYggRwc.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Work</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/work/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jan 2008 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6331</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Is work the curse of the working class? Or a human&#8217;s best opportunity for happiness and meaning? What is work, and what is leisure? Are you what you do? And how does American society differ in its attitude towards work, and holidays, from others? John and Ken discuss these issues and more with Al Gini from Loyola University Chicago, author of My Job, My Self: Work and the Creation of the Modern Individual. This program was recorded live&#160;at Centenary College in Shreveport, LA.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Is work the curse of the working class? Or a human&#8217;s best opportunity for happiness and meaning? What is work, and what is leisure? Are you what you do? And how does American society differ in its attitude towards work, and holidays, from others? J]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Is work the curse of the working class? Or a human&#8217;s best opportunity for happiness and meaning? What is work, and what is leisure? Are you what you do? And how does American society differ in its attitude towards work, and holidays, from others? John and Ken discuss these issues and more with Al Gini from Loyola University Chicago, author of My Job, My Self: Work and the Creation of the Modern Individual. This program was recorded live&#160;at Centenary College in Shreveport, LA.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6331/work.mp3" length="23783616" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Is work the curse of the working class? Or a human&#8217;s best opportunity for happiness and meaning? What is work, and what is leisure? Are you what you do? And how does American society differ in its attitude towards work, and holidays, from others? John and Ken discuss these issues and more with Al Gini from Loyola University Chicago, author of My Job, My Self: Work and the Creation of the Modern Individual. This program was recorded live&#160;at Centenary College in Shreveport, LA.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/2xpQbwLRLCI.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Is work the curse of the working class? Or a human&#8217;s best opportunity for happiness and meaning? What is work, and what is leisure? Are you what you do? And how does American society differ in its attitude towards work, and holidays, from others? John and Ken discuss these issues and more with Al Gini from Loyola University Chicago, author of My Job, My Self: Work and the Creation of the Modern Individual. This program was recorded live&#160;at Centenary College in Shreveport, LA.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/2xpQbwLRLCI.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Personal Identity</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/personal-identity/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2007 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6413</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What is necessary for a person to survive over time?&#160; Is it the continued existence of the living body?&#160; Or is it just the living brain?&#160; Or is it one&#8217;s psychology, which might persist even without one&#8217;s original brain in a computer or in an entirely new brain?&#160; How important are questions of personal identity for ethics and rationality? John and Ken are joined by Raymond Martin, Professor of Philosophy at Union College and co-author of The Rise and Fall of Soul and Self: An Intellectual History of Personal Identity.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What is necessary for a person to survive over time?&#160; Is it the continued existence of the living body?&#160; Or is it just the living brain?&#160; Or is it one&#8217;s psychology, which might persist even without one&#8217;s original brain in a com]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What is necessary for a person to survive over time?&#160; Is it the continued existence of the living body?&#160; Or is it just the living brain?&#160; Or is it one&#8217;s psychology, which might persist even without one&#8217;s original brain in a computer or in an entirely new brain?&#160; How important are questions of personal identity for ethics and rationality? John and Ken are joined by Raymond Martin, Professor of Philosophy at Union College and co-author of The Rise and Fall of Soul and Self: An Intellectual History of Personal Identity.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6413/personal-identity.mp3" length="47598863" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What is necessary for a person to survive over time?&#160; Is it the continued existence of the living body?&#160; Or is it just the living brain?&#160; Or is it one&#8217;s psychology, which might persist even without one&#8217;s original brain in a computer or in an entirely new brain?&#160; How important are questions of personal identity for ethics and rationality? John and Ken are joined by Raymond Martin, Professor of Philosophy at Union College and co-author of The Rise and Fall of Soul and Self: An Intellectual History of Personal Identity.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/W8w_wXuyn2E.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What is necessary for a person to survive over time?&#160; Is it the continued existence of the living body?&#160; Or is it just the living brain?&#160; Or is it one&#8217;s psychology, which might persist even without one&#8217;s original brain in a computer or in an entirely new brain?&#160; How important are questions of personal identity for ethics and rationality? John and Ken are joined by Raymond Martin, Professor of Philosophy at Union College and co-author of The Rise and Fall of Soul and Self: An Intellectual History of Personal Identity.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/W8w_wXuyn2E.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Concept of God</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/concept-of-god/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 09 Dec 2007 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6031</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What does &#8220;God&#8221; mean?&#160; Is God a concrete thing like a chair or a human; or is it an abstract thing, like love or goodness?&#160; Is there something that all concepts of God have in common, some feature that all cultures attribute to God?&#160; Richard Swinburne, Emeritus Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion at the University of Oxford, joins John and Ken to explore the many ways in which people across the world conceive of the divine.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What does &#8220;God&#8221; mean?&#160; Is God a concrete thing like a chair or a human; or is it an abstract thing, like love or goodness?&#160; Is there something that all concepts of God have in common, some feature that all cultures attribute to God?]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What does &#8220;God&#8221; mean?&#160; Is God a concrete thing like a chair or a human; or is it an abstract thing, like love or goodness?&#160; Is there something that all concepts of God have in common, some feature that all cultures attribute to God?&#160; Richard Swinburne, Emeritus Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion at the University of Oxford, joins John and Ken to explore the many ways in which people across the world conceive of the divine.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6031/concept-of-god.mp3" length="48020166" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What does &#8220;God&#8221; mean?&#160; Is God a concrete thing like a chair or a human; or is it an abstract thing, like love or goodness?&#160; Is there something that all concepts of God have in common, some feature that all cultures attribute to God?&#160; Richard Swinburne, Emeritus Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion at the University of Oxford, joins John and Ken to explore the many ways in which people across the world conceive of the divine.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/aMOxEjUTZ-k.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What does &#8220;God&#8221; mean?&#160; Is God a concrete thing like a chair or a human; or is it an abstract thing, like love or goodness?&#160; Is there something that all concepts of God have in common, some feature that all cultures attribute to God?&#160; Richard Swinburne, Emeritus Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion at the University of Oxford, joins John and Ken to explore the many ways in which people across the world conceive of the divine.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/aMOxEjUTZ-k.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Political Correctness</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/political-correctness/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 02 Dec 2007 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6404</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What is political correctness?&#160; Has it always existed?&#160; What&#8217;s &#8220;political&#8221; about it?&#160; Some people think that concerns over being PC lead to censorship and the stifling of free debate.&#160; Others think the label &#8220;politically correct&#8221; is nothing but a demeaning term for values we should espouse anyway, like appropriateness, politeness, fairness, and respectfulness.&#160; Is &#8220;politically correct&#8221; just a nasty label used to diminish and belittle social progress?&#160; Or do the assailants of political correctness have a point?&#160; John and Ken take on political correctness with former political speechwriter Leonard Steinhorn, Professor of Communication at American University.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What is political correctness?&#160; Has it always existed?&#160; What&#8217;s &#8220;political&#8221; about it?&#160; Some people think that concerns over being PC lead to censorship and the stifling of free debate.&#160; Others think the label &#8220;p]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What is political correctness?&#160; Has it always existed?&#160; What&#8217;s &#8220;political&#8221; about it?&#160; Some people think that concerns over being PC lead to censorship and the stifling of free debate.&#160; Others think the label &#8220;politically correct&#8221; is nothing but a demeaning term for values we should espouse anyway, like appropriateness, politeness, fairness, and respectfulness.&#160; Is &#8220;politically correct&#8221; just a nasty label used to diminish and belittle social progress?&#160; Or do the assailants of political correctness have a point?&#160; John and Ken take on political correctness with former political speechwriter Leonard Steinhorn, Professor of Communication at American University.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6404/political-correctness.mp3" length="47772734" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What is political correctness?&#160; Has it always existed?&#160; What&#8217;s &#8220;political&#8221; about it?&#160; Some people think that concerns over being PC lead to censorship and the stifling of free debate.&#160; Others think the label &#8220;politically correct&#8221; is nothing but a demeaning term for values we should espouse anyway, like appropriateness, politeness, fairness, and respectfulness.&#160; Is &#8220;politically correct&#8221; just a nasty label used to diminish and belittle social progress?&#160; Or do the assailants of political correctness have a point?&#160; John and Ken take on political correctness with former political speechwriter Leonard Steinhorn, Professor of Communication at American University.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/zln81GYk3L8.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What is political correctness?&#160; Has it always existed?&#160; What&#8217;s &#8220;political&#8221; about it?&#160; Some people think that concerns over being PC lead to censorship and the stifling of free debate.&#160; Others think the label &#8220;politically correct&#8221; is nothing but a demeaning term for values we should espouse anyway, like appropriateness, politeness, fairness, and respectfulness.&#160; Is &#8220;politically correct&#8221; just a nasty label used to diminish and belittle social progress?&#160; Or do the assailants of political correctness have a point?&#160; John and Ken take on political correctness with former political speechwriter Leonard Steinhorn, Professor of Communication at American University.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/zln81GYk3L8.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Islamic Philosophy</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/islamic-philosophy/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 18 Nov 2007 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6303</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Some of the many topics discussed in Islamic philosophy are the Qur&#8217;an, knowledge, dreams, justice, poetry, reality, prophethood, peace, and the State.&#160; How has Islamic philosophy interacted historically with other philosophical traditions?&#160; How has philosophy influenced the popular practice and interpretation of Islam?&#160; When has Islamic philosophy melded with or clashed with Islam&#8217;s religious teachings? John and Ken are joined by Mashhad Al-Allaf, Imam Khattab Chair of Islamic Studies at the University of Toledo and Author of The Essential Ideas of Islamic Philosophy and The Essence of Islamic Philosophy.&#160;]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Some of the many topics discussed in Islamic philosophy are the Qur&#8217;an, knowledge, dreams, justice, poetry, reality, prophethood, peace, and the State.&#160; How has Islamic philosophy interacted historically with other philosophical traditions?&#1]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Some of the many topics discussed in Islamic philosophy are the Qur&#8217;an, knowledge, dreams, justice, poetry, reality, prophethood, peace, and the State.&#160; How has Islamic philosophy interacted historically with other philosophical traditions?&#160; How has philosophy influenced the popular practice and interpretation of Islam?&#160; When has Islamic philosophy melded with or clashed with Islam&#8217;s religious teachings? John and Ken are joined by Mashhad Al-Allaf, Imam Khattab Chair of Islamic Studies at the University of Toledo and Author of The Essential Ideas of Islamic Philosophy and The Essence of Islamic Philosophy.&#160;]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6303/islamic-philosophy.mp3" length="47716984" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Some of the many topics discussed in Islamic philosophy are the Qur&#8217;an, knowledge, dreams, justice, poetry, reality, prophethood, peace, and the State.&#160; How has Islamic philosophy interacted historically with other philosophical traditions?&#160; How has philosophy influenced the popular practice and interpretation of Islam?&#160; When has Islamic philosophy melded with or clashed with Islam&#8217;s religious teachings? John and Ken are joined by Mashhad Al-Allaf, Imam Khattab Chair of Islamic Studies at the University of Toledo and Author of The Essential Ideas of Islamic Philosophy and The Essence of Islamic Philosophy.&#160;]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Capture32.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Some of the many topics discussed in Islamic philosophy are the Qur&#8217;an, knowledge, dreams, justice, poetry, reality, prophethood, peace, and the State.&#160; How has Islamic philosophy interacted historically with other philosophical traditions?&#160; How has philosophy influenced the popular practice and interpretation of Islam?&#160; When has Islamic philosophy melded with or clashed with Islam&#8217;s religious teachings? John and Ken are joined by Mashhad Al-Allaf, Imam Khattab Chair of Islamic Studies at the University of Toledo and Author of The Essential Ideas of Islamic Philosophy and The Essence of Islamic Philosophy.&#160;]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Capture32.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Immigration and Citizenship</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/immigration-and-citizenship/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 11 Nov 2007 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6395</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What are the effects of immigration on culture in America?&#160; Does it promote homogenization, diversity, or both?&#160; Cultural enrichment, or assimilation? What challenges does immigration raise?&#160; What immigration policies should the American government adopt, with respect to economics, culture, and ethics?&#160; How can we justify denying privileges and protections to people based simply upon where they were born?&#160; What, if any, restrictions on immigration and citizenship are permissible?&#160; John and Ken welcome Noe Lozano, Dean of Diversity at Stanford&#8217;s School of Engineering, to discuss the challenges and benefits of immigration, in a program recorded live&#160;at the College of the Sequoias in Visalia, CA.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What are the effects of immigration on culture in America?&#160; Does it promote homogenization, diversity, or both?&#160; Cultural enrichment, or assimilation? What challenges does immigration raise?&#160; What immigration policies should the American g]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What are the effects of immigration on culture in America?&#160; Does it promote homogenization, diversity, or both?&#160; Cultural enrichment, or assimilation? What challenges does immigration raise?&#160; What immigration policies should the American government adopt, with respect to economics, culture, and ethics?&#160; How can we justify denying privileges and protections to people based simply upon where they were born?&#160; What, if any, restrictions on immigration and citizenship are permissible?&#160; John and Ken welcome Noe Lozano, Dean of Diversity at Stanford&#8217;s School of Engineering, to discuss the challenges and benefits of immigration, in a program recorded live&#160;at the College of the Sequoias in Visalia, CA.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6395/immigration-and-citizenship.mp3" length="48400509" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What are the effects of immigration on culture in America?&#160; Does it promote homogenization, diversity, or both?&#160; Cultural enrichment, or assimilation? What challenges does immigration raise?&#160; What immigration policies should the American government adopt, with respect to economics, culture, and ethics?&#160; How can we justify denying privileges and protections to people based simply upon where they were born?&#160; What, if any, restrictions on immigration and citizenship are permissible?&#160; John and Ken welcome Noe Lozano, Dean of Diversity at Stanford&#8217;s School of Engineering, to discuss the challenges and benefits of immigration, in a program recorded live&#160;at the College of the Sequoias in Visalia, CA.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Lj1n56s0PEU.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What are the effects of immigration on culture in America?&#160; Does it promote homogenization, diversity, or both?&#160; Cultural enrichment, or assimilation? What challenges does immigration raise?&#160; What immigration policies should the American government adopt, with respect to economics, culture, and ethics?&#160; How can we justify denying privileges and protections to people based simply upon where they were born?&#160; What, if any, restrictions on immigration and citizenship are permissible?&#160; John and Ken welcome Noe Lozano, Dean of Diversity at Stanford&#8217;s School of Engineering, to discuss the challenges and benefits of immigration, in a program recorded live&#160;at the College of the Sequoias in Visalia, CA.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Lj1n56s0PEU.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Philosophy and Literature</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/philosophy-and-literature/</link>
	<pubDate>Sat, 27 Oct 2007 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6318</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What can we learn from studying philosophy?&#160; What can we learn from reading great (or not-so-great) literature?&#160; Some philosophers and literary theorists believe that philosophy and literature converge in a number of places.&#160; Great literature is often deeply philosophical, and great philosophy is often great literature, sometimes in the form of fictional narrative.&#160; Perhaps we can learn many of the same lessons from philosophy and literature.&#160; Can the methods of philosophy and literary criticism be combined?&#160; Are the truths they shed light upon complementary?&#160; John and Ken are joined by fellow Stanford philosophy professor Lanier Anderson to discuss the intersection of philosophy and literature.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What can we learn from studying philosophy?&#160; What can we learn from reading great (or not-so-great) literature?&#160; Some philosophers and literary theorists believe that philosophy and literature converge in a number of places.&#160; Great literat]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What can we learn from studying philosophy?&#160; What can we learn from reading great (or not-so-great) literature?&#160; Some philosophers and literary theorists believe that philosophy and literature converge in a number of places.&#160; Great literature is often deeply philosophical, and great philosophy is often great literature, sometimes in the form of fictional narrative.&#160; Perhaps we can learn many of the same lessons from philosophy and literature.&#160; Can the methods of philosophy and literary criticism be combined?&#160; Are the truths they shed light upon complementary?&#160; John and Ken are joined by fellow Stanford philosophy professor Lanier Anderson to discuss the intersection of philosophy and literature.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6318/philosophy-and-literature.mp3" length="48053441" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What can we learn from studying philosophy?&#160; What can we learn from reading great (or not-so-great) literature?&#160; Some philosophers and literary theorists believe that philosophy and literature converge in a number of places.&#160; Great literature is often deeply philosophical, and great philosophy is often great literature, sometimes in the form of fictional narrative.&#160; Perhaps we can learn many of the same lessons from philosophy and literature.&#160; Can the methods of philosophy and literary criticism be combined?&#160; Are the truths they shed light upon complementary?&#160; John and Ken are joined by fellow Stanford philosophy professor Lanier Anderson to discuss the intersection of philosophy and literature.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/yxyTZFM_K-E.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What can we learn from studying philosophy?&#160; What can we learn from reading great (or not-so-great) literature?&#160; Some philosophers and literary theorists believe that philosophy and literature converge in a number of places.&#160; Great literature is often deeply philosophical, and great philosophy is often great literature, sometimes in the form of fictional narrative.&#160; Perhaps we can learn many of the same lessons from philosophy and literature.&#160; Can the methods of philosophy and literary criticism be combined?&#160; Are the truths they shed light upon complementary?&#160; John and Ken are joined by fellow Stanford philosophy professor Lanier Anderson to discuss the intersection of philosophy and literature.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/yxyTZFM_K-E.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Predicting the Future</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/predicting-the-future/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 21 Oct 2007 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6325</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[People who predict the future well are sometimes said to be psychic. But we all make predictions about the future, with more or less success. We confidently predict the sun will rise tomorrow, that ice will be cold, etc. But maybe we&#8217;re not quite as good at predicting the future as we think. Is the stock market predictable? The weather? Political upheavals? Or is life just too random to make good predictions? John and Ken predict that Nassim Taleb, author of The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, will join them to consider the extent to which we can forecast the future.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[People who predict the future well are sometimes said to be psychic. But we all make predictions about the future, with more or less success. We confidently predict the sun will rise tomorrow, that ice will be cold, etc. But maybe we&#8217;re not quite a]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[People who predict the future well are sometimes said to be psychic. But we all make predictions about the future, with more or less success. We confidently predict the sun will rise tomorrow, that ice will be cold, etc. But maybe we&#8217;re not quite as good at predicting the future as we think. Is the stock market predictable? The weather? Political upheavals? Or is life just too random to make good predictions? John and Ken predict that Nassim Taleb, author of The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, will join them to consider the extent to which we can forecast the future.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6325/predicting-the-future.mp3" length="47536169" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[People who predict the future well are sometimes said to be psychic. But we all make predictions about the future, with more or less success. We confidently predict the sun will rise tomorrow, that ice will be cold, etc. But maybe we&#8217;re not quite as good at predicting the future as we think. Is the stock market predictable? The weather? Political upheavals? Or is life just too random to make good predictions? John and Ken predict that Nassim Taleb, author of The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, will join them to consider the extent to which we can forecast the future.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/omv2EFYo5qM.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[People who predict the future well are sometimes said to be psychic. But we all make predictions about the future, with more or less success. We confidently predict the sun will rise tomorrow, that ice will be cold, etc. But maybe we&#8217;re not quite as good at predicting the future as we think. Is the stock market predictable? The weather? Political upheavals? Or is life just too random to make good predictions? John and Ken predict that Nassim Taleb, author of The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, will join them to consider the extent to which we can forecast the future.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/omv2EFYo5qM.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Faith, Reason, and Science</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/faith-reason-and-science/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 14 Oct 2007 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6314</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Does faith obscure reason? Does reason obscure faith? Or perhaps their subject matters are different. Faith might address one area of our lives and reason and science another. Faith may allow us to see meaning, values, and God, while reason sees everything else, whatever that may be. Or perhaps faith and reason are fundamentally intertwined. Is faith void of reason? Is it irrational to be faithful? Are science and rationality void of faith? John and Ken welcome Nancey Murphy, author of&#160;Did My Neurons Make Me Do It?: Philosophical and Neurobiological Perspectives on Moral Responsibility and Free Will, to explore the meaning of faith and the place of faith and reason in religion, scientific practice, and our knowledge of ourselves and the world around us.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Does faith obscure reason? Does reason obscure faith? Or perhaps their subject matters are different. Faith might address one area of our lives and reason and science another. Faith may allow us to see meaning, values, and God, while reason sees everythi]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Does faith obscure reason? Does reason obscure faith? Or perhaps their subject matters are different. Faith might address one area of our lives and reason and science another. Faith may allow us to see meaning, values, and God, while reason sees everything else, whatever that may be. Or perhaps faith and reason are fundamentally intertwined. Is faith void of reason? Is it irrational to be faithful? Are science and rationality void of faith? John and Ken welcome Nancey Murphy, author of&#160;Did My Neurons Make Me Do It?: Philosophical and Neurobiological Perspectives on Moral Responsibility and Free Will, to explore the meaning of faith and the place of faith and reason in religion, scientific practice, and our knowledge of ourselves and the world around us.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6314/faith-reason-and-science.mp3" length="47966505" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Does faith obscure reason? Does reason obscure faith? Or perhaps their subject matters are different. Faith might address one area of our lives and reason and science another. Faith may allow us to see meaning, values, and God, while reason sees everything else, whatever that may be. Or perhaps faith and reason are fundamentally intertwined. Is faith void of reason? Is it irrational to be faithful? Are science and rationality void of faith? John and Ken welcome Nancey Murphy, author of&#160;Did My Neurons Make Me Do It?: Philosophical and Neurobiological Perspectives on Moral Responsibility and Free Will, to explore the meaning of faith and the place of faith and reason in religion, scientific practice, and our knowledge of ourselves and the world around us.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Nvr_Wawp12g.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Does faith obscure reason? Does reason obscure faith? Or perhaps their subject matters are different. Faith might address one area of our lives and reason and science another. Faith may allow us to see meaning, values, and God, while reason sees everything else, whatever that may be. Or perhaps faith and reason are fundamentally intertwined. Is faith void of reason? Is it irrational to be faithful? Are science and rationality void of faith? John and Ken welcome Nancey Murphy, author of&#160;Did My Neurons Make Me Do It?: Philosophical and Neurobiological Perspectives on Moral Responsibility and Free Will, to explore the meaning of faith and the place of faith and reason in religion, scientific practice, and our knowledge of ourselves and the world around us.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Nvr_Wawp12g.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Love, Poetry and Philosophy</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/love-poetry-and-philosophy/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 30 Sep 2007 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6310</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[For Plato, love and philosophy were closely related. Love of beauty causes one to contemplate the whole sea of beauties, including beautiful systems of justice and beautiful scientific theories. But Plato wasn&#8217;t such a fan of poetry, arguing that it merely evoked strong emotions in a way contrary to reason. Noted poet Troy Jollimore, winner of the 2006 National Book Critics Circle Award, disagrees. He joins John and Ken for a spirited discussion of love, poetry, and philosophy,&#160;recorded&#160;live&#160;at Powell&#8217;s City of Books in Portland, Oregon.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[For Plato, love and philosophy were closely related. Love of beauty causes one to contemplate the whole sea of beauties, including beautiful systems of justice and beautiful scientific theories. But Plato wasn&#8217;t such a fan of poetry, arguing that i]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[For Plato, love and philosophy were closely related. Love of beauty causes one to contemplate the whole sea of beauties, including beautiful systems of justice and beautiful scientific theories. But Plato wasn&#8217;t such a fan of poetry, arguing that it merely evoked strong emotions in a way contrary to reason. Noted poet Troy Jollimore, winner of the 2006 National Book Critics Circle Award, disagrees. He joins John and Ken for a spirited discussion of love, poetry, and philosophy,&#160;recorded&#160;live&#160;at Powell&#8217;s City of Books in Portland, Oregon.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6310/love-poetry-and-philosophy.mp3" length="48377521" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[For Plato, love and philosophy were closely related. Love of beauty causes one to contemplate the whole sea of beauties, including beautiful systems of justice and beautiful scientific theories. But Plato wasn&#8217;t such a fan of poetry, arguing that it merely evoked strong emotions in a way contrary to reason. Noted poet Troy Jollimore, winner of the 2006 National Book Critics Circle Award, disagrees. He joins John and Ken for a spirited discussion of love, poetry, and philosophy,&#160;recorded&#160;live&#160;at Powell&#8217;s City of Books in Portland, Oregon.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/KuH61l8oeRk.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[For Plato, love and philosophy were closely related. Love of beauty causes one to contemplate the whole sea of beauties, including beautiful systems of justice and beautiful scientific theories. But Plato wasn&#8217;t such a fan of poetry, arguing that it merely evoked strong emotions in a way contrary to reason. Noted poet Troy Jollimore, winner of the 2006 National Book Critics Circle Award, disagrees. He joins John and Ken for a spirited discussion of love, poetry, and philosophy,&#160;recorded&#160;live&#160;at Powell&#8217;s City of Books in Portland, Oregon.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/KuH61l8oeRk.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Math and the Mind</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/math-and-the-mind/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 16 Sep 2007 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6013</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[How does a bunch of grey matter in our skulls have the ability to solve mathematical problems? Are we the only species that can? Does catching a baseball require doing calculations? Join John, Ken, and their guest, noted cognitive scientist and NPR&#8217;s &#8220;Math Guy&#8221; Keith Devlin, as they discuss the many ways our minds can do the math.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[How does a bunch of grey matter in our skulls have the ability to solve mathematical problems? Are we the only species that can? Does catching a baseball require doing calculations? Join John, Ken, and their guest, noted cognitive scientist and NPR&#8217]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[How does a bunch of grey matter in our skulls have the ability to solve mathematical problems? Are we the only species that can? Does catching a baseball require doing calculations? Join John, Ken, and their guest, noted cognitive scientist and NPR&#8217;s &#8220;Math Guy&#8221; Keith Devlin, as they discuss the many ways our minds can do the math.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6013/math-and-the-mind.mp3" length="45491513" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[How does a bunch of grey matter in our skulls have the ability to solve mathematical problems? Are we the only species that can? Does catching a baseball require doing calculations? Join John, Ken, and their guest, noted cognitive scientist and NPR&#8217;s &#8220;Math Guy&#8221; Keith Devlin, as they discuss the many ways our minds can do the math.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-04-01T094149.778.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[How does a bunch of grey matter in our skulls have the ability to solve mathematical problems? Are we the only species that can? Does catching a baseball require doing calculations? Join John, Ken, and their guest, noted cognitive scientist and NPR&#8217;s &#8220;Math Guy&#8221; Keith Devlin, as they discuss the many ways our minds can do the math.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-04-01T094149.778.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Value of Art</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-value-of-art/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 09 Sep 2007 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6009</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[An art lover will argue that art brings beauty to our surroundings and provides occasions for intellectual and emotional reflection. But those who don&#8217;t appreciate art see it as unnecessary and frivolous &#8211; at any rate, certainly not something that tax dollars should go to support. In a time when school budgets for art programs are dwindling, John and Ken are joined by Cynthia Freeland, Chair of the Philosophy Department at the University of Houston, to ask the critical question: what is the value of art?]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[An art lover will argue that art brings beauty to our surroundings and provides occasions for intellectual and emotional reflection. But those who don&#8217;t appreciate art see it as unnecessary and frivolous &#8211; at any rate, certainly not something]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[An art lover will argue that art brings beauty to our surroundings and provides occasions for intellectual and emotional reflection. But those who don&#8217;t appreciate art see it as unnecessary and frivolous &#8211; at any rate, certainly not something that tax dollars should go to support. In a time when school budgets for art programs are dwindling, John and Ken are joined by Cynthia Freeland, Chair of the Philosophy Department at the University of Houston, to ask the critical question: what is the value of art?]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6009/the-value-of-art.mp3" length="37949149" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[An art lover will argue that art brings beauty to our surroundings and provides occasions for intellectual and emotional reflection. But those who don&#8217;t appreciate art see it as unnecessary and frivolous &#8211; at any rate, certainly not something that tax dollars should go to support. In a time when school budgets for art programs are dwindling, John and Ken are joined by Cynthia Freeland, Chair of the Philosophy Department at the University of Houston, to ask the critical question: what is the value of art?]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-04-01T094045.892.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[An art lover will argue that art brings beauty to our surroundings and provides occasions for intellectual and emotional reflection. But those who don&#8217;t appreciate art see it as unnecessary and frivolous &#8211; at any rate, certainly not something that tax dollars should go to support. In a time when school budgets for art programs are dwindling, John and Ken are joined by Cynthia Freeland, Chair of the Philosophy Department at the University of Houston, to ask the critical question: what is the value of art?]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-04-01T094045.892.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Postmodernism</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/postmodernism/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 19 Aug 2007 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6340</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[In art, architecture, music, film, literature, sociology, communications, fashion and philosophy there is a contrast between &#8220;the modern&#8221; and &#8220;the post-modern.&#8221; But just what are the main hallmarks of the postmodern? How does the &#8220;postmodern&#8221; differ from the &#8220;modern?&#8221; Is the postmodern an improvement over the modern? John and Ken are joined by Gary Aylesworth, Professor of Philosophy at Eastern Illinois University, to explore the contours of postmodernism in philosophy, literature, and art.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[In art, architecture, music, film, literature, sociology, communications, fashion and philosophy there is a contrast between &#8220;the modern&#8221; and &#8220;the post-modern.&#8221; But just what are the main hallmarks of the postmodern? How does the ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[In art, architecture, music, film, literature, sociology, communications, fashion and philosophy there is a contrast between &#8220;the modern&#8221; and &#8220;the post-modern.&#8221; But just what are the main hallmarks of the postmodern? How does the &#8220;postmodern&#8221; differ from the &#8220;modern?&#8221; Is the postmodern an improvement over the modern? John and Ken are joined by Gary Aylesworth, Professor of Philosophy at Eastern Illinois University, to explore the contours of postmodernism in philosophy, literature, and art.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6340/postmodernism.mp3" length="29627559" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[In art, architecture, music, film, literature, sociology, communications, fashion and philosophy there is a contrast between &#8220;the modern&#8221; and &#8220;the post-modern.&#8221; But just what are the main hallmarks of the postmodern? How does the &#8220;postmodern&#8221; differ from the &#8220;modern?&#8221; Is the postmodern an improvement over the modern? John and Ken are joined by Gary Aylesworth, Professor of Philosophy at Eastern Illinois University, to explore the contours of postmodernism in philosophy, literature, and art.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/PwrLNlhCYWM.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[In art, architecture, music, film, literature, sociology, communications, fashion and philosophy there is a contrast between &#8220;the modern&#8221; and &#8220;the post-modern.&#8221; But just what are the main hallmarks of the postmodern? How does the &#8220;postmodern&#8221; differ from the &#8220;modern?&#8221; Is the postmodern an improvement over the modern? John and Ken are joined by Gary Aylesworth, Professor of Philosophy at Eastern Illinois University, to explore the contours of postmodernism in philosophy, literature, and art.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/PwrLNlhCYWM.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Flirting with Philosophy</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/flirting-with-philosophy/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Aug 2007 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6261</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What is flirting? Can you flirt without intending to? Can you flirt by dressing a certain way, by walking a certain way? Is flirtatious behavior culturally relative? Could you flirt with a robot? With your own long-term partner? With an idea? Join John and Ken as they plumb the philosophical depths of flirting with Carrie Jenkins from the University of Nottingham, author of &#8220;The Philosophy of Flirting.&#8221;]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What is flirting? Can you flirt without intending to? Can you flirt by dressing a certain way, by walking a certain way? Is flirtatious behavior culturally relative? Could you flirt with a robot? With your own long-term partner? With an idea? Join John a]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What is flirting? Can you flirt without intending to? Can you flirt by dressing a certain way, by walking a certain way? Is flirtatious behavior culturally relative? Could you flirt with a robot? With your own long-term partner? With an idea? Join John and Ken as they plumb the philosophical depths of flirting with Carrie Jenkins from the University of Nottingham, author of &#8220;The Philosophy of Flirting.&#8221;]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6261/flirting-with-philosophy.mp3" length="29257143" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What is flirting? Can you flirt without intending to? Can you flirt by dressing a certain way, by walking a certain way? Is flirtatious behavior culturally relative? Could you flirt with a robot? With your own long-term partner? With an idea? Join John and Ken as they plumb the philosophical depths of flirting with Carrie Jenkins from the University of Nottingham, author of &#8220;The Philosophy of Flirting.&#8221;]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/rimVdoezmu0.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What is flirting? Can you flirt without intending to? Can you flirt by dressing a certain way, by walking a certain way? Is flirtatious behavior culturally relative? Could you flirt with a robot? With your own long-term partner? With an idea? Join John and Ken as they plumb the philosophical depths of flirting with Carrie Jenkins from the University of Nottingham, author of &#8220;The Philosophy of Flirting.&#8221;]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/rimVdoezmu0.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Philosophy Through Humor</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/philosophy-through-humor/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jul 2007 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6281</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Why did Nietzsche cross the road? To get beyond good and evil! How is a good joke like a good philosophical argument? Are philosophical tenets at the core of much of humor? To find out, join the philosophers and their guests, Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein, authors of&#160;Plato and A Platypus Walk Into a Bar: Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Why did Nietzsche cross the road? To get beyond good and evil! How is a good joke like a good philosophical argument? Are philosophical tenets at the core of much of humor? To find out, join the philosophers and their guests, Thomas Cathcart and Daniel K]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Why did Nietzsche cross the road? To get beyond good and evil! How is a good joke like a good philosophical argument? Are philosophical tenets at the core of much of humor? To find out, join the philosophers and their guests, Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein, authors of&#160;Plato and A Platypus Walk Into a Bar: Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6281/philosophy-through-humor.mp3" length="48078680" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Why did Nietzsche cross the road? To get beyond good and evil! How is a good joke like a good philosophical argument? Are philosophical tenets at the core of much of humor? To find out, join the philosophers and their guests, Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein, authors of&#160;Plato and A Platypus Walk Into a Bar: Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/IDGN4gL1RQU.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Why did Nietzsche cross the road? To get beyond good and evil! How is a good joke like a good philosophical argument? Are philosophical tenets at the core of much of humor? To find out, join the philosophers and their guests, Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein, authors of&#160;Plato and A Platypus Walk Into a Bar: Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/IDGN4gL1RQU.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Capital Punishment</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/capital-punishment/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jul 2007 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6253</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The death penalty: An effective deterrent? A just retribution for horrendous crimes? Or a racist, classist form of state-sanctioned murder? Join John and Ken and their guest, Robert Weisberg, Director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, as they discuss the philosophical pros and cons of capital punishment.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The death penalty: An effective deterrent? A just retribution for horrendous crimes? Or a racist, classist form of state-sanctioned murder? Join John and Ken and their guest, Robert Weisberg, Director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, as they disc]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The death penalty: An effective deterrent? A just retribution for horrendous crimes? Or a racist, classist form of state-sanctioned murder? Join John and Ken and their guest, Robert Weisberg, Director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, as they discuss the philosophical pros and cons of capital punishment.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6253/capital-punishment.mp3" length="29461682" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The death penalty: An effective deterrent? A just retribution for horrendous crimes? Or a racist, classist form of state-sanctioned murder? Join John and Ken and their guest, Robert Weisberg, Director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, as they discuss the philosophical pros and cons of capital punishment.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/teMQHKPc6wc.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The death penalty: An effective deterrent? A just retribution for horrendous crimes? Or a racist, classist form of state-sanctioned murder? Join John and Ken and their guest, Robert Weisberg, Director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, as they discuss the philosophical pros and cons of capital punishment.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/teMQHKPc6wc.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Where Does Morality Come From?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/where-does-morality-come/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 01 Jul 2007 16:44:38 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=12340</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Time is the most familiar thing in the world, and yet philosophically one of the most puzzling. Is the present what&#8217;s left when you subtract what has already happened, and what is yet to happen? Then it seems to vanish into a mere instant.  Are future events completely unreal? Or are they just the things we can&#8217;t know yet? Is time unreal, as many philosophers have thought? Columbia&#8217;s Dave Albert joins John and Ken for a fascinating hour.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Time is the most familiar thing in the world, and yet philosophically one of the most puzzling. Is the present what&#8217;s left when you subtract what has already happened, and what is yet to happen? Then it seems to vanish into a mere instant.  Are fut]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Time is the most familiar thing in the world, and yet philosophically one of the most puzzling. Is the present what&#8217;s left when you subtract what has already happened, and what is yet to happen? Then it seems to vanish into a mere instant.  Are future events completely unreal? Or are they just the things we can&#8217;t know yet? Is time unreal, as many philosophers have thought? Columbia&#8217;s Dave Albert joins John and Ken for a fascinating hour.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/12340/where-does-morality-come.mp3" length="23922938" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Time is the most familiar thing in the world, and yet philosophically one of the most puzzling. Is the present what&#8217;s left when you subtract what has already happened, and what is yet to happen? Then it seems to vanish into a mere instant.  Are future events completely unreal? Or are they just the things we can&#8217;t know yet? Is time unreal, as many philosophers have thought? Columbia&#8217;s Dave Albert joins John and Ken for a fascinating hour.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/xikJ1oFquX8-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Time is the most familiar thing in the world, and yet philosophically one of the most puzzling. Is the present what&#8217;s left when you subtract what has already happened, and what is yet to happen? Then it seems to vanish into a mere instant.  Are future events completely unreal? Or are they just the things we can&#8217;t know yet? Is time unreal, as many philosophers have thought? Columbia&#8217;s Dave Albert joins John and Ken for a fascinating hour.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/xikJ1oFquX8-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Summer Reading List 2007</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/summer-reading-list-2007/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jun 2007 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5976</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Are there philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues you want to read up on over the summer? Kant&#8217;s Critique of Pure Reason probably isn&#8217;t the obvious choice to take to the beach (though it does make great radio), but there are a lot of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your Summer Reading. Plus, new and classic fiction books with a philosophical bent. Join John and Ken and John to share some of the philosophically-minded reading on your list for this summer.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Are there philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues you want to read up on over the summer? Kant&#8217;s Critique of Pure Reason probably isn&#8217;t the obvious choice to take to the beach (though it does make great radio), but there are a lot]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Are there philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues you want to read up on over the summer? Kant&#8217;s Critique of Pure Reason probably isn&#8217;t the obvious choice to take to the beach (though it does make great radio), but there are a lot of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your Summer Reading. Plus, new and classic fiction books with a philosophical bent. Join John and Ken and John to share some of the philosophically-minded reading on your list for this summer.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5976/summer-reading-list-2007.mp3" length="29896621" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Are there philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues you want to read up on over the summer? Kant&#8217;s Critique of Pure Reason probably isn&#8217;t the obvious choice to take to the beach (though it does make great radio), but there are a lot of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your Summer Reading. Plus, new and classic fiction books with a philosophical bent. Join John and Ken and John to share some of the philosophically-minded reading on your list for this summer.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-04-01T093657.339.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Are there philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues you want to read up on over the summer? Kant&#8217;s Critique of Pure Reason probably isn&#8217;t the obvious choice to take to the beach (though it does make great radio), but there are a lot of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your Summer Reading. Plus, new and classic fiction books with a philosophical bent. Join John and Ken and John to share some of the philosophically-minded reading on your list for this summer.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-04-01T093657.339.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Aging and the Well-Lived Life</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/aging-and-the-well-lived-life/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 27 May 2007 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6257</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Aging is a physical process that will always be with us.&#160; But conceptions of aging, views about the contributions older people can make to society, and what society owes them change from era to era and differ from culture to culture.&#160;In conjunction with the Stanford Humanities Center, John and Ken explore the issues involved in growing older with their guest, Stanford University psychologist Laura Carstensen and a live audience at the Hyatt Residence in Palo Alto.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Aging is a physical process that will always be with us.&#160; But conceptions of aging, views about the contributions older people can make to society, and what society owes them change from era to era and differ from culture to culture.&#160;In conjunc]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Aging is a physical process that will always be with us.&#160; But conceptions of aging, views about the contributions older people can make to society, and what society owes them change from era to era and differ from culture to culture.&#160;In conjunction with the Stanford Humanities Center, John and Ken explore the issues involved in growing older with their guest, Stanford University psychologist Laura Carstensen and a live audience at the Hyatt Residence in Palo Alto.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6257/aging-and-the-well-lived-life.mp3" length="30146090" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Aging is a physical process that will always be with us.&#160; But conceptions of aging, views about the contributions older people can make to society, and what society owes them change from era to era and differ from culture to culture.&#160;In conjunction with the Stanford Humanities Center, John and Ken explore the issues involved in growing older with their guest, Stanford University psychologist Laura Carstensen and a live audience at the Hyatt Residence in Palo Alto.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture29.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Aging is a physical process that will always be with us.&#160; But conceptions of aging, views about the contributions older people can make to society, and what society owes them change from era to era and differ from culture to culture.&#160;In conjunction with the Stanford Humanities Center, John and Ken explore the issues involved in growing older with their guest, Stanford University psychologist Laura Carstensen and a live audience at the Hyatt Residence in Palo Alto.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture29.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Artificial Intelligence</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/artificial-intelligence/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 20 May 2007 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6288</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[At least some versions of artificial intelligence are attempts not merely to model human intelligence, but to make computers and robots that exhibit it: that have thoughts, use language, and even have free will. Does this make sense? What would it show us about human thinking and consciousness? John and Ken uncover the philosophical issues raised by artificial intelligence with Marvin Minksy from MIT, a pioneer in the field.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[At least some versions of artificial intelligence are attempts not merely to model human intelligence, but to make computers and robots that exhibit it: that have thoughts, use language, and even have free will. Does this make sense? What would it show u]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[At least some versions of artificial intelligence are attempts not merely to model human intelligence, but to make computers and robots that exhibit it: that have thoughts, use language, and even have free will. Does this make sense? What would it show us about human thinking and consciousness? John and Ken uncover the philosophical issues raised by artificial intelligence with Marvin Minksy from MIT, a pioneer in the field.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6288/artificial-intelligence.mp3" length="23555970" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[At least some versions of artificial intelligence are attempts not merely to model human intelligence, but to make computers and robots that exhibit it: that have thoughts, use language, and even have free will. Does this make sense? What would it show us about human thinking and consciousness? John and Ken uncover the philosophical issues raised by artificial intelligence with Marvin Minksy from MIT, a pioneer in the field.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/uo72toZiLqM.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[At least some versions of artificial intelligence are attempts not merely to model human intelligence, but to make computers and robots that exhibit it: that have thoughts, use language, and even have free will. Does this make sense? What would it show us about human thinking and consciousness? John and Ken uncover the philosophical issues raised by artificial intelligence with Marvin Minksy from MIT, a pioneer in the field.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/uo72toZiLqM.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Science, Ethics, and Censorship</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/science-ethics-and-censorship/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 13 May 2007 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6241</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Science is, on the one hand, a huge enterprise funded to a great extent by the government and by industry.&#160; On the other hand, science is supposed to be the dispassionate, objective search for truth.&#160; What happens when the search for truth conflicts with the needs and desires of the funders?&#160; Should those funders be allowed to censor the science they pay for?&#160; Should scientists be free to publish the truth whatever its effect?&#160; John and Ken welcome Ronald Atlas, Past President of the American Society for Microbiology and Graduate Dean at the University of Louisville.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Science is, on the one hand, a huge enterprise funded to a great extent by the government and by industry.&#160; On the other hand, science is supposed to be the dispassionate, objective search for truth.&#160; What happens when the search for truth conf]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Science is, on the one hand, a huge enterprise funded to a great extent by the government and by industry.&#160; On the other hand, science is supposed to be the dispassionate, objective search for truth.&#160; What happens when the search for truth conflicts with the needs and desires of the funders?&#160; Should those funders be allowed to censor the science they pay for?&#160; Should scientists be free to publish the truth whatever its effect?&#160; John and Ken welcome Ronald Atlas, Past President of the American Society for Microbiology and Graduate Dean at the University of Louisville.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6241/science-ethics-and-censorship.mp3" length="29720294" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Science is, on the one hand, a huge enterprise funded to a great extent by the government and by industry.&#160; On the other hand, science is supposed to be the dispassionate, objective search for truth.&#160; What happens when the search for truth conflicts with the needs and desires of the funders?&#160; Should those funders be allowed to censor the science they pay for?&#160; Should scientists be free to publish the truth whatever its effect?&#160; John and Ken welcome Ronald Atlas, Past President of the American Society for Microbiology and Graduate Dean at the University of Louisville.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-04-01T093506.952.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Science is, on the one hand, a huge enterprise funded to a great extent by the government and by industry.&#160; On the other hand, science is supposed to be the dispassionate, objective search for truth.&#160; What happens when the search for truth conflicts with the needs and desires of the funders?&#160; Should those funders be allowed to censor the science they pay for?&#160; Should scientists be free to publish the truth whatever its effect?&#160; John and Ken welcome Ronald Atlas, Past President of the American Society for Microbiology and Graduate Dean at the University of Louisville.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-04-01T093506.952.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Autonomy</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/autonomy/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 06 May 2007 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5968</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Philosophers call a person autonomous if she is responsible not just for what she does but also for the principles and rules that guide her. But does this really make sense? Aren&#8217;t we all just products of culture, education and genes? Join John and Ken as they investigate the nature of autonomy with John Christman from Penn State University., author The Politics of Persons: Individual Autonomy and Socio-historical Selves.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Philosophers call a person autonomous if she is responsible not just for what she does but also for the principles and rules that guide her. But does this really make sense? Aren&#8217;t we all just products of culture, education and genes? Join John and]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Philosophers call a person autonomous if she is responsible not just for what she does but also for the principles and rules that guide her. But does this really make sense? Aren&#8217;t we all just products of culture, education and genes? Join John and Ken as they investigate the nature of autonomy with John Christman from Penn State University., author The Politics of Persons: Individual Autonomy and Socio-historical Selves.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5968/autonomy.mp3" length="29406041" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Philosophers call a person autonomous if she is responsible not just for what she does but also for the principles and rules that guide her. But does this really make sense? Aren&#8217;t we all just products of culture, education and genes? Join John and Ken as they investigate the nature of autonomy with John Christman from Penn State University., author The Politics of Persons: Individual Autonomy and Socio-historical Selves.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-31T164655.627.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Philosophers call a person autonomous if she is responsible not just for what she does but also for the principles and rules that guide her. But does this really make sense? Aren&#8217;t we all just products of culture, education and genes? Join John and Ken as they investigate the nature of autonomy with John Christman from Penn State University., author The Politics of Persons: Individual Autonomy and Socio-historical Selves.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-31T164655.627.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Ethics in Journalism</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/ethics-in-journalism/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 29 Apr 2007 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5964</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Freedom of speech tells us the government shouldn&#8217;t restrict the journalist.&#160; But should anything restrict the journalist?&#160; Should the duty to inform be limited by the duty not to betray national security, not to injure the innocent, not to corrupt the jury pool, and similar considerations?&#160; How do we draw the line?&#160; John and Ken welcome Dale Jacquette from Pennsylvania State University to delve into the ethics of journalistic practice.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Freedom of speech tells us the government shouldn&#8217;t restrict the journalist.&#160; But should anything restrict the journalist?&#160; Should the duty to inform be limited by the duty not to betray national security, not to injure the innocent, not ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Freedom of speech tells us the government shouldn&#8217;t restrict the journalist.&#160; But should anything restrict the journalist?&#160; Should the duty to inform be limited by the duty not to betray national security, not to injure the innocent, not to corrupt the jury pool, and similar considerations?&#160; How do we draw the line?&#160; John and Ken welcome Dale Jacquette from Pennsylvania State University to delve into the ethics of journalistic practice.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5964/ethics-in-journalism.mp3" length="24260022" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Freedom of speech tells us the government shouldn&#8217;t restrict the journalist.&#160; But should anything restrict the journalist?&#160; Should the duty to inform be limited by the duty not to betray national security, not to injure the innocent, not to corrupt the jury pool, and similar considerations?&#160; How do we draw the line?&#160; John and Ken welcome Dale Jacquette from Pennsylvania State University to delve into the ethics of journalistic practice.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-31T164409.661.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Freedom of speech tells us the government shouldn&#8217;t restrict the journalist.&#160; But should anything restrict the journalist?&#160; Should the duty to inform be limited by the duty not to betray national security, not to injure the innocent, not to corrupt the jury pool, and similar considerations?&#160; How do we draw the line?&#160; John and Ken welcome Dale Jacquette from Pennsylvania State University to delve into the ethics of journalistic practice.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-31T164409.661.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Can Science Explain Consciousness?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/can-science-explain-consciousness/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 15 Apr 2007 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6249</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Humans are conscious, billiard balls are not, and computers aren&#8217;t either.&#160; But all three are just collections of molecules, aren&#8217;t they?&#160; What is consciousness, and does it go beyond what science can explain?&#160; John and Ken probe the limits of scientific accounts of consciousness with Joseph Levine UMass Amherst, author of Purple Haze: The Puzzle of Consciousness.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Humans are conscious, billiard balls are not, and computers aren&#8217;t either.&#160; But all three are just collections of molecules, aren&#8217;t they?&#160; What is consciousness, and does it go beyond what science can explain?&#160; John and Ken pro]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Humans are conscious, billiard balls are not, and computers aren&#8217;t either.&#160; But all three are just collections of molecules, aren&#8217;t they?&#160; What is consciousness, and does it go beyond what science can explain?&#160; John and Ken probe the limits of scientific accounts of consciousness with Joseph Levine UMass Amherst, author of Purple Haze: The Puzzle of Consciousness.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6249/can-science-explain-consciousness.mp3" length="29710890" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Humans are conscious, billiard balls are not, and computers aren&#8217;t either.&#160; But all three are just collections of molecules, aren&#8217;t they?&#160; What is consciousness, and does it go beyond what science can explain?&#160; John and Ken probe the limits of scientific accounts of consciousness with Joseph Levine UMass Amherst, author of Purple Haze: The Puzzle of Consciousness.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture28.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Humans are conscious, billiard balls are not, and computers aren&#8217;t either.&#160; But all three are just collections of molecules, aren&#8217;t they?&#160; What is consciousness, and does it go beyond what science can explain?&#160; John and Ken probe the limits of scientific accounts of consciousness with Joseph Levine UMass Amherst, author of Purple Haze: The Puzzle of Consciousness.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture28.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>A Philosophical Shout-Out</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/a-philosophical-shout-out/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2007 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5954</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[On this special pledge-week episode, John and Ken open the phones and the inbox to their listeners, answering questions about art, politics, proof, and philosophy itself.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[On this special pledge-week episode, John and Ken open the phones and the inbox to their listeners, answering questions about art, politics, proof, and philosophy itself.]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[On this special pledge-week episode, John and Ken open the phones and the inbox to their listeners, answering questions about art, politics, proof, and philosophy itself.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5954/a-philosophical-shout-out.mp3" length="44764244" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[On this special pledge-week episode, John and Ken open the phones and the inbox to their listeners, answering questions about art, politics, proof, and philosophy itself.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-31T164229.164.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[On this special pledge-week episode, John and Ken open the phones and the inbox to their listeners, answering questions about art, politics, proof, and philosophy itself.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-31T164229.164.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Skepticism</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/skepticism/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 25 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6233</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Various forms of skepticism play important roles in the history of philosophy.&#160; Do we really know there are external objects?&#160; That there are other minds?&#160; That there is a distant (or even a not-so-distant) past?&#160; All the evidence we have for these things seems consistent with our being in a world in which they don&#8217;t exist.&#160; What does this tell us about life?&#160; About philosophy?&#160; Our hosts discuss one of the deepest and most fertile philosophical traditions with John Greco from St. Louis University, editor of&#160;The Oxford Handbook of Skepticism.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Various forms of skepticism play important roles in the history of philosophy.&#160; Do we really know there are external objects?&#160; That there are other minds?&#160; That there is a distant (or even a not-so-distant) past?&#160; All the evidence we ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Various forms of skepticism play important roles in the history of philosophy.&#160; Do we really know there are external objects?&#160; That there are other minds?&#160; That there is a distant (or even a not-so-distant) past?&#160; All the evidence we have for these things seems consistent with our being in a world in which they don&#8217;t exist.&#160; What does this tell us about life?&#160; About philosophy?&#160; Our hosts discuss one of the deepest and most fertile philosophical traditions with John Greco from St. Louis University, editor of&#160;The Oxford Handbook of Skepticism.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6233/skepticism.mp3" length="29646368" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Various forms of skepticism play important roles in the history of philosophy.&#160; Do we really know there are external objects?&#160; That there are other minds?&#160; That there is a distant (or even a not-so-distant) past?&#160; All the evidence we have for these things seems consistent with our being in a world in which they don&#8217;t exist.&#160; What does this tell us about life?&#160; About philosophy?&#160; Our hosts discuss one of the deepest and most fertile philosophical traditions with John Greco from St. Louis University, editor of&#160;The Oxford Handbook of Skepticism.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture27.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Various forms of skepticism play important roles in the history of philosophy.&#160; Do we really know there are external objects?&#160; That there are other minds?&#160; That there is a distant (or even a not-so-distant) past?&#160; All the evidence we have for these things seems consistent with our being in a world in which they don&#8217;t exist.&#160; What does this tell us about life?&#160; About philosophy?&#160; Our hosts discuss one of the deepest and most fertile philosophical traditions with John Greco from St. Louis University, editor of&#160;The Oxford Handbook of Skepticism.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture27.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Immortality and the Afterlife</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/immortality-and-the-afterlife/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 18 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6228</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Many religions contemplate some form of personal continued existence after death: reincarnation in another body, or continued being in some vastly different place like Heaven or Hell. Do any of these conceptions make sense? If so, is there any evidence for any of them? And why do people want continued existence, even immortality? Wouldn&#8217;t it be a bore? John and Ken welcome back Anne Ashbaugh of Colgate University to explore the philosophy of eternal life.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Many religions contemplate some form of personal continued existence after death: reincarnation in another body, or continued being in some vastly different place like Heaven or Hell. Do any of these conceptions make sense? If so, is there any evidence f]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Many religions contemplate some form of personal continued existence after death: reincarnation in another body, or continued being in some vastly different place like Heaven or Hell. Do any of these conceptions make sense? If so, is there any evidence for any of them? And why do people want continued existence, even immortality? Wouldn&#8217;t it be a bore? John and Ken welcome back Anne Ashbaugh of Colgate University to explore the philosophy of eternal life.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6228/immortality-and-the-afterlife.mp3" length="23728425" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Many religions contemplate some form of personal continued existence after death: reincarnation in another body, or continued being in some vastly different place like Heaven or Hell. Do any of these conceptions make sense? If so, is there any evidence for any of them? And why do people want continued existence, even immortality? Wouldn&#8217;t it be a bore? John and Ken welcome back Anne Ashbaugh of Colgate University to explore the philosophy of eternal life.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture263.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Many religions contemplate some form of personal continued existence after death: reincarnation in another body, or continued being in some vastly different place like Heaven or Hell. Do any of these conceptions make sense? If so, is there any evidence for any of them? And why do people want continued existence, even immortality? Wouldn&#8217;t it be a bore? John and Ken welcome back Anne Ashbaugh of Colgate University to explore the philosophy of eternal life.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture263.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Animal Minds</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/animal-minds/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6212</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[People have strong but divergent opinions about the nature of animals&#8217; minds.&#160; Do dogs make plans?&#160; Do they remember specific events?&#160; Do they dream?&#160; Do cats recognize their owners as unified wholes, or just as collections of parts, some warm, some capable of providing food.&#160; Could it be that whales, dolphins, elephants, and various kind of monkeys have mental lives that approach &#8212; or surpass &#8212; those of humans in subtlety and richness?&#160; John and Ken explore the&#160;nature of non-human minds with Colin Allen from Indiana University, editor of&#160;The Cognitive Animal: Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives on Animal Cognition.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[People have strong but divergent opinions about the nature of animals&#8217; minds.&#160; Do dogs make plans?&#160; Do they remember specific events?&#160; Do they dream?&#160; Do cats recognize their owners as unified wholes, or just as collections of p]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[People have strong but divergent opinions about the nature of animals&#8217; minds.&#160; Do dogs make plans?&#160; Do they remember specific events?&#160; Do they dream?&#160; Do cats recognize their owners as unified wholes, or just as collections of parts, some warm, some capable of providing food.&#160; Could it be that whales, dolphins, elephants, and various kind of monkeys have mental lives that approach &#8212; or surpass &#8212; those of humans in subtlety and richness?&#160; John and Ken explore the&#160;nature of non-human minds with Colin Allen from Indiana University, editor of&#160;The Cognitive Animal: Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives on Animal Cognition.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6212/animal-minds.mp3" length="47809933" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[People have strong but divergent opinions about the nature of animals&#8217; minds.&#160; Do dogs make plans?&#160; Do they remember specific events?&#160; Do they dream?&#160; Do cats recognize their owners as unified wholes, or just as collections of parts, some warm, some capable of providing food.&#160; Could it be that whales, dolphins, elephants, and various kind of monkeys have mental lives that approach &#8212; or surpass &#8212; those of humans in subtlety and richness?&#160; John and Ken explore the&#160;nature of non-human minds with Colin Allen from Indiana University, editor of&#160;The Cognitive Animal: Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives on Animal Cognition.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture22.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[People have strong but divergent opinions about the nature of animals&#8217; minds.&#160; Do dogs make plans?&#160; Do they remember specific events?&#160; Do they dream?&#160; Do cats recognize their owners as unified wholes, or just as collections of parts, some warm, some capable of providing food.&#160; Could it be that whales, dolphins, elephants, and various kind of monkeys have mental lives that approach &#8212; or surpass &#8212; those of humans in subtlety and richness?&#160; John and Ken explore the&#160;nature of non-human minds with Colin Allen from Indiana University, editor of&#160;The Cognitive Animal: Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives on Animal Cognition.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture22.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Wittgenstein</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/wittgenstein/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 04 Mar 2007 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5947</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The Austrian/British philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein exercised enormous influence over philosophy in the middle third of the last century, and his view and his life continue to fascinate thinkers around the world.&#160; What are the basic tenets of Wittgenstein&#8217;s philosophy, and what is their enduring legacy?&#160; Join John and Ken as they investigate the ideas and implications of one of the great philosophers of language and thought&#160;with Juliet Floyd from Boston University, co-editor of Future Pasts: The Analytic Tradition in Twentieth Century Philosophy.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The Austrian/British philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein exercised enormous influence over philosophy in the middle third of the last century, and his view and his life continue to fascinate thinkers around the world.&#160; What are the basic tenets of Wittg]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The Austrian/British philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein exercised enormous influence over philosophy in the middle third of the last century, and his view and his life continue to fascinate thinkers around the world.&#160; What are the basic tenets of Wittgenstein&#8217;s philosophy, and what is their enduring legacy?&#160; Join John and Ken as they investigate the ideas and implications of one of the great philosophers of language and thought&#160;with Juliet Floyd from Boston University, co-editor of Future Pasts: The Analytic Tradition in Twentieth Century Philosophy.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5947/wittgenstein.mp3" length="29635919" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The Austrian/British philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein exercised enormous influence over philosophy in the middle third of the last century, and his view and his life continue to fascinate thinkers around the world.&#160; What are the basic tenets of Wittgenstein&#8217;s philosophy, and what is their enduring legacy?&#160; Join John and Ken as they investigate the ideas and implications of one of the great philosophers of language and thought&#160;with Juliet Floyd from Boston University, co-editor of Future Pasts: The Analytic Tradition in Twentieth Century Philosophy.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/kfS5AosUN0E.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The Austrian/British philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein exercised enormous influence over philosophy in the middle third of the last century, and his view and his life continue to fascinate thinkers around the world.&#160; What are the basic tenets of Wittgenstein&#8217;s philosophy, and what is their enduring legacy?&#160; Join John and Ken as they investigate the ideas and implications of one of the great philosophers of language and thought&#160;with Juliet Floyd from Boston University, co-editor of Future Pasts: The Analytic Tradition in Twentieth Century Philosophy.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/kfS5AosUN0E.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Judiciary in Democracy</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-judiciary-in-democracy/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 11 Feb 2007 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6220</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[In many democracies, the judiciary is protected, to one degree or another, from the voters.&#160; Our federal judges, for example, though appointed by elected officials, then have lifetime tenure.&#160; In more local venues, however, many judges are directly elected.&#160; What is the role of the judiciary in a democracy, and how much protection from democratic processes is needed?&#160; John and Ken probe the judiciary branch of government with Larry Kramer, Dean of the Stanford Law School, author of&#160;The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[In many democracies, the judiciary is protected, to one degree or another, from the voters.&#160; Our federal judges, for example, though appointed by elected officials, then have lifetime tenure.&#160; In more local venues, however, many judges are dire]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[In many democracies, the judiciary is protected, to one degree or another, from the voters.&#160; Our federal judges, for example, though appointed by elected officials, then have lifetime tenure.&#160; In more local venues, however, many judges are directly elected.&#160; What is the role of the judiciary in a democracy, and how much protection from democratic processes is needed?&#160; John and Ken probe the judiciary branch of government with Larry Kramer, Dean of the Stanford Law School, author of&#160;The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6220/the-judiciary-in-democracy.mp3" length="47694158" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[In many democracies, the judiciary is protected, to one degree or another, from the voters.&#160; Our federal judges, for example, though appointed by elected officials, then have lifetime tenure.&#160; In more local venues, however, many judges are directly elected.&#160; What is the role of the judiciary in a democracy, and how much protection from democratic processes is needed?&#160; John and Ken probe the judiciary branch of government with Larry Kramer, Dean of the Stanford Law School, author of&#160;The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture24.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[In many democracies, the judiciary is protected, to one degree or another, from the voters.&#160; Our federal judges, for example, though appointed by elected officials, then have lifetime tenure.&#160; In more local venues, however, many judges are directly elected.&#160; What is the role of the judiciary in a democracy, and how much protection from democratic processes is needed?&#160; John and Ken probe the judiciary branch of government with Larry Kramer, Dean of the Stanford Law School, author of&#160;The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture24.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Mental Imagery</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/mental-imagery/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 04 Feb 2007 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6216</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[In the Early Modern period many philosophers took ideas to be mental images of the objects they stood for.&#160; During the 20th century, that notion fell into considerable disrepute.&#160; Yet recent cognitive science has revived the idea that at least some of our mental representations are highly imagistic in character, not just mental representations tied to vision and perception generally.&#160;&#160; Join John, Ken, and noted cognitive psychologist Lera Boroditsky of Stanford University to explore the imagistic nature of mental representations.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[In the Early Modern period many philosophers took ideas to be mental images of the objects they stood for.&#160; During the 20th century, that notion fell into considerable disrepute.&#160; Yet recent cognitive science has revived the idea that at least ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[In the Early Modern period many philosophers took ideas to be mental images of the objects they stood for.&#160; During the 20th century, that notion fell into considerable disrepute.&#160; Yet recent cognitive science has revived the idea that at least some of our mental representations are highly imagistic in character, not just mental representations tied to vision and perception generally.&#160;&#160; Join John, Ken, and noted cognitive psychologist Lera Boroditsky of Stanford University to explore the imagistic nature of mental representations.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6216/mental-imagery.mp3" length="29490678" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[In the Early Modern period many philosophers took ideas to be mental images of the objects they stood for.&#160; During the 20th century, that notion fell into considerable disrepute.&#160; Yet recent cognitive science has revived the idea that at least some of our mental representations are highly imagistic in character, not just mental representations tied to vision and perception generally.&#160;&#160; Join John, Ken, and noted cognitive psychologist Lera Boroditsky of Stanford University to explore the imagistic nature of mental representations.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture23.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[In the Early Modern period many philosophers took ideas to be mental images of the objects they stood for.&#160; During the 20th century, that notion fell into considerable disrepute.&#160; Yet recent cognitive science has revived the idea that at least some of our mental representations are highly imagistic in character, not just mental representations tied to vision and perception generally.&#160;&#160; Join John, Ken, and noted cognitive psychologist Lera Boroditsky of Stanford University to explore the imagistic nature of mental representations.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture23.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>If Truth is so valuable, why is there so much BS?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/if-truth-is-so-valuable-why-is-there-so-much-bs/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jan 2007 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6149</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Everywhere we look &#8212; in the media, in our political campaigns, in the hallowed halls of the academy &#8212; we are confronted with an endless stream of BS, spin, propaganda, half-truths, and even outright lies.&#160; Yet for centuries, philosophers have argued that the pursuit of truth is both intrinsically good and instrumentally useful.&#160; But if truth is really both good and useful, then why is there so much BS around?&#160; John and Ken welcome Harry Frankfurt, author of On Bullshit and On Truth, to discuss the relative value and utility of Truth and its alternatives.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Everywhere we look &#8212; in the media, in our political campaigns, in the hallowed halls of the academy &#8212; we are confronted with an endless stream of BS, spin, propaganda, half-truths, and even outright lies.&#160; Yet for centuries, philosophers]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Everywhere we look &#8212; in the media, in our political campaigns, in the hallowed halls of the academy &#8212; we are confronted with an endless stream of BS, spin, propaganda, half-truths, and even outright lies.&#160; Yet for centuries, philosophers have argued that the pursuit of truth is both intrinsically good and instrumentally useful.&#160; But if truth is really both good and useful, then why is there so much BS around?&#160; John and Ken welcome Harry Frankfurt, author of On Bullshit and On Truth, to discuss the relative value and utility of Truth and its alternatives.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6149/if-truth-is-so-valuable-why-is-there-so-much-bs.mp3" length="29926139" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Everywhere we look &#8212; in the media, in our political campaigns, in the hallowed halls of the academy &#8212; we are confronted with an endless stream of BS, spin, propaganda, half-truths, and even outright lies.&#160; Yet for centuries, philosophers have argued that the pursuit of truth is both intrinsically good and instrumentally useful.&#160; But if truth is really both good and useful, then why is there so much BS around?&#160; John and Ken welcome Harry Frankfurt, author of On Bullshit and On Truth, to discuss the relative value and utility of Truth and its alternatives.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture18.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Everywhere we look &#8212; in the media, in our political campaigns, in the hallowed halls of the academy &#8212; we are confronted with an endless stream of BS, spin, propaganda, half-truths, and even outright lies.&#160; Yet for centuries, philosophers have argued that the pursuit of truth is both intrinsically good and instrumentally useful.&#160; But if truth is really both good and useful, then why is there so much BS around?&#160; John and Ken welcome Harry Frankfurt, author of On Bullshit and On Truth, to discuss the relative value and utility of Truth and its alternatives.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture18.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Legal Ethics</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/legal-ethics/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 21 Jan 2007 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6207</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Lawyers are often thought to be hardly better than hired guns, who, in the words of Plato, are paid to &#8220;make the weaker argument the stronger&#8221; &#8212; like the sophists of old.&#160; In fact, lawyers are legally and morally bound by stringent codes of ethics.&#160; Noted philosopher of law David Luban of Georgetown University is the guest as Philosophy Talk explores the ethical obligations of lawyers to their clients, to the court, and to society at large.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Lawyers are often thought to be hardly better than hired guns, who, in the words of Plato, are paid to &#8220;make the weaker argument the stronger&#8221; &#8212; like the sophists of old.&#160; In fact, lawyers are legally and morally bound by stringent]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Lawyers are often thought to be hardly better than hired guns, who, in the words of Plato, are paid to &#8220;make the weaker argument the stronger&#8221; &#8212; like the sophists of old.&#160; In fact, lawyers are legally and morally bound by stringent codes of ethics.&#160; Noted philosopher of law David Luban of Georgetown University is the guest as Philosophy Talk explores the ethical obligations of lawyers to their clients, to the court, and to society at large.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6207/legal-ethics.mp3" length="24137398" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Lawyers are often thought to be hardly better than hired guns, who, in the words of Plato, are paid to &#8220;make the weaker argument the stronger&#8221; &#8212; like the sophists of old.&#160; In fact, lawyers are legally and morally bound by stringent codes of ethics.&#160; Noted philosopher of law David Luban of Georgetown University is the guest as Philosophy Talk explores the ethical obligations of lawyers to their clients, to the court, and to society at large.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture21.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Lawyers are often thought to be hardly better than hired guns, who, in the words of Plato, are paid to &#8220;make the weaker argument the stronger&#8221; &#8212; like the sophists of old.&#160; In fact, lawyers are legally and morally bound by stringent codes of ethics.&#160; Noted philosopher of law David Luban of Georgetown University is the guest as Philosophy Talk explores the ethical obligations of lawyers to their clients, to the court, and to society at large.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture21.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>We&#8217;ve Been Framed: How Language Shapes Politics</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/weve-been-framed-how-language-shapes-politics/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 14 Jan 2007 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6193</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Does the hijacking of words by political forces tell us something interesting about the nature of language and meaning?&#160; Would liberals by some other name smell sweeter, or are they really tax-raising, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freaks?&#160; Ken and John welcome back Philosophy Talk favorite Geoff Nunberg, author of The Way We Talk Now and Going Nucular, to explain the ABCs of &#8220;talking right.&#8221;]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Does the hijacking of words by political forces tell us something interesting about the nature of language and meaning?&#160; Would liberals by some other name smell sweeter, or are they really tax-raising, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, Ne]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Does the hijacking of words by political forces tell us something interesting about the nature of language and meaning?&#160; Would liberals by some other name smell sweeter, or are they really tax-raising, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freaks?&#160; Ken and John welcome back Philosophy Talk favorite Geoff Nunberg, author of The Way We Talk Now and Going Nucular, to explain the ABCs of &#8220;talking right.&#8221;]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6193/weve-been-framed-how-language-shapes-politics.mp3" length="48579813" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Does the hijacking of words by political forces tell us something interesting about the nature of language and meaning?&#160; Would liberals by some other name smell sweeter, or are they really tax-raising, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freaks?&#160; Ken and John welcome back Philosophy Talk favorite Geoff Nunberg, author of The Way We Talk Now and Going Nucular, to explain the ABCs of &#8220;talking right.&#8221;]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture20.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Does the hijacking of words by political forces tell us something interesting about the nature of language and meaning?&#160; Would liberals by some other name smell sweeter, or are they really tax-raising, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freaks?&#160; Ken and John welcome back Philosophy Talk favorite Geoff Nunberg, author of The Way We Talk Now and Going Nucular, to explain the ABCs of &#8220;talking right.&#8221;]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture20.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Promise and Perils of the New Genomics</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-promise-and-perils-of-the-new-genomics/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 07 Jan 2007 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6197</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[John and Ken welcome their special guest, noted scientist and entrepreneur, Craig Venter.&#160; From the mapping of the human genome, to the patenting of synthetic life forms, to bio-prospecting for genetic gold in the depths of the oceans and the deepest reaches of the world&#8217;s rain forests, Craig Venter has been at the forefront of a revolution in genomics.&#160; Join the hosts and their guest as they explore the ethical, legal, and economic issues associated with the new genomics.&#160; This program was recorded live&#160;at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[John and Ken welcome their special guest, noted scientist and entrepreneur, Craig Venter.&#160; From the mapping of the human genome, to the patenting of synthetic life forms, to bio-prospecting for genetic gold in the depths of the oceans and the deepes]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[John and Ken welcome their special guest, noted scientist and entrepreneur, Craig Venter.&#160; From the mapping of the human genome, to the patenting of synthetic life forms, to bio-prospecting for genetic gold in the depths of the oceans and the deepest reaches of the world&#8217;s rain forests, Craig Venter has been at the forefront of a revolution in genomics.&#160; Join the hosts and their guest as they explore the ethical, legal, and economic issues associated with the new genomics.&#160; This program was recorded live&#160;at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6197/the-promise-and-perils-of-the-new-genomics.mp3" length="30441274" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[John and Ken welcome their special guest, noted scientist and entrepreneur, Craig Venter.&#160; From the mapping of the human genome, to the patenting of synthetic life forms, to bio-prospecting for genetic gold in the depths of the oceans and the deepest reaches of the world&#8217;s rain forests, Craig Venter has been at the forefront of a revolution in genomics.&#160; Join the hosts and their guest as they explore the ethical, legal, and economic issues associated with the new genomics.&#160; This program was recorded live&#160;at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/8g1-XhGyjJs.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[John and Ken welcome their special guest, noted scientist and entrepreneur, Craig Venter.&#160; From the mapping of the human genome, to the patenting of synthetic life forms, to bio-prospecting for genetic gold in the depths of the oceans and the deepest reaches of the world&#8217;s rain forests, Craig Venter has been at the forefront of a revolution in genomics.&#160; Join the hosts and their guest as they explore the ethical, legal, and economic issues associated with the new genomics.&#160; This program was recorded live&#160;at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/8g1-XhGyjJs.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Philosophy and Film</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/philosophy-and-film/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 17 Dec 2006 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5924</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Despite the crass commercialism that drives the production of many movies, there&#8217;s no doubt that film is a distinctive and distinctively powerful art form.&#160; Cinematic representations move us in ways that few others do.&#160; Film has also proven to be an outstanding vehicle for conveying philosophical ideas.&#160;&#160; Join John and Ken as they explore both the philosophy of film and philosophy within film.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Despite the crass commercialism that drives the production of many movies, there&#8217;s no doubt that film is a distinctive and distinctively powerful art form.&#160; Cinematic representations move us in ways that few others do.&#160; Film has also prov]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Despite the crass commercialism that drives the production of many movies, there&#8217;s no doubt that film is a distinctive and distinctively powerful art form.&#160; Cinematic representations move us in ways that few others do.&#160; Film has also proven to be an outstanding vehicle for conveying philosophical ideas.&#160;&#160; Join John and Ken as they explore both the philosophy of film and philosophy within film.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5924/philosophy-and-film.mp3" length="48220369" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Despite the crass commercialism that drives the production of many movies, there&#8217;s no doubt that film is a distinctive and distinctively powerful art form.&#160; Cinematic representations move us in ways that few others do.&#160; Film has also proven to be an outstanding vehicle for conveying philosophical ideas.&#160;&#160; Join John and Ken as they explore both the philosophy of film and philosophy within film.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture3.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Despite the crass commercialism that drives the production of many movies, there&#8217;s no doubt that film is a distinctive and distinctively powerful art form.&#160; Cinematic representations move us in ways that few others do.&#160; Film has also proven to be an outstanding vehicle for conveying philosophical ideas.&#160;&#160; Join John and Ken as they explore both the philosophy of film and philosophy within film.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture3.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Philosophy and Neuroscience</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/philosophy-and-neuroscience/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 10 Dec 2006 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6188</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Philosophers have always been concerned with the mind.&#160; What is consciousness? Representation?&#160; Emotion?&#160; Now that neuroscience is making headway on these same questions, we should ask: how should philosophy and neuroscience relate?&#160; John and Ken discuss this question and more as they delve into neuroscientifically-minded philosophy with Patricia Churchland from UC&#160;San Diego, author of&#160;Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind-Brain.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Philosophers have always been concerned with the mind.&#160; What is consciousness? Representation?&#160; Emotion?&#160; Now that neuroscience is making headway on these same questions, we should ask: how should philosophy and neuroscience relate?&#160; ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Philosophers have always been concerned with the mind.&#160; What is consciousness? Representation?&#160; Emotion?&#160; Now that neuroscience is making headway on these same questions, we should ask: how should philosophy and neuroscience relate?&#160; John and Ken discuss this question and more as they delve into neuroscientifically-minded philosophy with Patricia Churchland from UC&#160;San Diego, author of&#160;Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind-Brain.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6188/philosophy-and-neuroscience.mp3" length="48396329" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Philosophers have always been concerned with the mind.&#160; What is consciousness? Representation?&#160; Emotion?&#160; Now that neuroscience is making headway on these same questions, we should ask: how should philosophy and neuroscience relate?&#160; John and Ken discuss this question and more as they delve into neuroscientifically-minded philosophy with Patricia Churchland from UC&#160;San Diego, author of&#160;Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind-Brain.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/n9qqa4Na4AI.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Philosophers have always been concerned with the mind.&#160; What is consciousness? Representation?&#160; Emotion?&#160; Now that neuroscience is making headway on these same questions, we should ask: how should philosophy and neuroscience relate?&#160; John and Ken discuss this question and more as they delve into neuroscientifically-minded philosophy with Patricia Churchland from UC&#160;San Diego, author of&#160;Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind-Brain.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/n9qqa4Na4AI.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>American Pragmatism</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/american-pragmatism/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 03 Dec 2006 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5920</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Pragmatism is perhaps America&#8217;s most distinctive contribution to philosophy.&#160; Developed by Pierce, Dewey, and James in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, pragmatism holds that both the meaning and the truth of any idea is a function of its practical outcome.&#160; The pragmatists rejected all forms of absolutism and insisted that all principles be regarded as working hypotheses that must bear fruit in lived experience.&#160; Join John and Ken as they dig into this intellectually vibrant, still influential, and distinctly American philosophical tradition with John McDermott from Texas A&#38;M University, author of&#160;The Culture of Experience: Philosophical Essays in the&#160;American Grain.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Pragmatism is perhaps America&#8217;s most distinctive contribution to philosophy.&#160; Developed by Pierce, Dewey, and James in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, pragmatism holds that both the meaning and the truth of any idea is a function of it]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Pragmatism is perhaps America&#8217;s most distinctive contribution to philosophy.&#160; Developed by Pierce, Dewey, and James in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, pragmatism holds that both the meaning and the truth of any idea is a function of its practical outcome.&#160; The pragmatists rejected all forms of absolutism and insisted that all principles be regarded as working hypotheses that must bear fruit in lived experience.&#160; Join John and Ken as they dig into this intellectually vibrant, still influential, and distinctly American philosophical tradition with John McDermott from Texas A&#38;M University, author of&#160;The Culture of Experience: Philosophical Essays in the&#160;American Grain.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5920/american-pragmatism.mp3" length="23713123" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Pragmatism is perhaps America&#8217;s most distinctive contribution to philosophy.&#160; Developed by Pierce, Dewey, and James in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, pragmatism holds that both the meaning and the truth of any idea is a function of its practical outcome.&#160; The pragmatists rejected all forms of absolutism and insisted that all principles be regarded as working hypotheses that must bear fruit in lived experience.&#160; Join John and Ken as they dig into this intellectually vibrant, still influential, and distinctly American philosophical tradition with John McDermott from Texas A&#38;M University, author of&#160;The Culture of Experience: Philosophical Essays in the&#160;American Grain.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/r50Gwo1efKI.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Pragmatism is perhaps America&#8217;s most distinctive contribution to philosophy.&#160; Developed by Pierce, Dewey, and James in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, pragmatism holds that both the meaning and the truth of any idea is a function of its practical outcome.&#160; The pragmatists rejected all forms of absolutism and insisted that all principles be regarded as working hypotheses that must bear fruit in lived experience.&#160; Join John and Ken as they dig into this intellectually vibrant, still influential, and distinctly American philosophical tradition with John McDermott from Texas A&#38;M University, author of&#160;The Culture of Experience: Philosophical Essays in the&#160;American Grain.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/r50Gwo1efKI.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>What is a Child?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/what-is-a-child/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 19 Nov 2006 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5907</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Back in the middle ages, people thought of children simply as little adults. Modern psychology has destroyed that theory. &#160;But then, what is a child? &#160;How are their minds different? &#160;And what are the moral implications of these differences for how we should treat them? &#160;Join John and Ken as they reflect on the nature of childhood.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Back in the middle ages, people thought of children simply as little adults. Modern psychology has destroyed that theory. &#160;But then, what is a child? &#160;How are their minds different? &#160;And what are the moral implications of these differences]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Back in the middle ages, people thought of children simply as little adults. Modern psychology has destroyed that theory. &#160;But then, what is a child? &#160;How are their minds different? &#160;And what are the moral implications of these differences for how we should treat them? &#160;Join John and Ken as they reflect on the nature of childhood.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5907/what-is-a-child.mp3" length="48333635" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Back in the middle ages, people thought of children simply as little adults. Modern psychology has destroyed that theory. &#160;But then, what is a child? &#160;How are their minds different? &#160;And what are the moral implications of these differences for how we should treat them? &#160;Join John and Ken as they reflect on the nature of childhood.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture1.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Back in the middle ages, people thought of children simply as little adults. Modern psychology has destroyed that theory. &#160;But then, what is a child? &#160;How are their minds different? &#160;And what are the moral implications of these differences for how we should treat them? &#160;Join John and Ken as they reflect on the nature of childhood.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture1.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Dreaming</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/dreaming/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Nov 2006 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5901</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[A scary dream brings all the fears that a scary real situation can, and a happy dream can make us feel truly happy. But what are dreams? Where do they come from? And why do they feel so real? Thinkers from Descartes to Freud have been fascinated by dreams and their philosiphical significance. Join John and Ken as they explore one of the mind&#8217;s greatest mysteries.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[A scary dream brings all the fears that a scary real situation can, and a happy dream can make us feel truly happy. But what are dreams? Where do they come from? And why do they feel so real? Thinkers from Descartes to Freud have been fascinated by dream]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[A scary dream brings all the fears that a scary real situation can, and a happy dream can make us feel truly happy. But what are dreams? Where do they come from? And why do they feel so real? Thinkers from Descartes to Freud have been fascinated by dreams and their philosiphical significance. Join John and Ken as they explore one of the mind&#8217;s greatest mysteries.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5901/dreaming.mp3" length="29627037" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[A scary dream brings all the fears that a scary real situation can, and a happy dream can make us feel truly happy. But what are dreams? Where do they come from? And why do they feel so real? Thinkers from Descartes to Freud have been fascinated by dreams and their philosiphical significance. Join John and Ken as they explore one of the mind&#8217;s greatest mysteries.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-31T164012.866.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[A scary dream brings all the fears that a scary real situation can, and a happy dream can make us feel truly happy. But what are dreams? Where do they come from? And why do they feel so real? Thinkers from Descartes to Freud have been fascinated by dreams and their philosiphical significance. Join John and Ken as they explore one of the mind&#8217;s greatest mysteries.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-31T164012.866.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Separation of Powers</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/separation-of-powers/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 05 Nov 2006 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6137</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[In America, there&#8217;s not just one governing body, there are three: executive, legislative, and judicial. You might think that separating those powers is just less efficient.&#160; But the founding fathers put a lot of philosophical thought into coming up with a system of checks and balances.&#160; In this episode, John and Ken discuss the separation of powers with Stanford law professor Kathleen Sullivan in front of a live audience on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[In America, there&#8217;s not just one governing body, there are three: executive, legislative, and judicial. You might think that separating those powers is just less efficient.&#160; But the founding fathers put a lot of philosophical thought into comi]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[In America, there&#8217;s not just one governing body, there are three: executive, legislative, and judicial. You might think that separating those powers is just less efficient.&#160; But the founding fathers put a lot of philosophical thought into coming up with a system of checks and balances.&#160; In this episode, John and Ken discuss the separation of powers with Stanford law professor Kathleen Sullivan in front of a live audience on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6137/separation-of-powers.mp3" length="48389224" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[In America, there&#8217;s not just one governing body, there are three: executive, legislative, and judicial. You might think that separating those powers is just less efficient.&#160; But the founding fathers put a lot of philosophical thought into coming up with a system of checks and balances.&#160; In this episode, John and Ken discuss the separation of powers with Stanford law professor Kathleen Sullivan in front of a live audience on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/a_jLgB7wK4c.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[In America, there&#8217;s not just one governing body, there are three: executive, legislative, and judicial. You might think that separating those powers is just less efficient.&#160; But the founding fathers put a lot of philosophical thought into coming up with a system of checks and balances.&#160; In this episode, John and Ken discuss the separation of powers with Stanford law professor Kathleen Sullivan in front of a live audience on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/a_jLgB7wK4c.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Believing in God</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/believing-in-god/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 29 Oct 2006 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6112</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Some have argued that there aren&#8217;t any good arguments for believing in God. Is belief in God just an act of faith without reason? Plenty of philosophers would disagree. Why are philosophers so divided on the matter? In this episode Ken and John discuss the rational arguments for believing in God with Philip Clayton from the Claremont School of Theology.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Some have argued that there aren&#8217;t any good arguments for believing in God. Is belief in God just an act of faith without reason? Plenty of philosophers would disagree. Why are philosophers so divided on the matter? In this episode Ken and John dis]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Some have argued that there aren&#8217;t any good arguments for believing in God. Is belief in God just an act of faith without reason? Plenty of philosophers would disagree. Why are philosophers so divided on the matter? In this episode Ken and John discuss the rational arguments for believing in God with Philip Clayton from the Claremont School of Theology.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6112/believing-in-god.mp3" length="48606563" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Some have argued that there aren&#8217;t any good arguments for believing in God. Is belief in God just an act of faith without reason? Plenty of philosophers would disagree. Why are philosophers so divided on the matter? In this episode Ken and John discuss the rational arguments for believing in God with Philip Clayton from the Claremont School of Theology.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture17.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Some have argued that there aren&#8217;t any good arguments for believing in God. Is belief in God just an act of faith without reason? Plenty of philosophers would disagree. Why are philosophers so divided on the matter? In this episode Ken and John discuss the rational arguments for believing in God with Philip Clayton from the Claremont School of Theology.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture17.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Language and Thought</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/language-and-thought/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 22 Oct 2006 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6102</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[You might think our thoughts simply determine what we say. But maybe the language we speak is what really determines the thoughts we can have. As Wittgenstein famously wrote, &#8220;The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.&#8221; And Benjamin Lee Whorf held that the language you speak has a systematic influence on how you think about and interact with reality. John and Ken wrestle with the relationship between language and thought with Lera Boroditsky from Stanford University.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[You might think our thoughts simply determine what we say. But maybe the language we speak is what really determines the thoughts we can have. As Wittgenstein famously wrote, &#8220;The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.&#8221; And Benjam]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[You might think our thoughts simply determine what we say. But maybe the language we speak is what really determines the thoughts we can have. As Wittgenstein famously wrote, &#8220;The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.&#8221; And Benjamin Lee Whorf held that the language you speak has a systematic influence on how you think about and interact with reality. John and Ken wrestle with the relationship between language and thought with Lera Boroditsky from Stanford University.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6102/language-and-thought.mp3" length="24257306" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[You might think our thoughts simply determine what we say. But maybe the language we speak is what really determines the thoughts we can have. As Wittgenstein famously wrote, &#8220;The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.&#8221; And Benjamin Lee Whorf held that the language you speak has a systematic influence on how you think about and interact with reality. John and Ken wrestle with the relationship between language and thought with Lera Boroditsky from Stanford University.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture16.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[You might think our thoughts simply determine what we say. But maybe the language we speak is what really determines the thoughts we can have. As Wittgenstein famously wrote, &#8220;The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.&#8221; And Benjamin Lee Whorf held that the language you speak has a systematic influence on how you think about and interact with reality. John and Ken wrestle with the relationship between language and thought with Lera Boroditsky from Stanford University.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture16.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Karl Popper</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/karl-popper/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 08 Oct 2006 17:24:35 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=12152</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Karl Popper is a landmark figure in the philosophy of science.  His notion of &#8220;falsifiability&#8221; endures to this day and even appears in arguments about creation versus evolution.  But what does it mean for a theory to be falsifiable? And where does the idea stand in contemporary philosophy of science?  John and Ken test a few ideas on Popper and falsifiability with their Stanford colleague Denis Phillips, author of The Social Scientist&#8217;s Bestiary: A Guide to Fabled Threats to, and Defences of, Naturalistic Social Science.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Karl Popper is a landmark figure in the philosophy of science.  His notion of &#8220;falsifiability&#8221; endures to this day and even appears in arguments about creation versus evolution.  But what does it mean for a theory to be falsifiable? And where]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Karl Popper is a landmark figure in the philosophy of science.  His notion of &#8220;falsifiability&#8221; endures to this day and even appears in arguments about creation versus evolution.  But what does it mean for a theory to be falsifiable? And where does the idea stand in contemporary philosophy of science?  John and Ken test a few ideas on Popper and falsifiability with their Stanford colleague Denis Phillips, author of The Social Scientist&#8217;s Bestiary: A Guide to Fabled Threats to, and Defences of, Naturalistic Social Science.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/12152/karl-popper.mp3" length="48907493" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Karl Popper is a landmark figure in the philosophy of science.  His notion of &#8220;falsifiability&#8221; endures to this day and even appears in arguments about creation versus evolution.  But what does it mean for a theory to be falsifiable? And where does the idea stand in contemporary philosophy of science?  John and Ken test a few ideas on Popper and falsifiability with their Stanford colleague Denis Phillips, author of The Social Scientist&#8217;s Bestiary: A Guide to Fabled Threats to, and Defences of, Naturalistic Social Science.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/B3dtpjFxsH0.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Karl Popper is a landmark figure in the philosophy of science.  His notion of &#8220;falsifiability&#8221; endures to this day and even appears in arguments about creation versus evolution.  But what does it mean for a theory to be falsifiable? And where does the idea stand in contemporary philosophy of science?  John and Ken test a few ideas on Popper and falsifiability with their Stanford colleague Denis Phillips, author of The Social Scientist&#8217;s Bestiary: A Guide to Fabled Threats to, and Defences of, Naturalistic Social Science.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/B3dtpjFxsH0.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Jewish Philosophy</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/jewish-philosophy/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 01 Oct 2006 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6066</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Rabbis and Talmudic scholars have spent centuries puzzling over theology, texts, and life.&#160; In the process they came up with many philosophical ideas that have inspired the work of more recent philosophers such as Martin Buber and Emmanuel Levinas.&#160; Who or what is God?&#160; By what rules should people live?&#160; And what does Maimonides have to say about diets and bathing? John and Ken investigate the past, present, and future of Jewish philosophy with Paul Franks from the University of Toronto, author of&#160;All or Nothing: Skepticism, Transcendental Arguments and Systematicity in German Idealism.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Rabbis and Talmudic scholars have spent centuries puzzling over theology, texts, and life.&#160; In the process they came up with many philosophical ideas that have inspired the work of more recent philosophers such as Martin Buber and Emmanuel Levinas.&]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Rabbis and Talmudic scholars have spent centuries puzzling over theology, texts, and life.&#160; In the process they came up with many philosophical ideas that have inspired the work of more recent philosophers such as Martin Buber and Emmanuel Levinas.&#160; Who or what is God?&#160; By what rules should people live?&#160; And what does Maimonides have to say about diets and bathing? John and Ken investigate the past, present, and future of Jewish philosophy with Paul Franks from the University of Toronto, author of&#160;All or Nothing: Skepticism, Transcendental Arguments and Systematicity in German Idealism.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6066/jewish-philosophy.mp3" length="30020441" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Rabbis and Talmudic scholars have spent centuries puzzling over theology, texts, and life.&#160; In the process they came up with many philosophical ideas that have inspired the work of more recent philosophers such as Martin Buber and Emmanuel Levinas.&#160; Who or what is God?&#160; By what rules should people live?&#160; And what does Maimonides have to say about diets and bathing? John and Ken investigate the past, present, and future of Jewish philosophy with Paul Franks from the University of Toronto, author of&#160;All or Nothing: Skepticism, Transcendental Arguments and Systematicity in German Idealism.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/Yb9fbS554OU.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Rabbis and Talmudic scholars have spent centuries puzzling over theology, texts, and life.&#160; In the process they came up with many philosophical ideas that have inspired the work of more recent philosophers such as Martin Buber and Emmanuel Levinas.&#160; Who or what is God?&#160; By what rules should people live?&#160; And what does Maimonides have to say about diets and bathing? John and Ken investigate the past, present, and future of Jewish philosophy with Paul Franks from the University of Toronto, author of&#160;All or Nothing: Skepticism, Transcendental Arguments and Systematicity in German Idealism.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/Yb9fbS554OU.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Philosophy of Music</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-philosophy-of-music/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 19 Sep 2006 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5861</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Most people enjoy music daily and have strong listening preferences.&#160;Music – along with love – is often thought of as a universal language.&#160;But what makes a collection of sounds a piece of music as opposed to just noise?&#160;Can music teach us anything?&#160;And is the value of music objective? John and Ken&#160;explore&#160;what philosophy has to tell us about music – and vice versa&#160;– with Peter Kivy from Rutgers University, author of&#160;Sounding Off: Eleven Essays in the Philosophy of Music.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Most people enjoy music daily and have strong listening preferences.&#160;Music – along with love – is often thought of as a universal language.&#160;But what makes a collection of sounds a piece of music as opposed to just noise?&#160;Can music teach us]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Most people enjoy music daily and have strong listening preferences.&#160;Music – along with love – is often thought of as a universal language.&#160;But what makes a collection of sounds a piece of music as opposed to just noise?&#160;Can music teach us anything?&#160;And is the value of music objective? John and Ken&#160;explore&#160;what philosophy has to tell us about music – and vice versa&#160;– with Peter Kivy from Rutgers University, author of&#160;Sounding Off: Eleven Essays in the Philosophy of Music.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5861/the-philosophy-of-music.mp3" length="27315984" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Most people enjoy music daily and have strong listening preferences.&#160;Music – along with love – is often thought of as a universal language.&#160;But what makes a collection of sounds a piece of music as opposed to just noise?&#160;Can music teach us anything?&#160;And is the value of music objective? John and Ken&#160;explore&#160;what philosophy has to tell us about music – and vice versa&#160;– with Peter Kivy from Rutgers University, author of&#160;Sounding Off: Eleven Essays in the Philosophy of Music.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-31T162525.138.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Most people enjoy music daily and have strong listening preferences.&#160;Music – along with love – is often thought of as a universal language.&#160;But what makes a collection of sounds a piece of music as opposed to just noise?&#160;Can music teach us anything?&#160;And is the value of music objective? John and Ken&#160;explore&#160;what philosophy has to tell us about music – and vice versa&#160;– with Peter Kivy from Rutgers University, author of&#160;Sounding Off: Eleven Essays in the Philosophy of Music.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-31T162525.138.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>War Crimes</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/war-crimes/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 12 Sep 2006 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5854</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[In war, people do awful things to other people. But the concept of &#8216;war crime&#8217; suggests that some things are worse than others. How do we disentangle what&#8217;s fair play from what&#8217;s criminal? What are the ethical justifications for regarding some of the evils of war as worse than others? John and Ken bring on noted guest David Luban to explore the challenging subject of war crimes.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[In war, people do awful things to other people. But the concept of &#8216;war crime&#8217; suggests that some things are worse than others. How do we disentangle what&#8217;s fair play from what&#8217;s criminal? What are the ethical justifications for r]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[In war, people do awful things to other people. But the concept of &#8216;war crime&#8217; suggests that some things are worse than others. How do we disentangle what&#8217;s fair play from what&#8217;s criminal? What are the ethical justifications for regarding some of the evils of war as worse than others? John and Ken bring on noted guest David Luban to explore the challenging subject of war crimes.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5854/war-crimes.mp3" length="24464063" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[In war, people do awful things to other people. But the concept of &#8216;war crime&#8217; suggests that some things are worse than others. How do we disentangle what&#8217;s fair play from what&#8217;s criminal? What are the ethical justifications for regarding some of the evils of war as worse than others? John and Ken bring on noted guest David Luban to explore the challenging subject of war crimes.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-31T162426.955.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[In war, people do awful things to other people. But the concept of &#8216;war crime&#8217; suggests that some things are worse than others. How do we disentangle what&#8217;s fair play from what&#8217;s criminal? What are the ethical justifications for regarding some of the evils of war as worse than others? John and Ken bring on noted guest David Luban to explore the challenging subject of war crimes.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-31T162426.955.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Liberty vs. Security</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/liberty-vs-security/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 05 Sep 2006 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6071</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Edward Gibbon and James Madison both noted how liberties in Rome were among the victims of its growing empire.&#160; Is our society facing a similar problem, given what some public figures have said about choosing between how much liberty and how much security we want?&#160; Or is this a false choice put forward by those in power?&#160; John and Ken take a philosophical lens to the relationship between liberty and security.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Edward Gibbon and James Madison both noted how liberties in Rome were among the victims of its growing empire.&#160; Is our society facing a similar problem, given what some public figures have said about choosing between how much liberty and how much se]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Edward Gibbon and James Madison both noted how liberties in Rome were among the victims of its growing empire.&#160; Is our society facing a similar problem, given what some public figures have said about choosing between how much liberty and how much security we want?&#160; Or is this a false choice put forward by those in power?&#160; John and Ken take a philosophical lens to the relationship between liberty and security.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6071/liberty-vs-security.mp3" length="26061426" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Edward Gibbon and James Madison both noted how liberties in Rome were among the victims of its growing empire.&#160; Is our society facing a similar problem, given what some public figures have said about choosing between how much liberty and how much security we want?&#160; Or is this a false choice put forward by those in power?&#160; John and Ken take a philosophical lens to the relationship between liberty and security.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture13.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Edward Gibbon and James Madison both noted how liberties in Rome were among the victims of its growing empire.&#160; Is our society facing a similar problem, given what some public figures have said about choosing between how much liberty and how much security we want?&#160; Or is this a false choice put forward by those in power?&#160; John and Ken take a philosophical lens to the relationship between liberty and security.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture13.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>100th Episode</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/5845/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2006 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5845</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[It’s our anniversary!&#160; Join the philosophers for a celebration of the program that questions everything – except your intelligence – with a look back on the issues and the people that have made Philosophy Talk a hit.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[It’s our anniversary!&#160; Join the philosophers for a celebration of the program that questions everything – except your intelligence – with a look back on the issues and the people that have made Philosophy Talk a hit.]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[It’s our anniversary!&#160; Join the philosophers for a celebration of the program that questions everything – except your intelligence – with a look back on the issues and the people that have made Philosophy Talk a hit.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5845/5845.mp3" length="50871901" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[It’s our anniversary!&#160; Join the philosophers for a celebration of the program that questions everything – except your intelligence – with a look back on the issues and the people that have made Philosophy Talk a hit.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/EJxETmFq-aA.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[It’s our anniversary!&#160; Join the philosophers for a celebration of the program that questions everything – except your intelligence – with a look back on the issues and the people that have made Philosophy Talk a hit.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/EJxETmFq-aA.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Language in Action</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/language-in-action/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 22 Aug 2006 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5841</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[How do we communicate ideas with language? Where does the literal meaning of a word end and the subtle connotation begin? John and Ken tackle the semantics, pragmatics, and mysteries of meaning with Dan Sperber, co-author of Relevance: Communication and Cognition.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[How do we communicate ideas with language? Where does the literal meaning of a word end and the subtle connotation begin? John and Ken tackle the semantics, pragmatics, and mysteries of meaning with Dan Sperber, co-author of Relevance: Communication and ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[How do we communicate ideas with language? Where does the literal meaning of a word end and the subtle connotation begin? John and Ken tackle the semantics, pragmatics, and mysteries of meaning with Dan Sperber, co-author of Relevance: Communication and Cognition.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5841/language-in-action.mp3" length="29859266" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[How do we communicate ideas with language? Where does the literal meaning of a word end and the subtle connotation begin? John and Ken tackle the semantics, pragmatics, and mysteries of meaning with Dan Sperber, co-author of Relevance: Communication and Cognition.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/language-in-action.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[How do we communicate ideas with language? Where does the literal meaning of a word end and the subtle connotation begin? John and Ken tackle the semantics, pragmatics, and mysteries of meaning with Dan Sperber, co-author of Relevance: Communication and Cognition.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/language-in-action.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Athletic Beauty</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/athletic-beauty/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 15 Aug 2006 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6056</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Figure skating is athletic and beautiful.&#160; How about a bone-crunching tackle?&#160; Or a&#160; spikes-high slide into second?&#160; Or a slam-dunk?&#160; Or an overweight sixty-year-old at a bowling alley?&#160; John and Ken discuss the nature of athletic beauty with Hans Gumbrecht, author of In Praise of Athletic Beauty.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Figure skating is athletic and beautiful.&#160; How about a bone-crunching tackle?&#160; Or a&#160; spikes-high slide into second?&#160; Or a slam-dunk?&#160; Or an overweight sixty-year-old at a bowling alley?&#160; John and Ken discuss the nature of at]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Figure skating is athletic and beautiful.&#160; How about a bone-crunching tackle?&#160; Or a&#160; spikes-high slide into second?&#160; Or a slam-dunk?&#160; Or an overweight sixty-year-old at a bowling alley?&#160; John and Ken discuss the nature of athletic beauty with Hans Gumbrecht, author of In Praise of Athletic Beauty.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6056/athletic-beauty.mp3" length="30001110" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Figure skating is athletic and beautiful.&#160; How about a bone-crunching tackle?&#160; Or a&#160; spikes-high slide into second?&#160; Or a slam-dunk?&#160; Or an overweight sixty-year-old at a bowling alley?&#160; John and Ken discuss the nature of athletic beauty with Hans Gumbrecht, author of In Praise of Athletic Beauty.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture12.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Figure skating is athletic and beautiful.&#160; How about a bone-crunching tackle?&#160; Or a&#160; spikes-high slide into second?&#160; Or a slam-dunk?&#160; Or an overweight sixty-year-old at a bowling alley?&#160; John and Ken discuss the nature of athletic beauty with Hans Gumbrecht, author of In Praise of Athletic Beauty.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture12.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Race, Class, and Inequality</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/race-class-and-inequality/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 2006 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6039</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The concept of equality is as important to America&#8217;s self-conception as it is confusing.&#160; What sort of equality?&#160; Equality before the law; equality of opportunity; equal access to all the benefits of modern society?&#160; If we treat everyone the same, how can we take account of inequities due to race, class, gender and other factors?&#160; Guest Elizabeth Kiss from Duke University joins John and Ken in front of a live studio audience at Oregon Public Broadcasting in Portland.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The concept of equality is as important to America&#8217;s self-conception as it is confusing.&#160; What sort of equality?&#160; Equality before the law; equality of opportunity; equal access to all the benefits of modern society?&#160; If we treat ever]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The concept of equality is as important to America&#8217;s self-conception as it is confusing.&#160; What sort of equality?&#160; Equality before the law; equality of opportunity; equal access to all the benefits of modern society?&#160; If we treat everyone the same, how can we take account of inequities due to race, class, gender and other factors?&#160; Guest Elizabeth Kiss from Duke University joins John and Ken in front of a live studio audience at Oregon Public Broadcasting in Portland.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6039/race-class-and-inequality.mp3" length="24362631" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The concept of equality is as important to America&#8217;s self-conception as it is confusing.&#160; What sort of equality?&#160; Equality before the law; equality of opportunity; equal access to all the benefits of modern society?&#160; If we treat everyone the same, how can we take account of inequities due to race, class, gender and other factors?&#160; Guest Elizabeth Kiss from Duke University joins John and Ken in front of a live studio audience at Oregon Public Broadcasting in Portland.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/sc8fxSnIL7w.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The concept of equality is as important to America&#8217;s self-conception as it is confusing.&#160; What sort of equality?&#160; Equality before the law; equality of opportunity; equal access to all the benefits of modern society?&#160; If we treat everyone the same, how can we take account of inequities due to race, class, gender and other factors?&#160; Guest Elizabeth Kiss from Duke University joins John and Ken in front of a live studio audience at Oregon Public Broadcasting in Portland.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/sc8fxSnIL7w.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Future of Philosophy</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-future-of-philosophy/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 01 Aug 2006 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6047</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Ken and John discuss the future of philosophy with three rising stars in American philosophy: Elizabeth Harman from New York University, Brian Weatherson from Cornell University, and Sean Kelly from Princeton University. This program was&#160;recorded live&#160;at the American Philosophical Association Meetings with an audience of cranky and opinionated philosophers in Portland, Oregon.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Ken and John discuss the future of philosophy with three rising stars in American philosophy: Elizabeth Harman from New York University, Brian Weatherson from Cornell University, and Sean Kelly from Princeton University. This program was&#160;recorded li]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Ken and John discuss the future of philosophy with three rising stars in American philosophy: Elizabeth Harman from New York University, Brian Weatherson from Cornell University, and Sean Kelly from Princeton University. This program was&#160;recorded live&#160;at the American Philosophical Association Meetings with an audience of cranky and opinionated philosophers in Portland, Oregon.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6047/the-future-of-philosophy.mp3" length="30407053" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Ken and John discuss the future of philosophy with three rising stars in American philosophy: Elizabeth Harman from New York University, Brian Weatherson from Cornell University, and Sean Kelly from Princeton University. This program was&#160;recorded live&#160;at the American Philosophical Association Meetings with an audience of cranky and opinionated philosophers in Portland, Oregon.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture11.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Ken and John discuss the future of philosophy with three rising stars in American philosophy: Elizabeth Harman from New York University, Brian Weatherson from Cornell University, and Sean Kelly from Princeton University. This program was&#160;recorded live&#160;at the American Philosophical Association Meetings with an audience of cranky and opinionated philosophers in Portland, Oregon.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture11.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Stoicism</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/stoicism/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 25 Jul 2006 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6043</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[People who don&#8217;t seem affected by emotions are often called &#8220;stoic.&#8221;&#160; But there&#8217;s a lot more to Stoicism than simply being unaffected.&#160; Stoicism dates back to ancient Greece and Rome and offers a comprehensive approach to living life.&#160; Who were the original Stoics?&#160; What were their arguments?&#160; And is being stoic a good idea?&#160; John and Ken delve deep into Stoicism in this episode with John Cooper from Princeton University.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[People who don&#8217;t seem affected by emotions are often called &#8220;stoic.&#8221;&#160; But there&#8217;s a lot more to Stoicism than simply being unaffected.&#160; Stoicism dates back to ancient Greece and Rome and offers a comprehensive approach t]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[People who don&#8217;t seem affected by emotions are often called &#8220;stoic.&#8221;&#160; But there&#8217;s a lot more to Stoicism than simply being unaffected.&#160; Stoicism dates back to ancient Greece and Rome and offers a comprehensive approach to living life.&#160; Who were the original Stoics?&#160; What were their arguments?&#160; And is being stoic a good idea?&#160; John and Ken delve deep into Stoicism in this episode with John Cooper from Princeton University.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6043/stoicism.mp3" length="29838890" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[People who don&#8217;t seem affected by emotions are often called &#8220;stoic.&#8221;&#160; But there&#8217;s a lot more to Stoicism than simply being unaffected.&#160; Stoicism dates back to ancient Greece and Rome and offers a comprehensive approach to living life.&#160; Who were the original Stoics?&#160; What were their arguments?&#160; And is being stoic a good idea?&#160; John and Ken delve deep into Stoicism in this episode with John Cooper from Princeton University.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture10.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[People who don&#8217;t seem affected by emotions are often called &#8220;stoic.&#8221;&#160; But there&#8217;s a lot more to Stoicism than simply being unaffected.&#160; Stoicism dates back to ancient Greece and Rome and offers a comprehensive approach to living life.&#160; Who were the original Stoics?&#160; What were their arguments?&#160; And is being stoic a good idea?&#160; John and Ken delve deep into Stoicism in this episode with John Cooper from Princeton University.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture10.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Leadership</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/leadership/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jun 2006 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6035</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[At certain crucial times, such as the American Revolution, the Civil War, and World War II, America was blessed with great leaders.&#160; But now?&#160; What is leadership?&#160; How is it cultivated?&#160; What political processes bring great leaders to the top of the heap?&#160; And what processes will keep demonic leaders, like Hitler, from gaining ascendance?&#160; Can philosophy help us understand the nature of and limits of leadership? John and Ken welcome Deborah Rhode, Director of the Stanford Center on Ethics.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[At certain crucial times, such as the American Revolution, the Civil War, and World War II, America was blessed with great leaders.&#160; But now?&#160; What is leadership?&#160; How is it cultivated?&#160; What political processes bring great leaders to]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[At certain crucial times, such as the American Revolution, the Civil War, and World War II, America was blessed with great leaders.&#160; But now?&#160; What is leadership?&#160; How is it cultivated?&#160; What political processes bring great leaders to the top of the heap?&#160; And what processes will keep demonic leaders, like Hitler, from gaining ascendance?&#160; Can philosophy help us understand the nature of and limits of leadership? John and Ken welcome Deborah Rhode, Director of the Stanford Center on Ethics.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6035/leadership.mp3" length="29930319" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[At certain crucial times, such as the American Revolution, the Civil War, and World War II, America was blessed with great leaders.&#160; But now?&#160; What is leadership?&#160; How is it cultivated?&#160; What political processes bring great leaders to the top of the heap?&#160; And what processes will keep demonic leaders, like Hitler, from gaining ascendance?&#160; Can philosophy help us understand the nature of and limits of leadership? John and Ken welcome Deborah Rhode, Director of the Stanford Center on Ethics.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture9.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[At certain crucial times, such as the American Revolution, the Civil War, and World War II, America was blessed with great leaders.&#160; But now?&#160; What is leadership?&#160; How is it cultivated?&#160; What political processes bring great leaders to the top of the heap?&#160; And what processes will keep demonic leaders, like Hitler, from gaining ascendance?&#160; Can philosophy help us understand the nature of and limits of leadership? John and Ken welcome Deborah Rhode, Director of the Stanford Center on Ethics.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture9.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Hegel</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/hegel/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jun 2006 17:17:46 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=12134</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel is without doubt one of the most influential philosophers of all time. He has, however, been largely ignored by American &#8220;analytic&#8221; philosophers of the twentieth century. John in particular, and Ken to a lesser extent, don&#8217;t know nearly as much about Hegel and his philosophy as they should. They will be lively if somewhat obtuse students for Allen Wood, Stanford&#8217;s resident expert on virtually all aspects of modern philosophy, when Philosophy Talk goes to the bookshelf and pulls down the big volumes of Hegel&#8217;s collected works.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel is without doubt one of the most influential philosophers of all time. He has, however, been largely ignored by American &#8220;analytic&#8221; philosophers of the twentieth century. John in particular, and Ken to a lesser e]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel is without doubt one of the most influential philosophers of all time. He has, however, been largely ignored by American &#8220;analytic&#8221; philosophers of the twentieth century. John in particular, and Ken to a lesser extent, don&#8217;t know nearly as much about Hegel and his philosophy as they should. They will be lively if somewhat obtuse students for Allen Wood, Stanford&#8217;s resident expert on virtually all aspects of modern philosophy, when Philosophy Talk goes to the bookshelf and pulls down the big volumes of Hegel&#8217;s collected works.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/12134/hegel.mp3" length="29948400" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel is without doubt one of the most influential philosophers of all time. He has, however, been largely ignored by American &#8220;analytic&#8221; philosophers of the twentieth century. John in particular, and Ken to a lesser extent, don&#8217;t know nearly as much about Hegel and his philosophy as they should. They will be lively if somewhat obtuse students for Allen Wood, Stanford&#8217;s resident expert on virtually all aspects of modern philosophy, when Philosophy Talk goes to the bookshelf and pulls down the big volumes of Hegel&#8217;s collected works.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/VQupcYZZJus.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel is without doubt one of the most influential philosophers of all time. He has, however, been largely ignored by American &#8220;analytic&#8221; philosophers of the twentieth century. John in particular, and Ken to a lesser extent, don&#8217;t know nearly as much about Hegel and his philosophy as they should. They will be lively if somewhat obtuse students for Allen Wood, Stanford&#8217;s resident expert on virtually all aspects of modern philosophy, when Philosophy Talk goes to the bookshelf and pulls down the big volumes of Hegel&#8217;s collected works.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/VQupcYZZJus.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Nature of Imagination</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-nature-of-imagination/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 30 May 2006 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6017</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[A lot of our thinking, and even our perception, has to do not only with what is, but what might be, and what would have been. That is, the imagination is an important part of our intellectual life. And learning to use our imaginations without losing sight of reality is part of growing up. What is the imagination, and what led Mother Nature to make it such an important part of our make-up? John and Ken discuss the imagination with Alison Gopnik, a leading scholar in the field of children’s learning.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[A lot of our thinking, and even our perception, has to do not only with what is, but what might be, and what would have been. That is, the imagination is an important part of our intellectual life. And learning to use our imaginations without losing sigh]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[A lot of our thinking, and even our perception, has to do not only with what is, but what might be, and what would have been. That is, the imagination is an important part of our intellectual life. And learning to use our imaginations without losing sight of reality is part of growing up. What is the imagination, and what led Mother Nature to make it such an important part of our make-up? John and Ken discuss the imagination with Alison Gopnik, a leading scholar in the field of children’s learning.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6017/the-nature-of-imagination.mp3" length="30173780" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[A lot of our thinking, and even our perception, has to do not only with what is, but what might be, and what would have been. That is, the imagination is an important part of our intellectual life. And learning to use our imaginations without losing sight of reality is part of growing up. What is the imagination, and what led Mother Nature to make it such an important part of our make-up? John and Ken discuss the imagination with Alison Gopnik, a leading scholar in the field of children’s learning.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture7.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[A lot of our thinking, and even our perception, has to do not only with what is, but what might be, and what would have been. That is, the imagination is an important part of our intellectual life. And learning to use our imaginations without losing sight of reality is part of growing up. What is the imagination, and what led Mother Nature to make it such an important part of our make-up? John and Ken discuss the imagination with Alison Gopnik, a leading scholar in the field of children’s learning.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture7.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>A Philosophical Summer Reading List</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/a-philosophical-summer-reading-list/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 16 May 2006 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/a-philosophical-summer-reading-list/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Are there some philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues you want to bone up on over the Summer?&#160; Hegel&#8217;s Phenomenology of the Spirit probably isn&#8217;t a very good choice to take to the beach, but there are a lot of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your Summer Reading.&#160; Ken and John discuss some of their favorites and pass on suggestions from Philosophy Talk guests.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Are there some philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues you want to bone up on over the Summer?&#160; Hegel&#8217;s Phenomenology of the Spirit probably isn&#8217;t a very good choice to take to the beach, but there are a lot of readable, beac]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Are there some philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues you want to bone up on over the Summer?&#160; Hegel&#8217;s Phenomenology of the Spirit probably isn&#8217;t a very good choice to take to the beach, but there are a lot of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your Summer Reading.&#160; Ken and John discuss some of their favorites and pass on suggestions from Philosophy Talk guests.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5804/a-philosophical-summer-reading-list.mp3" length="50851839" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Are there some philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues you want to bone up on over the Summer?&#160; Hegel&#8217;s Phenomenology of the Spirit probably isn&#8217;t a very good choice to take to the beach, but there are a lot of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your Summer Reading.&#160; Ken and John discuss some of their favorites and pass on suggestions from Philosophy Talk guests.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/NxkodGjU4wI.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Are there some philosophers, philosophies, or philosophical issues you want to bone up on over the Summer?&#160; Hegel&#8217;s Phenomenology of the Spirit probably isn&#8217;t a very good choice to take to the beach, but there are a lot of readable, beach-friendly classics and non-classics to add philosophical depth to your Summer Reading.&#160; Ken and John discuss some of their favorites and pass on suggestions from Philosophy Talk guests.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/NxkodGjU4wI.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Justice Across Boundaries</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/justice-across-boundaries/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 09 May 2006 17:18:29 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=12142</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Philosophical conceptions of justice have most often been directed at the nature of a just state. But many contemporary issues of justice reach across boundaries. Are our immigration policies fair and just? Can a just state invade another state in order to outfit it with a more just government? Can we defend economic policies that improve the lives of our citizens but an adverse impact on economies abroad? John and Ken look beyond with Martha Nussbaum from the University of Chicago, author of Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Philosophical conceptions of justice have most often been directed at the nature of a just state. But many contemporary issues of justice reach across boundaries. Are our immigration policies fair and just? Can a just state invade another state in order ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Philosophical conceptions of justice have most often been directed at the nature of a just state. But many contemporary issues of justice reach across boundaries. Are our immigration policies fair and just? Can a just state invade another state in order to outfit it with a more just government? Can we defend economic policies that improve the lives of our citizens but an adverse impact on economies abroad? John and Ken look beyond with Martha Nussbaum from the University of Chicago, author of Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/12142/justice-across-boundaries.mp3" length="29409959" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Philosophical conceptions of justice have most often been directed at the nature of a just state. But many contemporary issues of justice reach across boundaries. Are our immigration policies fair and just? Can a just state invade another state in order to outfit it with a more just government? Can we defend economic policies that improve the lives of our citizens but an adverse impact on economies abroad? John and Ken look beyond with Martha Nussbaum from the University of Chicago, author of Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/JlpV9dQnSY8.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Philosophical conceptions of justice have most often been directed at the nature of a just state. But many contemporary issues of justice reach across boundaries. Are our immigration policies fair and just? Can a just state invade another state in order to outfit it with a more just government? Can we defend economic policies that improve the lives of our citizens but an adverse impact on economies abroad? John and Ken look beyond with Martha Nussbaum from the University of Chicago, author of Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/JlpV9dQnSY8.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Existentialism</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/existentialism/</link>
	<pubDate>Sun, 07 May 2006 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5994</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Being and Nothingness, the for-itself and the in-itself, bad faith, and the existential predicament; these Existentialist concepts were central to the philosophical scene in Europe and America after World War II. Join the Philosophers as they examine the ideas of Existentialism with Lanier Anderson from Stanford University.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Being and Nothingness, the for-itself and the in-itself, bad faith, and the existential predicament; these Existentialist concepts were central to the philosophical scene in Europe and America after World War II. Join the Philosophers as they examine the]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Being and Nothingness, the for-itself and the in-itself, bad faith, and the existential predicament; these Existentialist concepts were central to the philosophical scene in Europe and America after World War II. Join the Philosophers as they examine the ideas of Existentialism with Lanier Anderson from Stanford University.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5994/existentialism.mp3" length="29854440" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Being and Nothingness, the for-itself and the in-itself, bad faith, and the existential predicament; these Existentialist concepts were central to the philosophical scene in Europe and America after World War II. Join the Philosophers as they examine the ideas of Existentialism with Lanier Anderson from Stanford University.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture5.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Being and Nothingness, the for-itself and the in-itself, bad faith, and the existential predicament; these Existentialist concepts were central to the philosophical scene in Europe and America after World War II. Join the Philosophers as they examine the ideas of Existentialism with Lanier Anderson from Stanford University.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture5.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>What Is Art?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/what-is-art/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 25 Apr 2006 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6006</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Anything someone wants to call art?&#160; Or are there some objective criteria, that not every instance of paint smeared on canvas and not every murder mystery meets?&#160; What are the main philosophies of art?&#160; Are any of them plausible?&#160; John and Ken talk about the nature of art with Alexander Nehamas from Princeton University.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Anything someone wants to call art?&#160; Or are there some objective criteria, that not every instance of paint smeared on canvas and not every murder mystery meets?&#160; What are the main philosophies of art?&#160; Are any of them plausible?&#160; Joh]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Anything someone wants to call art?&#160; Or are there some objective criteria, that not every instance of paint smeared on canvas and not every murder mystery meets?&#160; What are the main philosophies of art?&#160; Are any of them plausible?&#160; John and Ken talk about the nature of art with Alexander Nehamas from Princeton University.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6006/what-is-art.mp3" length="24066507" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Anything someone wants to call art?&#160; Or are there some objective criteria, that not every instance of paint smeared on canvas and not every murder mystery meets?&#160; What are the main philosophies of art?&#160; Are any of them plausible?&#160; John and Ken talk about the nature of art with Alexander Nehamas from Princeton University.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/a99wyzD3m5A.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Anything someone wants to call art?&#160; Or are there some objective criteria, that not every instance of paint smeared on canvas and not every murder mystery meets?&#160; What are the main philosophies of art?&#160; Are any of them plausible?&#160; John and Ken talk about the nature of art with Alexander Nehamas from Princeton University.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/a99wyzD3m5A.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Philosophy and the Law</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/philosophy-and-the-law/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2006 15:30:08 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=12321</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[With what right do governments make and enforce laws? To what extent are citizens obligated to obey the law, even if a law is unjust? John and Ken talk about philosophy and the law with Jules Coleman from Yale University.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[With what right do governments make and enforce laws? To what extent are citizens obligated to obey the law, even if a law is unjust? John and Ken talk about philosophy and the law with Jules Coleman from Yale University.]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[With what right do governments make and enforce laws? To what extent are citizens obligated to obey the law, even if a law is unjust? John and Ken talk about philosophy and the law with Jules Coleman from Yale University.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/12321/philosophy-and-the-law.mp3" length="24206733" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[With what right do governments make and enforce laws? To what extent are citizens obligated to obey the law, even if a law is unjust? John and Ken talk about philosophy and the law with Jules Coleman from Yale University.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[With what right do governments make and enforce laws? To what extent are citizens obligated to obey the law, even if a law is unjust? John and Ken talk about philosophy and the law with Jules Coleman from Yale University.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Value of Truth</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-value-of-truth/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 04 Apr 2006 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-value-of-truth/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The pursuit of truth is often thought to be &#8220;intrinsically&#8221; valuable. Scientists and philosophers, who eschew religious rationales for their life&#8217;s work, take the pursuit of truth to be obviously a worthwhile enterprise. But what&#8217;s so great about truth? Sure, it&#8217;s good to know what&#8217;s for lunch, or the nature of the disease that plagues you, but is there any intrinsic or instrumental value in knowing how far away the farthest stars are? Or whether Milton&#8217;s greatest works were written while he had a headache? Or what the next layer of basic particles are like? Truth telling on Philosophy Talk with Simon Blackburn, author of&#160;Truth: A Guide.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The pursuit of truth is often thought to be &#8220;intrinsically&#8221; valuable. Scientists and philosophers, who eschew religious rationales for their life&#8217;s work, take the pursuit of truth to be obviously a worthwhile enterprise. But what&#8217;]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The pursuit of truth is often thought to be &#8220;intrinsically&#8221; valuable. Scientists and philosophers, who eschew religious rationales for their life&#8217;s work, take the pursuit of truth to be obviously a worthwhile enterprise. But what&#8217;s so great about truth? Sure, it&#8217;s good to know what&#8217;s for lunch, or the nature of the disease that plagues you, but is there any intrinsic or instrumental value in knowing how far away the farthest stars are? Or whether Milton&#8217;s greatest works were written while he had a headache? Or what the next layer of basic particles are like? Truth telling on Philosophy Talk with Simon Blackburn, author of&#160;Truth: A Guide.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5790/the-value-of-truth.mp3" length="25491853" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The pursuit of truth is often thought to be &#8220;intrinsically&#8221; valuable. Scientists and philosophers, who eschew religious rationales for their life&#8217;s work, take the pursuit of truth to be obviously a worthwhile enterprise. But what&#8217;s so great about truth? Sure, it&#8217;s good to know what&#8217;s for lunch, or the nature of the disease that plagues you, but is there any intrinsic or instrumental value in knowing how far away the farthest stars are? Or whether Milton&#8217;s greatest works were written while he had a headache? Or what the next layer of basic particles are like? Truth telling on Philosophy Talk with Simon Blackburn, author of&#160;Truth: A Guide.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-31T155526.644-1.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The pursuit of truth is often thought to be &#8220;intrinsically&#8221; valuable. Scientists and philosophers, who eschew religious rationales for their life&#8217;s work, take the pursuit of truth to be obviously a worthwhile enterprise. But what&#8217;s so great about truth? Sure, it&#8217;s good to know what&#8217;s for lunch, or the nature of the disease that plagues you, but is there any intrinsic or instrumental value in knowing how far away the farthest stars are? Or whether Milton&#8217;s greatest works were written while he had a headache? Or what the next layer of basic particles are like? Truth telling on Philosophy Talk with Simon Blackburn, author of&#160;Truth: A Guide.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-31T155526.644-1.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Philosophy of Hoops</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-philosophy-of-hoops/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2006 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6022</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Basketball, an American invention but a world-wide phenomenon, is sometimes characterized as the most athletic and aesthetic of sports. What makes a sport interesting? Valuable? Fun? Entertaining? What values does sport exemplify, and does basketball really measure up? Does commercialization undermine the values of sport? Ken and John discuss the philosophy of basketball with Frank Deford, one of America&#8217;s premier sportswriters.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Basketball, an American invention but a world-wide phenomenon, is sometimes characterized as the most athletic and aesthetic of sports. What makes a sport interesting? Valuable? Fun? Entertaining? What values does sport exemplify, and does basketball rea]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Basketball, an American invention but a world-wide phenomenon, is sometimes characterized as the most athletic and aesthetic of sports. What makes a sport interesting? Valuable? Fun? Entertaining? What values does sport exemplify, and does basketball really measure up? Does commercialization undermine the values of sport? Ken and John discuss the philosophy of basketball with Frank Deford, one of America&#8217;s premier sportswriters.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6022/the-philosophy-of-hoops.mp3" length="30289764" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Basketball, an American invention but a world-wide phenomenon, is sometimes characterized as the most athletic and aesthetic of sports. What makes a sport interesting? Valuable? Fun? Entertaining? What values does sport exemplify, and does basketball really measure up? Does commercialization undermine the values of sport? Ken and John discuss the philosophy of basketball with Frank Deford, one of America&#8217;s premier sportswriters.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture8.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Basketball, an American invention but a world-wide phenomenon, is sometimes characterized as the most athletic and aesthetic of sports. What makes a sport interesting? Valuable? Fun? Entertaining? What values does sport exemplify, and does basketball really measure up? Does commercialization undermine the values of sport? Ken and John discuss the philosophy of basketball with Frank Deford, one of America&#8217;s premier sportswriters.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture8.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Suicide</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/suicide/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2006 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5998</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Taking human life is wrong. But what if it is one&#8217;s own life? Is suicide worse or less bad than murder? Is it wrong at all? Can suicide be rational? How about helping another commit suicide? The Philosophers discuss the metaphysics and morality of taking one&#8217;s own life.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Taking human life is wrong. But what if it is one&#8217;s own life? Is suicide worse or less bad than murder? Is it wrong at all? Can suicide be rational? How about helping another commit suicide? The Philosophers discuss the metaphysics and morality of ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Taking human life is wrong. But what if it is one&#8217;s own life? Is suicide worse or less bad than murder? Is it wrong at all? Can suicide be rational? How about helping another commit suicide? The Philosophers discuss the metaphysics and morality of taking one&#8217;s own life.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5998/suicide.mp3" length="48756610" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Taking human life is wrong. But what if it is one&#8217;s own life? Is suicide worse or less bad than murder? Is it wrong at all? Can suicide be rational? How about helping another commit suicide? The Philosophers discuss the metaphysics and morality of taking one&#8217;s own life.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture6.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Taking human life is wrong. But what if it is one&#8217;s own life? Is suicide worse or less bad than murder? Is it wrong at all? Can suicide be rational? How about helping another commit suicide? The Philosophers discuss the metaphysics and morality of taking one&#8217;s own life.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture6.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>What Are Numbers?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/what-are-numbers/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 14 Mar 2006 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/what-are-numbers/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Plato claimed that numbers exist in some mind-independent abstract heaven. Nominalists claim that there is no such heaven. Clearly, we can&#8217;t see, hear, taste or feel numbers. But if there are no numbers what is mathematics all about? John and Ken count on a great discussion with Gideon Rosen from Princeton University, co-author of&#160;A Subject With No Object: Strategies for Nominalistic Interpretation of Mathematics.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Plato claimed that numbers exist in some mind-independent abstract heaven. Nominalists claim that there is no such heaven. Clearly, we can&#8217;t see, hear, taste or feel numbers. But if there are no numbers what is mathematics all about? John and Ken c]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Plato claimed that numbers exist in some mind-independent abstract heaven. Nominalists claim that there is no such heaven. Clearly, we can&#8217;t see, hear, taste or feel numbers. But if there are no numbers what is mathematics all about? John and Ken count on a great discussion with Gideon Rosen from Princeton University, co-author of&#160;A Subject With No Object: Strategies for Nominalistic Interpretation of Mathematics.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5785/what-are-numbers.mp3" length="48094563" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Plato claimed that numbers exist in some mind-independent abstract heaven. Nominalists claim that there is no such heaven. Clearly, we can&#8217;t see, hear, taste or feel numbers. But if there are no numbers what is mathematics all about? John and Ken count on a great discussion with Gideon Rosen from Princeton University, co-author of&#160;A Subject With No Object: Strategies for Nominalistic Interpretation of Mathematics.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2006/03/Capture34.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Plato claimed that numbers exist in some mind-independent abstract heaven. Nominalists claim that there is no such heaven. Clearly, we can&#8217;t see, hear, taste or feel numbers. But if there are no numbers what is mathematics all about? John and Ken count on a great discussion with Gideon Rosen from Princeton University, co-author of&#160;A Subject With No Object: Strategies for Nominalistic Interpretation of Mathematics.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2006/03/Capture34.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Science of Humor</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-science-of-humor/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6026</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Being funny isn&#8217;t easy. Figuring out what makes things funny is even harder. Still, a number of psychologists (e.g., Freud) and philosophers (e.g., Bergson) have tried. Now computer scientists are trying to learn enough about humor to construct programs that can write good jokes; maybe an artificial stand-up comedian is on the way. Ken and John discuss the art, philosophy and science of humor with Tony Veale, an Irish computer scientist who knows a good joke when his program produces one.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Being funny isn&#8217;t easy. Figuring out what makes things funny is even harder. Still, a number of psychologists (e.g., Freud) and philosophers (e.g., Bergson) have tried. Now computer scientists are trying to learn enough about humor to construct pro]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Being funny isn&#8217;t easy. Figuring out what makes things funny is even harder. Still, a number of psychologists (e.g., Freud) and philosophers (e.g., Bergson) have tried. Now computer scientists are trying to learn enough about humor to construct programs that can write good jokes; maybe an artificial stand-up comedian is on the way. Ken and John discuss the art, philosophy and science of humor with Tony Veale, an Irish computer scientist who knows a good joke when his program produces one.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6026/the-science-of-humor.mp3" length="30065894" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Being funny isn&#8217;t easy. Figuring out what makes things funny is even harder. Still, a number of psychologists (e.g., Freud) and philosophers (e.g., Bergson) have tried. Now computer scientists are trying to learn enough about humor to construct programs that can write good jokes; maybe an artificial stand-up comedian is on the way. Ken and John discuss the art, philosophy and science of humor with Tony Veale, an Irish computer scientist who knows a good joke when his program produces one.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/aYF6eQpZfMA.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Being funny isn&#8217;t easy. Figuring out what makes things funny is even harder. Still, a number of psychologists (e.g., Freud) and philosophers (e.g., Bergson) have tried. Now computer scientists are trying to learn enough about humor to construct programs that can write good jokes; maybe an artificial stand-up comedian is on the way. Ken and John discuss the art, philosophy and science of humor with Tony Veale, an Irish computer scientist who knows a good joke when his program produces one.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/aYF6eQpZfMA.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Marriage and Monogamy</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/marriage-and-monogamy/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2006 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6002</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Monogamy is traditional in most cultures, and it is the law throughout America since Utah gave up polygamy to acquire statehood. Is there any philosophical basis for favoring monogamy over polygamy? Or any reasons grounded in clear empirical facts or social needs? With a looming shortage of females relative to males in large parts of Asia, is it time to question this traditional assumption about marriage? John and Ken remain faithful to their guest, renowned anthropologist&#160;Helen Fisher, author of&#160;Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Monogamy is traditional in most cultures, and it is the law throughout America since Utah gave up polygamy to acquire statehood. Is there any philosophical basis for favoring monogamy over polygamy? Or any reasons grounded in clear empirical facts or soc]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Monogamy is traditional in most cultures, and it is the law throughout America since Utah gave up polygamy to acquire statehood. Is there any philosophical basis for favoring monogamy over polygamy? Or any reasons grounded in clear empirical facts or social needs? With a looming shortage of females relative to males in large parts of Asia, is it time to question this traditional assumption about marriage? John and Ken remain faithful to their guest, renowned anthropologist&#160;Helen Fisher, author of&#160;Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6002/marriage-and-monogamy.mp3" length="30037421" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Monogamy is traditional in most cultures, and it is the law throughout America since Utah gave up polygamy to acquire statehood. Is there any philosophical basis for favoring monogamy over polygamy? Or any reasons grounded in clear empirical facts or social needs? With a looming shortage of females relative to males in large parts of Asia, is it time to question this traditional assumption about marriage? John and Ken remain faithful to their guest, renowned anthropologist&#160;Helen Fisher, author of&#160;Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/MZlKFmxcTYc.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Monogamy is traditional in most cultures, and it is the law throughout America since Utah gave up polygamy to acquire statehood. Is there any philosophical basis for favoring monogamy over polygamy? Or any reasons grounded in clear empirical facts or social needs? With a looming shortage of females relative to males in large parts of Asia, is it time to question this traditional assumption about marriage? John and Ken remain faithful to their guest, renowned anthropologist&#160;Helen Fisher, author of&#160;Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/MZlKFmxcTYc.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>W.E.B. Du Bois</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/w-e-b-du-bois/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2006 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6689</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Sociologist, historian, philosopher, editor, writer, and activist, W.E.B. Du Bois was one of the most influential intellectuals of the twentieth century. The first African-American Ph.D. from Harvard University, Du Bois died in Ghana after having renounced his American citizenship. In between he co-founded the NAACP and wrote The Souls of Black Folk (1903) as well as a number of other influential books that had a decisive impact on the development of African-American culture in the twentieth century. John and Ken discuss Du Bois&#8217; life and thought with Lucius Outlaw from Vanderbilt University, author of On Race and Philosophy.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Sociologist, historian, philosopher, editor, writer, and activist, W.E.B. Du Bois was one of the most influential intellectuals of the twentieth century. The first African-American Ph.D. from Harvard University, Du Bois died in Ghana after having renounc]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Sociologist, historian, philosopher, editor, writer, and activist, W.E.B. Du Bois was one of the most influential intellectuals of the twentieth century. The first African-American Ph.D. from Harvard University, Du Bois died in Ghana after having renounced his American citizenship. In between he co-founded the NAACP and wrote The Souls of Black Folk (1903) as well as a number of other influential books that had a decisive impact on the development of African-American culture in the twentieth century. John and Ken discuss Du Bois&#8217; life and thought with Lucius Outlaw from Vanderbilt University, author of On Race and Philosophy.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6689/w-e-b-du-bois.mp3" length="35702538" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Sociologist, historian, philosopher, editor, writer, and activist, W.E.B. Du Bois was one of the most influential intellectuals of the twentieth century. The first African-American Ph.D. from Harvard University, Du Bois died in Ghana after having renounced his American citizenship. In between he co-founded the NAACP and wrote The Souls of Black Folk (1903) as well as a number of other influential books that had a decisive impact on the development of African-American culture in the twentieth century. John and Ken discuss Du Bois&#8217; life and thought with Lucius Outlaw from Vanderbilt University, author of On Race and Philosophy.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/3P7EYm50urU.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>49:35</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Sociologist, historian, philosopher, editor, writer, and activist, W.E.B. Du Bois was one of the most influential intellectuals of the twentieth century. The first African-American Ph.D. from Harvard University, Du Bois died in Ghana after having renounced his American citizenship. In between he co-founded the NAACP and wrote The Souls of Black Folk (1903) as well as a number of other influential books that had a decisive impact on the development of African-American culture in the twentieth century. John and Ken discuss Du Bois&#8217; life and thought with Lucius Outlaw from Vanderbilt University, author of On Race and Philosophy.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/3P7EYm50urU.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Legislating Values</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/legislating-values/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2006 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5984</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[How should we decide what laws to pass? Should majority rule, even when they are legislating values? Ken thinks this results in tyranny. What kinds of values are there? There are values that are essential to democracy, e.g. education. Ken introduces the guest, Anna Eshoo, congresswoman of the 14th district of California. Are we in a culture war? What are the casualties like in a culture war? Is the current political climate different than it historically has been? John points out that certain issues have always been contested, such as abortion.
What happens when the legislature does not act to support values it should? The Warren court ordering desegregation of the schools was not legislated but it was certainly a social good. Should we follows Rawls&#8217;s principle that only reasons acceptable to any reasonable person should be admitted when the government is involved? Eshoo thinks that Rawls&#8217;s principle is divorced from the way democracy actually works and so is not applicable. Do we need to distinguish between public and private spheres of values to allow the maximum number of citizens to be engaged politically? Is liberty or democracy a more fundamental American value? Eshoo thinks you can&#8217;t let one take precedence over the other. Both minority and majority desires are important.
Rawls thought that there was an overlapping consensus of opinion, a set of things that everyone could agree on. Legislation could proceed from that. Ken thinks that this is a problematic idea. Why should people agree to set aside fundamental beliefs in order to engage each other? Who is responsible for the divisions in society? Ken thinks the political class exploits these differences to destructive ends. Should people vote their values to the detriment of their economic status? How can we not vote our values?


		Sixty-Second Philosopher (Seek to 05:20): Ian Shoales summarizes the history of Anthony Comstock&#8217;s anti-obescenity activities.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[How should we decide what laws to pass? Should majority rule, even when they are legislating values? Ken thinks this results in tyranny. What kinds of values are there? There are values that are essential to democracy, e.g. education. Ken introduces the ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[How should we decide what laws to pass? Should majority rule, even when they are legislating values? Ken thinks this results in tyranny. What kinds of values are there? There are values that are essential to democracy, e.g. education. Ken introduces the guest, Anna Eshoo, congresswoman of the 14th district of California. Are we in a culture war? What are the casualties like in a culture war? Is the current political climate different than it historically has been? John points out that certain issues have always been contested, such as abortion.
What happens when the legislature does not act to support values it should? The Warren court ordering desegregation of the schools was not legislated but it was certainly a social good. Should we follows Rawls&#8217;s principle that only reasons acceptable to any reasonable person should be admitted when the government is involved? Eshoo thinks that Rawls&#8217;s principle is divorced from the way democracy actually works and so is not applicable. Do we need to distinguish between public and private spheres of values to allow the maximum number of citizens to be engaged politically? Is liberty or democracy a more fundamental American value? Eshoo thinks you can&#8217;t let one take precedence over the other. Both minority and majority desires are important.
Rawls thought that there was an overlapping consensus of opinion, a set of things that everyone could agree on. Legislation could proceed from that. Ken thinks that this is a problematic idea. Why should people agree to set aside fundamental beliefs in order to engage each other? Who is responsible for the divisions in society? Ken thinks the political class exploits these differences to destructive ends. Should people vote their values to the detriment of their economic status? How can we not vote our values?


		Sixty-Second Philosopher (Seek to 05:20): Ian Shoales summarizes the history of Anthony Comstock&#8217;s anti-obescenity activities.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5984/legislating-values.mp3" length="47970847" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[How should we decide what laws to pass? Should majority rule, even when they are legislating values? Ken thinks this results in tyranny. What kinds of values are there? There are values that are essential to democracy, e.g. education. Ken introduces the guest, Anna Eshoo, congresswoman of the 14th district of California. Are we in a culture war? What are the casualties like in a culture war? Is the current political climate different than it historically has been? John points out that certain issues have always been contested, such as abortion.
What happens when the legislature does not act to support values it should? The Warren court ordering desegregation of the schools was not legislated but it was certainly a social good. Should we follows Rawls&#8217;s principle that only reasons acceptable to any reasonable person should be admitted when the government is involved? Eshoo thinks that Rawls&#8217;s principle is divorced from the way democracy actually works and so is not applicable. Do we need to distinguish between public and private spheres of values to allow the maximum number of citizens to be engaged politically? Is liberty or democracy a more fundamental American value? Eshoo thinks you can&#8217;t let one take precedence over the other. Both minority and majority desires are important.
Rawls thought that there was an overlapping consensus of opinion, a set of things that everyone could agree on. Legislation could proceed from that. Ken thinks that this is a problematic idea. Why should people agree to set aside fundamental beliefs in order to engage each other? Who is responsible for the divisions in society? Ken thinks the political class exploits these differences to destructive ends. Should people vote their values to the detriment of their economic status? How can we not vote our values?


		Sixty-Second Philosopher (Seek to 05:20): Ian Shoales summarizes the history of Anthony Comstock&#8217;s anti-obescenity activities.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture4.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[How should we decide what laws to pass? Should majority rule, even when they are legislating values? Ken thinks this results in tyranny. What kinds of values are there? There are values that are essential to democracy, e.g. education. Ken introduces the guest, Anna Eshoo, congresswoman of the 14th district of California. Are we in a culture war? What are the casualties like in a culture war? Is the current political climate different than it historically has been? John points out that certain issues have always been contested, such as abortion.
What happens when the legislature does not act to support values it should? The Warren court ordering desegregation of the schools was not legislated but it was certainly a social good. Should we follows Rawls&#8217;s principle that only reasons acceptable to any reasonable person should be admitted when the government is involved? Eshoo thinks that Rawls&#8217;s principle is divorced from the way democracy actually works and so is not applicab]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture4.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Philosophy of Science</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/philosophy-of-science/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5989</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Is philosophy the queen of the sciences, with the job of synthesizing, interpreting and evaluating the results of the particular sciences? Or should we adopt John Locke&#8217;s conception of philosophy as a handmaiden to science: clarifying concepts, definitions and assumptions? During the twentieth century the discipline of the philosophy of science emerged as a central part of philosophy. Ken and John discuss some of the leading ideas and projects involved in this branch of philosophy.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Is philosophy the queen of the sciences, with the job of synthesizing, interpreting and evaluating the results of the particular sciences? Or should we adopt John Locke&#8217;s conception of philosophy as a handmaiden to science: clarifying concepts, def]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Is philosophy the queen of the sciences, with the job of synthesizing, interpreting and evaluating the results of the particular sciences? Or should we adopt John Locke&#8217;s conception of philosophy as a handmaiden to science: clarifying concepts, definitions and assumptions? During the twentieth century the discipline of the philosophy of science emerged as a central part of philosophy. Ken and John discuss some of the leading ideas and projects involved in this branch of philosophy.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5989/philosophy-of-science.mp3" length="48960412" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Is philosophy the queen of the sciences, with the job of synthesizing, interpreting and evaluating the results of the particular sciences? Or should we adopt John Locke&#8217;s conception of philosophy as a handmaiden to science: clarifying concepts, definitions and assumptions? During the twentieth century the discipline of the philosophy of science emerged as a central part of philosophy. Ken and John discuss some of the leading ideas and projects involved in this branch of philosophy.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/2LittXgJWqU.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Is philosophy the queen of the sciences, with the job of synthesizing, interpreting and evaluating the results of the particular sciences? Or should we adopt John Locke&#8217;s conception of philosophy as a handmaiden to science: clarifying concepts, definitions and assumptions? During the twentieth century the discipline of the philosophy of science emerged as a central part of philosophy. Ken and John discuss some of the leading ideas and projects involved in this branch of philosophy.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/2LittXgJWqU.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Intelligent Design</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/intelligent-design/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5979</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Is there any reason to think the cause or causes of order in the universe bear an even remote analogy to human intelligence? Even if they did, would that mean these intelligent causes had the benevolence and sense of justice required of a Christian God? Is this whole issue one of science, religion, or philosophy? These questions, considered by Hume, have now become the focus of a national debate. The philosophers discuss intelligent design with Daniel Dennett, Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University, author of books on consciousness, evolution, and freedom.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Is there any reason to think the cause or causes of order in the universe bear an even remote analogy to human intelligence? Even if they did, would that mean these intelligent causes had the benevolence and sense of justice required of a Christian God? ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Is there any reason to think the cause or causes of order in the universe bear an even remote analogy to human intelligence? Even if they did, would that mean these intelligent causes had the benevolence and sense of justice required of a Christian God? Is this whole issue one of science, religion, or philosophy? These questions, considered by Hume, have now become the focus of a national debate. The philosophers discuss intelligent design with Daniel Dennett, Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University, author of books on consciousness, evolution, and freedom.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5979/intelligent-design.mp3" length="60590754" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Is there any reason to think the cause or causes of order in the universe bear an even remote analogy to human intelligence? Even if they did, would that mean these intelligent causes had the benevolence and sense of justice required of a Christian God? Is this whole issue one of science, religion, or philosophy? These questions, considered by Hume, have now become the focus of a national debate. The philosophers discuss intelligent design with Daniel Dennett, Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University, author of books on consciousness, evolution, and freedom.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/UIQxv1cjAfM.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Is there any reason to think the cause or causes of order in the universe bear an even remote analogy to human intelligence? Even if they did, would that mean these intelligent causes had the benevolence and sense of justice required of a Christian God? Is this whole issue one of science, religion, or philosophy? These questions, considered by Hume, have now become the focus of a national debate. The philosophers discuss intelligent design with Daniel Dennett, Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University, author of books on consciousness, evolution, and freedom.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/UIQxv1cjAfM.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Progress and the Environment</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/progress-and-the-environment/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2006 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/progress-and-the-environment/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Does the value of preserving our environment conflict with the development of a world community in which all enjoy the fruits of human progress? Is the environment important intrinsically, or only as a source of pleasure and other goods for human beings? Ken and John discuss these and other issues with Terry Tamminen, Cabinet Secretary to California Governor Schwarzenegger, and an environmental activist.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Does the value of preserving our environment conflict with the development of a world community in which all enjoy the fruits of human progress? Is the environment important intrinsically, or only as a source of pleasure and other goods for human beings?]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Does the value of preserving our environment conflict with the development of a world community in which all enjoy the fruits of human progress? Is the environment important intrinsically, or only as a source of pleasure and other goods for human beings? Ken and John discuss these and other issues with Terry Tamminen, Cabinet Secretary to California Governor Schwarzenegger, and an environmental activist.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5776/progress-and-the-environment.mp3" length="47445310" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Does the value of preserving our environment conflict with the development of a world community in which all enjoy the fruits of human progress? Is the environment important intrinsically, or only as a source of pleasure and other goods for human beings? Ken and John discuss these and other issues with Terry Tamminen, Cabinet Secretary to California Governor Schwarzenegger, and an environmental activist.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/1eKJZIqxar0.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Does the value of preserving our environment conflict with the development of a world community in which all enjoy the fruits of human progress? Is the environment important intrinsically, or only as a source of pleasure and other goods for human beings? Ken and John discuss these and other issues with Terry Tamminen, Cabinet Secretary to California Governor Schwarzenegger, and an environmental activist.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/1eKJZIqxar0.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Existence of God</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-existence-of-god/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2005 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6396</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The question of whether or not God exists is profoundly fascinating and important. What are the proofs of the existence of God? How can one prove that God does not exist? Join us as John and Ken explore issues such as religious experience, the Bible, evil, eternity, the origin of the universe, design, and the supposed connection between morality and the existence of God with Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Professor of Philosophy, and Hardy Professor of Legal Studies, Dartmouth College.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The question of whether or not God exists is profoundly fascinating and important. What are the proofs of the existence of God? How can one prove that God does not exist? Join us as John and Ken explore issues such as religious experience, the Bible, evi]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The question of whether or not God exists is profoundly fascinating and important. What are the proofs of the existence of God? How can one prove that God does not exist? Join us as John and Ken explore issues such as religious experience, the Bible, evil, eternity, the origin of the universe, design, and the supposed connection between morality and the existence of God with Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Professor of Philosophy, and Hardy Professor of Legal Studies, Dartmouth College.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6396/the-existence-of-god.mp3" length="29628211" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The question of whether or not God exists is profoundly fascinating and important. What are the proofs of the existence of God? How can one prove that God does not exist? Join us as John and Ken explore issues such as religious experience, the Bible, evil, eternity, the origin of the universe, design, and the supposed connection between morality and the existence of God with Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Professor of Philosophy, and Hardy Professor of Legal Studies, Dartmouth College.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/DA6KaWwAZZ0.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The question of whether or not God exists is profoundly fascinating and important. What are the proofs of the existence of God? How can one prove that God does not exist? Join us as John and Ken explore issues such as religious experience, the Bible, evil, eternity, the origin of the universe, design, and the supposed connection between morality and the existence of God with Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Professor of Philosophy, and Hardy Professor of Legal Studies, Dartmouth College.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/DA6KaWwAZZ0.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Kant</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/kant/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2005 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5972</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Immanuel Kant introduced the human mind as an active originator of experience rather than just a passive recipient of perception.&#160; How has his philosophy influenced the world after him?&#160; John and Ken dig into the brilliantly active mind of Kant with Peter Gilgen from Cornell University, editor of&#160;Back to Kant II: The Fate of Kant in a Time of Crisis.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Immanuel Kant introduced the human mind as an active originator of experience rather than just a passive recipient of perception.&#160; How has his philosophy influenced the world after him?&#160; John and Ken dig into the brilliantly active mind of Kant]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Immanuel Kant introduced the human mind as an active originator of experience rather than just a passive recipient of perception.&#160; How has his philosophy influenced the world after him?&#160; John and Ken dig into the brilliantly active mind of Kant with Peter Gilgen from Cornell University, editor of&#160;Back to Kant II: The Fate of Kant in a Time of Crisis.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5972/kant.mp3" length="24073660" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Immanuel Kant introduced the human mind as an active originator of experience rather than just a passive recipient of perception.&#160; How has his philosophy influenced the world after him?&#160; John and Ken dig into the brilliantly active mind of Kant with Peter Gilgen from Cornell University, editor of&#160;Back to Kant II: The Fate of Kant in a Time of Crisis.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/a9oB8dSZR1I.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Immanuel Kant introduced the human mind as an active originator of experience rather than just a passive recipient of perception.&#160; How has his philosophy influenced the world after him?&#160; John and Ken dig into the brilliantly active mind of Kant with Peter Gilgen from Cornell University, editor of&#160;Back to Kant II: The Fate of Kant in a Time of Crisis.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/a9oB8dSZR1I.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Freedom of Speech in Times of War</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/freedom-of-speech-in-times-of-war/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2005 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5826</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The Constitution grants the freedom of speech to every citizen.&#160; Journalists value it more than anything else.&#160; Should the freedom of speech be unlimited?&#160; Would unlimited freedom of speech do more good or bad to our society?&#160; Would limited freedom of speech impact the monitoring power of news media and therefore threaten our society?&#160; John and Ken discuss the philosophy behind the freedom of speech with Geoff Stone from the University of Chicago Law School.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The Constitution grants the freedom of speech to every citizen.&#160; Journalists value it more than anything else.&#160; Should the freedom of speech be unlimited?&#160; Would unlimited freedom of speech do more good or bad to our society?&#160; Would l]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The Constitution grants the freedom of speech to every citizen.&#160; Journalists value it more than anything else.&#160; Should the freedom of speech be unlimited?&#160; Would unlimited freedom of speech do more good or bad to our society?&#160; Would limited freedom of speech impact the monitoring power of news media and therefore threaten our society?&#160; John and Ken discuss the philosophy behind the freedom of speech with Geoff Stone from the University of Chicago Law School.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5826/freedom-of-speech-in-times-of-war.mp3" length="48766641" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The Constitution grants the freedom of speech to every citizen.&#160; Journalists value it more than anything else.&#160; Should the freedom of speech be unlimited?&#160; Would unlimited freedom of speech do more good or bad to our society?&#160; Would limited freedom of speech impact the monitoring power of news media and therefore threaten our society?&#160; John and Ken discuss the philosophy behind the freedom of speech with Geoff Stone from the University of Chicago Law School.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/loose-lips-sink-ships.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The Constitution grants the freedom of speech to every citizen.&#160; Journalists value it more than anything else.&#160; Should the freedom of speech be unlimited?&#160; Would unlimited freedom of speech do more good or bad to our society?&#160; Would limited freedom of speech impact the monitoring power of news media and therefore threaten our society?&#160; John and Ken discuss the philosophy behind the freedom of speech with Geoff Stone from the University of Chicago Law School.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/loose-lips-sink-ships.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Friendship</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/friendship/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5957</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Who do we call friends?&#160; Do we need friends out of love for others or for ourselves?&#160; Is a life with friends necessarily a better life?&#160; Ancient philosophers, such as Aristotle, wrote extensively on the topic.&#160; John and Ken examine just what friendship means in the modern life with their friend, Martha Nussbaum, Professor of Law and Ethics, University of Chicago.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Who do we call friends?&#160; Do we need friends out of love for others or for ourselves?&#160; Is a life with friends necessarily a better life?&#160; Ancient philosophers, such as Aristotle, wrote extensively on the topic.&#160; John and Ken examine ju]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Who do we call friends?&#160; Do we need friends out of love for others or for ourselves?&#160; Is a life with friends necessarily a better life?&#160; Ancient philosophers, such as Aristotle, wrote extensively on the topic.&#160; John and Ken examine just what friendship means in the modern life with their friend, Martha Nussbaum, Professor of Law and Ethics, University of Chicago.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5957/friendship.mp3" length="47710876" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Who do we call friends?&#160; Do we need friends out of love for others or for ourselves?&#160; Is a life with friends necessarily a better life?&#160; Ancient philosophers, such as Aristotle, wrote extensively on the topic.&#160; John and Ken examine just what friendship means in the modern life with their friend, Martha Nussbaum, Professor of Law and Ethics, University of Chicago.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T151646.587.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Who do we call friends?&#160; Do we need friends out of love for others or for ourselves?&#160; Is a life with friends necessarily a better life?&#160; Ancient philosophers, such as Aristotle, wrote extensively on the topic.&#160; John and Ken examine just what friendship means in the modern life with their friend, Martha Nussbaum, Professor of Law and Ethics, University of Chicago.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T151646.587.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Language of Fiction</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/language-of-fiction/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2005 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5942</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What are we talking about when we talk about Sherlock Holmes or Santa Claus? Something that doesn&#8217;t exist? &#160;Something that exists only in the mind? Something that exists only in a fictional or imaginary world? Are statements about fictional objects true? &#160;Is there a distinction between literal truth and &#8220;fictional truth?&#8221; John and Ken uncover the facts about fiction with Joshua Landy from Stanford University.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What are we talking about when we talk about Sherlock Holmes or Santa Claus? Something that doesn&#8217;t exist? &#160;Something that exists only in the mind? Something that exists only in a fictional or imaginary world? Are statements about fictional ob]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What are we talking about when we talk about Sherlock Holmes or Santa Claus? Something that doesn&#8217;t exist? &#160;Something that exists only in the mind? Something that exists only in a fictional or imaginary world? Are statements about fictional objects true? &#160;Is there a distinction between literal truth and &#8220;fictional truth?&#8221; John and Ken uncover the facts about fiction with Joshua Landy from Stanford University.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5942/language-of-fiction.mp3" length="28738613" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What are we talking about when we talk about Sherlock Holmes or Santa Claus? Something that doesn&#8217;t exist? &#160;Something that exists only in the mind? Something that exists only in a fictional or imaginary world? Are statements about fictional objects true? &#160;Is there a distinction between literal truth and &#8220;fictional truth?&#8221; John and Ken uncover the facts about fiction with Joshua Landy from Stanford University.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/lrL8Dub9uuI.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What are we talking about when we talk about Sherlock Holmes or Santa Claus? Something that doesn&#8217;t exist? &#160;Something that exists only in the mind? Something that exists only in a fictional or imaginary world? Are statements about fictional objects true? &#160;Is there a distinction between literal truth and &#8220;fictional truth?&#8221; John and Ken uncover the facts about fiction with Joshua Landy from Stanford University.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/lrL8Dub9uuI.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>George Berkeley</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/george-berkeley/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2005 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5960</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Berkeley founded and defended idealism,&#160;the doctrine that there is not a material world;&#160;reality is the orchestration of ideas in minds, nothing more.&#160; He influenced Hume, Mill, Russell, and many other philosophers.&#160; John and Ken explore Berkeley&#8217;s ideas with David Hilbert from the University of Illinois at Chicago, author of Color and Color Perception: A Study in Anthropocentric Realism.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Berkeley founded and defended idealism,&#160;the doctrine that there is not a material world;&#160;reality is the orchestration of ideas in minds, nothing more.&#160; He influenced Hume, Mill, Russell, and many other philosophers.&#160; John and Ken expl]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Berkeley founded and defended idealism,&#160;the doctrine that there is not a material world;&#160;reality is the orchestration of ideas in minds, nothing more.&#160; He influenced Hume, Mill, Russell, and many other philosophers.&#160; John and Ken explore Berkeley&#8217;s ideas with David Hilbert from the University of Illinois at Chicago, author of Color and Color Perception: A Study in Anthropocentric Realism.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5960/george-berkeley.mp3" length="23467572" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Berkeley founded and defended idealism,&#160;the doctrine that there is not a material world;&#160;reality is the orchestration of ideas in minds, nothing more.&#160; He influenced Hume, Mill, Russell, and many other philosophers.&#160; John and Ken explore Berkeley&#8217;s ideas with David Hilbert from the University of Illinois at Chicago, author of Color and Color Perception: A Study in Anthropocentric Realism.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/ZUWYCvt9PLs.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Berkeley founded and defended idealism,&#160;the doctrine that there is not a material world;&#160;reality is the orchestration of ideas in minds, nothing more.&#160; He influenced Hume, Mill, Russell, and many other philosophers.&#160; John and Ken explore Berkeley&#8217;s ideas with David Hilbert from the University of Illinois at Chicago, author of Color and Color Perception: A Study in Anthropocentric Realism.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/ZUWYCvt9PLs.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Willing Suspension of Disbelief</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-willing-suspension-of-disbelief/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2005 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6369</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Why don&#8217;t we run out of the movie theatre when a monster shows on the screen? What kind of mental state is the willing suspension of disbelief?  Why do fiction and drama affect our emotions even when we know they are not real?  John and Ken examine the role of suspension of disbelief in the enjoyment of theatre, movies, video games, and what this trait reveals about the human mind in general.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Why don&#8217;t we run out of the movie theatre when a monster shows on the screen? What kind of mental state is the willing suspension of disbelief?  Why do fiction and drama affect our emotions even when we know they are not real?  John and Ken examine]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Why don&#8217;t we run out of the movie theatre when a monster shows on the screen? What kind of mental state is the willing suspension of disbelief?  Why do fiction and drama affect our emotions even when we know they are not real?  John and Ken examine the role of suspension of disbelief in the enjoyment of theatre, movies, video games, and what this trait reveals about the human mind in general.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6369/the-willing-suspension-of-disbelief.mp3" length="99480198" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Why don&#8217;t we run out of the movie theatre when a monster shows on the screen? What kind of mental state is the willing suspension of disbelief?  Why do fiction and drama affect our emotions even when we know they are not real?  John and Ken examine the role of suspension of disbelief in the enjoyment of theatre, movies, video games, and what this trait reveals about the human mind in general.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T151346.484.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Why don&#8217;t we run out of the movie theatre when a monster shows on the screen? What kind of mental state is the willing suspension of disbelief?  Why do fiction and drama affect our emotions even when we know they are not real?  John and Ken examine the role of suspension of disbelief in the enjoyment of theatre, movies, video games, and what this trait reveals about the human mind in general.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T151346.484.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Reconciliation</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/reconciliation/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2005 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5938</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Justice, truth, and identity;&#160; race, society, and law—these all come into dramatic play as South Africa makes the tumultuous transition to a post-apartheid democracy.&#160; How has the new South Africa constructed its concepts of reconciliation?&#160; How has its historical emergence meant a rethinking, reimaging, re-experiencing, relabeling, and repoliticizing of race?&#160; John and Ken discuss reconciliation with Daniel Herwitz, a philosopher who has spent much time in South Africa.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Justice, truth, and identity;&#160; race, society, and law—these all come into dramatic play as South Africa makes the tumultuous transition to a post-apartheid democracy.&#160; How has the new South Africa constructed its concepts of reconciliation?&#16]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Justice, truth, and identity;&#160; race, society, and law—these all come into dramatic play as South Africa makes the tumultuous transition to a post-apartheid democracy.&#160; How has the new South Africa constructed its concepts of reconciliation?&#160; How has its historical emergence meant a rethinking, reimaging, re-experiencing, relabeling, and repoliticizing of race?&#160; John and Ken discuss reconciliation with Daniel Herwitz, a philosopher who has spent much time in South Africa.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5938/reconciliation.mp3" length="50881096" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Justice, truth, and identity;&#160; race, society, and law—these all come into dramatic play as South Africa makes the tumultuous transition to a post-apartheid democracy.&#160; How has the new South Africa constructed its concepts of reconciliation?&#160; How has its historical emergence meant a rethinking, reimaging, re-experiencing, relabeling, and repoliticizing of race?&#160; John and Ken discuss reconciliation with Daniel Herwitz, a philosopher who has spent much time in South Africa.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T151101.842.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Justice, truth, and identity;&#160; race, society, and law—these all come into dramatic play as South Africa makes the tumultuous transition to a post-apartheid democracy.&#160; How has the new South Africa constructed its concepts of reconciliation?&#160; How has its historical emergence meant a rethinking, reimaging, re-experiencing, relabeling, and repoliticizing of race?&#160; John and Ken discuss reconciliation with Daniel Herwitz, a philosopher who has spent much time in South Africa.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T151101.842.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Strange World of Quantum Reality</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-strange-world-of-quantum-reality/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2005 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5892</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Quantum mechanics is an astoundly successful, mathematically elegant, explanatorily deep, even beautiful scientific theory.&#160; Yet it reveals a truly puzzling world of micro-entities: entities that can be at two places at once, that can &#8220;travel&#8221; from here to the other side of Alpha Centauri in an instant without traversing the space in between, that behave like waves when unobserve but like particles when observed.&#160; Join John, Ken and their guest,&#160;Jenann Ismael as they try to make philosophical sense of the strange world of quantum reality.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Quantum mechanics is an astoundly successful, mathematically elegant, explanatorily deep, even beautiful scientific theory.&#160; Yet it reveals a truly puzzling world of micro-entities: entities that can be at two places at once, that can &#8220;travel&]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Quantum mechanics is an astoundly successful, mathematically elegant, explanatorily deep, even beautiful scientific theory.&#160; Yet it reveals a truly puzzling world of micro-entities: entities that can be at two places at once, that can &#8220;travel&#8221; from here to the other side of Alpha Centauri in an instant without traversing the space in between, that behave like waves when unobserve but like particles when observed.&#160; Join John, Ken and their guest,&#160;Jenann Ismael as they try to make philosophical sense of the strange world of quantum reality.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5892/the-strange-world-of-quantum-reality.mp3" length="23652519" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Quantum mechanics is an astoundly successful, mathematically elegant, explanatorily deep, even beautiful scientific theory.&#160; Yet it reveals a truly puzzling world of micro-entities: entities that can be at two places at once, that can &#8220;travel&#8221; from here to the other side of Alpha Centauri in an instant without traversing the space in between, that behave like waves when unobserve but like particles when observed.&#160; Join John, Ken and their guest,&#160;Jenann Ismael as they try to make philosophical sense of the strange world of quantum reality.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-31T163113.892.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Quantum mechanics is an astoundly successful, mathematically elegant, explanatorily deep, even beautiful scientific theory.&#160; Yet it reveals a truly puzzling world of micro-entities: entities that can be at two places at once, that can &#8220;travel&#8221; from here to the other side of Alpha Centauri in an instant without traversing the space in between, that behave like waves when unobserve but like particles when observed.&#160; Join John, Ken and their guest,&#160;Jenann Ismael as they try to make philosophical sense of the strange world of quantum reality.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-31T163113.892.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Ethics in War</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/ethics-in-war/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6366</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[After World War II the Nurenberg trials and the conventions that arose out of them codified the idea that there are right and wrong ways to wage war.  That prisoners of war have definite rights, and that non-combatants should be treated differently than soldiers.  Some think the idea of a morality of warfare makes no sense, and that the distinction between soldiers and non-combatants is meaningless in the setting of modern warfare.  John and Ken discuss these issues in the light of philosophical theories of right and wrong.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[After World War II the Nurenberg trials and the conventions that arose out of them codified the idea that there are right and wrong ways to wage war.  That prisoners of war have definite rights, and that non-combatants should be treated differently than ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[After World War II the Nurenberg trials and the conventions that arose out of them codified the idea that there are right and wrong ways to wage war.  That prisoners of war have definite rights, and that non-combatants should be treated differently than soldiers.  Some think the idea of a morality of warfare makes no sense, and that the distinction between soldiers and non-combatants is meaningless in the setting of modern warfare.  John and Ken discuss these issues in the light of philosophical theories of right and wrong.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6366/ethics-in-war.mp3" length="23712131" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[After World War II the Nurenberg trials and the conventions that arose out of them codified the idea that there are right and wrong ways to wage war.  That prisoners of war have definite rights, and that non-combatants should be treated differently than soldiers.  Some think the idea of a morality of warfare makes no sense, and that the distinction between soldiers and non-combatants is meaningless in the setting of modern warfare.  John and Ken discuss these issues in the light of philosophical theories of right and wrong.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T150548.604-1.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[After World War II the Nurenberg trials and the conventions that arose out of them codified the idea that there are right and wrong ways to wage war.  That prisoners of war have definite rights, and that non-combatants should be treated differently than soldiers.  Some think the idea of a morality of warfare makes no sense, and that the distinction between soldiers and non-combatants is meaningless in the setting of modern warfare.  John and Ken discuss these issues in the light of philosophical theories of right and wrong.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T150548.604-1.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Language of Politics</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/language-of-politics/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6362</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Politics, especially American politics, puts pressure on words like &#8220;liberal&#8221;, &#8220;conservative&#8221; and &#8220;values&#8221; as they are used more as weapons than as tools for communication.   John and Ken discuss this process and the philosophical shifts that often accompany changes in meaning with famed San Francisco linguist Geoff Nunberg, a regular on &#8220;Fresh Air.&#8221;]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Politics, especially American politics, puts pressure on words like &#8220;liberal&#8221;, &#8220;conservative&#8221; and &#8220;values&#8221; as they are used more as weapons than as tools for communication.   John and Ken discuss this process and the p]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Politics, especially American politics, puts pressure on words like &#8220;liberal&#8221;, &#8220;conservative&#8221; and &#8220;values&#8221; as they are used more as weapons than as tools for communication.   John and Ken discuss this process and the philosophical shifts that often accompany changes in meaning with famed San Francisco linguist Geoff Nunberg, a regular on &#8220;Fresh Air.&#8221;]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6362/language-of-politics.mp3" length="48811229" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Politics, especially American politics, puts pressure on words like &#8220;liberal&#8221;, &#8220;conservative&#8221; and &#8220;values&#8221; as they are used more as weapons than as tools for communication.   John and Ken discuss this process and the philosophical shifts that often accompany changes in meaning with famed San Francisco linguist Geoff Nunberg, a regular on &#8220;Fresh Air.&#8221;]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T150449.685-1.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Politics, especially American politics, puts pressure on words like &#8220;liberal&#8221;, &#8220;conservative&#8221; and &#8220;values&#8221; as they are used more as weapons than as tools for communication.   John and Ken discuss this process and the philosophical shifts that often accompany changes in meaning with famed San Francisco linguist Geoff Nunberg, a regular on &#8220;Fresh Air.&#8221;]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T150449.685-1.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Saints, Heroes, and Well-Lived Lives</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/saints-heroes-and-well-lived-lives/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2005 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6355</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Some actions are right, and some are wrong. But aren&#8217;t some even better than right&#8212;the kinds of things that heroes and saints do? Yet some philosophers think that such &#8220;supererogatory&#8221; acts make no sense; we should always do the best thing open to us, and there is no room for better than best. John and Ken discuss the philosophy and psychology of saints and heroes with Susan Wolf from the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Some actions are right, and some are wrong. But aren&#8217;t some even better than right&#8212;the kinds of things that heroes and saints do? Yet some philosophers think that such &#8220;supererogatory&#8221; acts make no sense; we should always do the b]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Some actions are right, and some are wrong. But aren&#8217;t some even better than right&#8212;the kinds of things that heroes and saints do? Yet some philosophers think that such &#8220;supererogatory&#8221; acts make no sense; we should always do the best thing open to us, and there is no room for better than best. John and Ken discuss the philosophy and psychology of saints and heroes with Susan Wolf from the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6355/saints-heroes-and-well-lived-lives.mp3" length="47485596" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Some actions are right, and some are wrong. But aren&#8217;t some even better than right&#8212;the kinds of things that heroes and saints do? Yet some philosophers think that such &#8220;supererogatory&#8221; acts make no sense; we should always do the best thing open to us, and there is no room for better than best. John and Ken discuss the philosophy and psychology of saints and heroes with Susan Wolf from the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T150216.936.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>49:28</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Some actions are right, and some are wrong. But aren&#8217;t some even better than right&#8212;the kinds of things that heroes and saints do? Yet some philosophers think that such &#8220;supererogatory&#8221; acts make no sense; we should always do the best thing open to us, and there is no room for better than best. John and Ken discuss the philosophy and psychology of saints and heroes with Susan Wolf from the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T150216.936.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Descartes</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/descartes/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2005 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6327</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The 17th Century philosopher Rene Descartes is often considered the father of modern philosophy.  His Meditations are a staple in introductory philosophy courses, and his views on the relation of mind and body have dominated philosophical discussion of this issue for three hundred years.  John and Ken discuss the life, times, and philosophy of this fascinating French philosopher with Ron Rubin from Pitzer College, author of Silencing the Demon’s Advocate: The Strategy of Descartes’ Meditations.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The 17th Century philosopher Rene Descartes is often considered the father of modern philosophy.  His Meditations are a staple in introductory philosophy courses, and his views on the relation of mind and body have dominated philosophical discussion of t]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The 17th Century philosopher Rene Descartes is often considered the father of modern philosophy.  His Meditations are a staple in introductory philosophy courses, and his views on the relation of mind and body have dominated philosophical discussion of this issue for three hundred years.  John and Ken discuss the life, times, and philosophy of this fascinating French philosopher with Ron Rubin from Pitzer College, author of Silencing the Demon’s Advocate: The Strategy of Descartes’ Meditations.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6327/descartes.mp3" length="48627879" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The 17th Century philosopher Rene Descartes is often considered the father of modern philosophy.  His Meditations are a staple in introductory philosophy courses, and his views on the relation of mind and body have dominated philosophical discussion of this issue for three hundred years.  John and Ken discuss the life, times, and philosophy of this fascinating French philosopher with Ron Rubin from Pitzer College, author of Silencing the Demon’s Advocate: The Strategy of Descartes’ Meditations.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/56RI8bwZoDU.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:39</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The 17th Century philosopher Rene Descartes is often considered the father of modern philosophy.  His Meditations are a staple in introductory philosophy courses, and his views on the relation of mind and body have dominated philosophical discussion of this issue for three hundred years.  John and Ken discuss the life, times, and philosophy of this fascinating French philosopher with Ron Rubin from Pitzer College, author of Silencing the Demon’s Advocate: The Strategy of Descartes’ Meditations.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/56RI8bwZoDU.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Indispensable Emotions</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-indispensable-emotions/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2005 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5916</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Where would we be without emotions?&#160; Many philosophers throughout history have thought the emotions serve only to cloud our judgments and actions.&#160; Phrases like &#8220;He&#8217;s just acting emotionally&#8221; or &#8220;Her judgment is clouded by emotion&#8221; are phrases of condemnation, not of praise.&#160; Still, some philosophers have argued the emotions have an intelligence of their own and that the emotions are indispensable for our ethical lives.&#160; Join John and Ken and their guest Martha Nussbaum, author of&#160;Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions, as they explore the role of emotions in well lived lives and well-ordered societies.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Where would we be without emotions?&#160; Many philosophers throughout history have thought the emotions serve only to cloud our judgments and actions.&#160; Phrases like &#8220;He&#8217;s just acting emotionally&#8221; or &#8220;Her judgment is clouded ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Where would we be without emotions?&#160; Many philosophers throughout history have thought the emotions serve only to cloud our judgments and actions.&#160; Phrases like &#8220;He&#8217;s just acting emotionally&#8221; or &#8220;Her judgment is clouded by emotion&#8221; are phrases of condemnation, not of praise.&#160; Still, some philosophers have argued the emotions have an intelligence of their own and that the emotions are indispensable for our ethical lives.&#160; Join John and Ken and their guest Martha Nussbaum, author of&#160;Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions, as they explore the role of emotions in well lived lives and well-ordered societies.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5916/the-indispensable-emotions.mp3" length="29734139" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Where would we be without emotions?&#160; Many philosophers throughout history have thought the emotions serve only to cloud our judgments and actions.&#160; Phrases like &#8220;He&#8217;s just acting emotionally&#8221; or &#8220;Her judgment is clouded by emotion&#8221; are phrases of condemnation, not of praise.&#160; Still, some philosophers have argued the emotions have an intelligence of their own and that the emotions are indispensable for our ethical lives.&#160; Join John and Ken and their guest Martha Nussbaum, author of&#160;Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions, as they explore the role of emotions in well lived lives and well-ordered societies.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T145220.710.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Where would we be without emotions?&#160; Many philosophers throughout history have thought the emotions serve only to cloud our judgments and actions.&#160; Phrases like &#8220;He&#8217;s just acting emotionally&#8221; or &#8220;Her judgment is clouded by emotion&#8221; are phrases of condemnation, not of praise.&#160; Still, some philosophers have argued the emotions have an intelligence of their own and that the emotions are indispensable for our ethical lives.&#160; Join John and Ken and their guest Martha Nussbaum, author of&#160;Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions, as they explore the role of emotions in well lived lives and well-ordered societies.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T145220.710.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Moral Dilemmas and Moral Ambiguity</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/moral-dilemmas-and-moral-ambiguity/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2005 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5929</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[It would be nice if we always knew the morally right thing to do, if our choices and commitments were painted in stark black and white. &#160;Unfortunately life is full of gray areas, including situations in which all the choices that confront us seem morally problematic, in which all the people who surround us seem composed of equal parts good and evil. &#160; John and Ken explore the extent to which reality confronts us with moral dilemmas and moral ambiguity with Walter Sinnott-Armstrong from Dartmouth College.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[It would be nice if we always knew the morally right thing to do, if our choices and commitments were painted in stark black and white. &#160;Unfortunately life is full of gray areas, including situations in which all the choices that confront us seem mo]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[It would be nice if we always knew the morally right thing to do, if our choices and commitments were painted in stark black and white. &#160;Unfortunately life is full of gray areas, including situations in which all the choices that confront us seem morally problematic, in which all the people who surround us seem composed of equal parts good and evil. &#160; John and Ken explore the extent to which reality confronts us with moral dilemmas and moral ambiguity with Walter Sinnott-Armstrong from Dartmouth College.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5929/moral-dilemmas-and-moral-ambiguity.mp3" length="47996342" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[It would be nice if we always knew the morally right thing to do, if our choices and commitments were painted in stark black and white. &#160;Unfortunately life is full of gray areas, including situations in which all the choices that confront us seem morally problematic, in which all the people who surround us seem composed of equal parts good and evil. &#160; John and Ken explore the extent to which reality confronts us with moral dilemmas and moral ambiguity with Walter Sinnott-Armstrong from Dartmouth College.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T145109.767.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[It would be nice if we always knew the morally right thing to do, if our choices and commitments were painted in stark black and white. &#160;Unfortunately life is full of gray areas, including situations in which all the choices that confront us seem morally problematic, in which all the people who surround us seem composed of equal parts good and evil. &#160; John and Ken explore the extent to which reality confronts us with moral dilemmas and moral ambiguity with Walter Sinnott-Armstrong from Dartmouth College.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T145109.767.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Zen</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/zen/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2005 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/zen/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What is the sound of one hand clapping?  Does Zen Buddhism provide a unique perspective on the world that transcends the wisdom in Western Philosophy?  Is there a special kind of Zen logic?  Or is it just one more religion?  John and Ken welcome Robert Scharf from UC Berkeley, author of Coming to Terms with Chinese Buddhism.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What is the sound of one hand clapping?  Does Zen Buddhism provide a unique perspective on the world that transcends the wisdom in Western Philosophy?  Is there a special kind of Zen logic?  Or is it just one more religion?  John and Ken welcome Robert S]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What is the sound of one hand clapping?  Does Zen Buddhism provide a unique perspective on the world that transcends the wisdom in Western Philosophy?  Is there a special kind of Zen logic?  Or is it just one more religion?  John and Ken welcome Robert Scharf from UC Berkeley, author of Coming to Terms with Chinese Buddhism.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5809/zen.mp3" length="30022008" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What is the sound of one hand clapping?  Does Zen Buddhism provide a unique perspective on the world that transcends the wisdom in Western Philosophy?  Is there a special kind of Zen logic?  Or is it just one more religion?  John and Ken welcome Robert Scharf from UC Berkeley, author of Coming to Terms with Chinese Buddhism.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2005/06/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T144704.707.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What is the sound of one hand clapping?  Does Zen Buddhism provide a unique perspective on the world that transcends the wisdom in Western Philosophy?  Is there a special kind of Zen logic?  Or is it just one more religion?  John and Ken welcome Robert Scharf from UC Berkeley, author of Coming to Terms with Chinese Buddhism.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2005/06/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T144704.707.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Global Poverty and International Aid</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/global-poverty-and-international-aid/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2005 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5850</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Does a hungry child in a far away land have any less of a demand on your good will and aid than a hungry child from your own family or neighborhood?  Does each individual have the duty to give to the worldwide alleviation of poverty up to the point at which further giving would cause his or her own family more harm than it would do good for others?  Or is responsibility for others a mostly local affair: take care of your family, look out for those in your community, and the rest of the world will take care of itself?  John and Ken welcome Peter Singer to discuss Global Poverty and International Aid.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Does a hungry child in a far away land have any less of a demand on your good will and aid than a hungry child from your own family or neighborhood?  Does each individual have the duty to give to the worldwide alleviation of poverty up to the point at wh]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Does a hungry child in a far away land have any less of a demand on your good will and aid than a hungry child from your own family or neighborhood?  Does each individual have the duty to give to the worldwide alleviation of poverty up to the point at which further giving would cause his or her own family more harm than it would do good for others?  Or is responsibility for others a mostly local affair: take care of your family, look out for those in your community, and the rest of the world will take care of itself?  John and Ken welcome Peter Singer to discuss Global Poverty and International Aid.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5850/global-poverty-and-international-aid.mp3" length="47828323" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Does a hungry child in a far away land have any less of a demand on your good will and aid than a hungry child from your own family or neighborhood?  Does each individual have the duty to give to the worldwide alleviation of poverty up to the point at which further giving would cause his or her own family more harm than it would do good for others?  Or is responsibility for others a mostly local affair: take care of your family, look out for those in your community, and the rest of the world will take care of itself?  John and Ken welcome Peter Singer to discuss Global Poverty and International Aid.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T144531.721.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Does a hungry child in a far away land have any less of a demand on your good will and aid than a hungry child from your own family or neighborhood?  Does each individual have the duty to give to the worldwide alleviation of poverty up to the point at which further giving would cause his or her own family more harm than it would do good for others?  Or is responsibility for others a mostly local affair: take care of your family, look out for those in your community, and the rest of the world will take care of itself?  John and Ken welcome Peter Singer to discuss Global Poverty and International Aid.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T144531.721.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Ethics of Identity</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-ethics-of-identity/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5835</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What makes me who I am? Is it fair of me, or others, to take my race or ethnicity as part of whom I am? How does the age-old virtue of standing up for kith and kin comport with the demands of fairness as cosmopolitanism? Join John and Ken and Philosophy Talk regular Anthony Appiah from Princeton.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What makes me who I am? Is it fair of me, or others, to take my race or ethnicity as part of whom I am? How does the age-old virtue of standing up for kith and kin comport with the demands of fairness as cosmopolitanism? Join John and Ken and Philosophy ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What makes me who I am? Is it fair of me, or others, to take my race or ethnicity as part of whom I am? How does the age-old virtue of standing up for kith and kin comport with the demands of fairness as cosmopolitanism? Join John and Ken and Philosophy Talk regular Anthony Appiah from Princeton.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5835/the-ethics-of-identity.mp3" length="47612656" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What makes me who I am? Is it fair of me, or others, to take my race or ethnicity as part of whom I am? How does the age-old virtue of standing up for kith and kin comport with the demands of fairness as cosmopolitanism? Join John and Ken and Philosophy Talk regular Anthony Appiah from Princeton.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-31T161323.456.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What makes me who I am? Is it fair of me, or others, to take my race or ethnicity as part of whom I am? How does the age-old virtue of standing up for kith and kin comport with the demands of fairness as cosmopolitanism? Join John and Ken and Philosophy Talk regular Anthony Appiah from Princeton.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-31T161323.456.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Intergenerational Obligations</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/intergenerational-obligations/</link>
	<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jun 2005 02:24:04 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6169</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Parents have duties to their children. But do grown up children have obligations to their parents? More generally, do the younger members of a society have obligations to their elders? Where would such obligations come from? What are their limits? John and Ken investigate the moral ties that bind the generations together with Norm Daniels from Harvard University, author of From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Parents have duties to their children. But do grown up children have obligations to their parents? More generally, do the younger members of a society have obligations to their elders? Where would such obligations come from? What are their limits? John a]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Parents have duties to their children. But do grown up children have obligations to their parents? More generally, do the younger members of a society have obligations to their elders? Where would such obligations come from? What are their limits? John and Ken investigate the moral ties that bind the generations together with Norm Daniels from Harvard University, author of From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6169/intergenerational-obligations.mp3" length="47025423" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Parents have duties to their children. But do grown up children have obligations to their parents? More generally, do the younger members of a society have obligations to their elders? Where would such obligations come from? What are their limits? John and Ken investigate the moral ties that bind the generations together with Norm Daniels from Harvard University, author of From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/3386606981_739da13e88_c.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>48:59</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Parents have duties to their children. But do grown up children have obligations to their parents? More generally, do the younger members of a society have obligations to their elders? Where would such obligations come from? What are their limits? John and Ken investigate the moral ties that bind the generations together with Norm Daniels from Harvard University, author of From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/3386606981_739da13e88_c.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Evolution of the Human Mind</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/evolution-of-the-human-mind/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2005 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5831</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Is the human mind a relatively inflexible program bequeathed to us by evolution, and culture just a veneer that gives age-old urges a respectable cover? &#160; Or our minds largely the product of language, culture, and civilization, with evolution having supplied only the most basic hardware and operating system? &#160; John and Ken welcome Leda Cosmides to shed some light on the human mind.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Is the human mind a relatively inflexible program bequeathed to us by evolution, and culture just a veneer that gives age-old urges a respectable cover? &#160; Or our minds largely the product of language, culture, and civilization, with evolution having]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Is the human mind a relatively inflexible program bequeathed to us by evolution, and culture just a veneer that gives age-old urges a respectable cover? &#160; Or our minds largely the product of language, culture, and civilization, with evolution having supplied only the most basic hardware and operating system? &#160; John and Ken welcome Leda Cosmides to shed some light on the human mind.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5831/evolution-of-the-human-mind.mp3" length="47425410" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Is the human mind a relatively inflexible program bequeathed to us by evolution, and culture just a veneer that gives age-old urges a respectable cover? &#160; Or our minds largely the product of language, culture, and civilization, with evolution having supplied only the most basic hardware and operating system? &#160; John and Ken welcome Leda Cosmides to shed some light on the human mind.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T144027.160.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Is the human mind a relatively inflexible program bequeathed to us by evolution, and culture just a veneer that gives age-old urges a respectable cover? &#160; Or our minds largely the product of language, culture, and civilization, with evolution having supplied only the most basic hardware and operating system? &#160; John and Ken welcome Leda Cosmides to shed some light on the human mind.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T144027.160.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Prostitution</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/prostitution/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2005 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6161</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Is prostitution morally objectionable?   Should it be illegal?   Or is it simply a market transaction, where one party sells a service for a price that another party is willing to pay, and no third party is harmed?   Philosophy Talk favorite Debra Satz joins John and Ken.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Is prostitution morally objectionable?   Should it be illegal?   Or is it simply a market transaction, where one party sells a service for a price that another party is willing to pay, and no third party is harmed?   Philosophy Talk favorite Debra Satz j]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Is prostitution morally objectionable?   Should it be illegal?   Or is it simply a market transaction, where one party sells a service for a price that another party is willing to pay, and no third party is harmed?   Philosophy Talk favorite Debra Satz joins John and Ken.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6161/prostitution.mp3" length="23516682" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Is prostitution morally objectionable?   Should it be illegal?   Or is it simply a market transaction, where one party sells a service for a price that another party is willing to pay, and no third party is harmed?   Philosophy Talk favorite Debra Satz joins John and Ken.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T143834.624.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>49:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Is prostitution morally objectionable?   Should it be illegal?   Or is it simply a market transaction, where one party sells a service for a price that another party is willing to pay, and no third party is harmed?   Philosophy Talk favorite Debra Satz joins John and Ken.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T143834.624.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Confucius</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/confucius/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 10 May 2005 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5933</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Confucius laid down a pattern of thinking followed by more people for more generations than any other human being on the face of the earth. No matter what religion, no matter what form of government, the Chinese (and most other East Asian civilizations) and their way of thinking can in some way be shown to have Confucian elements about them. John and Ken&#160;discuss the ancient wisdom of Confucius with Paul Kjellberg from Whittier College.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Confucius laid down a pattern of thinking followed by more people for more generations than any other human being on the face of the earth. No matter what religion, no matter what form of government, the Chinese (and most other East Asian civilizations) ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Confucius laid down a pattern of thinking followed by more people for more generations than any other human being on the face of the earth. No matter what religion, no matter what form of government, the Chinese (and most other East Asian civilizations) and their way of thinking can in some way be shown to have Confucian elements about them. John and Ken&#160;discuss the ancient wisdom of Confucius with Paul Kjellberg from Whittier College.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5933/confucius.mp3" length="29542139" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Confucius laid down a pattern of thinking followed by more people for more generations than any other human being on the face of the earth. No matter what religion, no matter what form of government, the Chinese (and most other East Asian civilizations) and their way of thinking can in some way be shown to have Confucian elements about them. John and Ken&#160;discuss the ancient wisdom of Confucius with Paul Kjellberg from Whittier College.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/3lSVKkTuHOI.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Confucius laid down a pattern of thinking followed by more people for more generations than any other human being on the face of the earth. No matter what religion, no matter what form of government, the Chinese (and most other East Asian civilizations) and their way of thinking can in some way be shown to have Confucian elements about them. John and Ken&#160;discuss the ancient wisdom of Confucius with Paul Kjellberg from Whittier College.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/3lSVKkTuHOI.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Forgiveness</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/forgiveness/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2005 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5884</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Justice is a virtue and so, many claim, is forgiveness. But they seem inconsistent. Is forgiveness really a virtue? Philosopher Charles Griswold discusses the South African reconciliation process, truly evil people, and the virtue of forgiveness.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Justice is a virtue and so, many claim, is forgiveness. But they seem inconsistent. Is forgiveness really a virtue? Philosopher Charles Griswold discusses the South African reconciliation process, truly evil people, and the virtue of forgiveness.]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Justice is a virtue and so, many claim, is forgiveness. But they seem inconsistent. Is forgiveness really a virtue? Philosopher Charles Griswold discusses the South African reconciliation process, truly evil people, and the virtue of forgiveness.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5884/forgiveness.mp3" length="23802148" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Justice is a virtue and so, many claim, is forgiveness. But they seem inconsistent. Is forgiveness really a virtue? Philosopher Charles Griswold discusses the South African reconciliation process, truly evil people, and the virtue of forgiveness.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T143644.363.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Justice is a virtue and so, many claim, is forgiveness. But they seem inconsistent. Is forgiveness really a virtue? Philosopher Charles Griswold discusses the South African reconciliation process, truly evil people, and the virtue of forgiveness.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T143644.363.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Propaganda</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/propaganda/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2005 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6157</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Allegedly independent radio commentators taking money to spout the government line! Fake news reports being produced and distributed by the Administration to promote a partisan agenda! Journalists abandoning neutrality and objectivity to become cheerleaders for a political doctrine! Where can this happen? Right here in the good old U.S. of A. propaganda is all around us! But what exactly is propaganda? How can it be distinguished from legitimate news and information? Can democracy survive where propaganda flourishes? John and Ken take a fresh look at propaganda with Orville Schell, Orville Schell, Dean of the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Allegedly independent radio commentators taking money to spout the government line! Fake news reports being produced and distributed by the Administration to promote a partisan agenda! Journalists abandoning neutrality and objectivity to become cheerlead]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Allegedly independent radio commentators taking money to spout the government line! Fake news reports being produced and distributed by the Administration to promote a partisan agenda! Journalists abandoning neutrality and objectivity to become cheerleaders for a political doctrine! Where can this happen? Right here in the good old U.S. of A. propaganda is all around us! But what exactly is propaganda? How can it be distinguished from legitimate news and information? Can democracy survive where propaganda flourishes? John and Ken take a fresh look at propaganda with Orville Schell, Orville Schell, Dean of the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6157/propaganda.mp3" length="30591739" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Allegedly independent radio commentators taking money to spout the government line! Fake news reports being produced and distributed by the Administration to promote a partisan agenda! Journalists abandoning neutrality and objectivity to become cheerleaders for a political doctrine! Where can this happen? Right here in the good old U.S. of A. propaganda is all around us! But what exactly is propaganda? How can it be distinguished from legitimate news and information? Can democracy survive where propaganda flourishes? John and Ken take a fresh look at propaganda with Orville Schell, Orville Schell, Dean of the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T143413.563-1.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Allegedly independent radio commentators taking money to spout the government line! Fake news reports being produced and distributed by the Administration to promote a partisan agenda! Journalists abandoning neutrality and objectivity to become cheerleaders for a political doctrine! Where can this happen? Right here in the good old U.S. of A. propaganda is all around us! But what exactly is propaganda? How can it be distinguished from legitimate news and information? Can democracy survive where propaganda flourishes? John and Ken take a fresh look at propaganda with Orville Schell, Orville Schell, Dean of the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T143413.563-1.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Genetic Determinism</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/genetic-determinism/</link>
	<pubDate>Wed, 20 Apr 2005 02:24:04 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6148</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Are there genes for practically everything? For being gay? For being mean? For being a philosopher? Does modern science show that we are largely the product of our genes &#8212; or not? Join Ken and John and famed philosopher of biology John Dupre to see how trapped you are by your genes.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Are there genes for practically everything? For being gay? For being mean? For being a philosopher? Does modern science show that we are largely the product of our genes &#8212; or not? Join Ken and John and famed philosopher of biology John Dupre to see]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Are there genes for practically everything? For being gay? For being mean? For being a philosopher? Does modern science show that we are largely the product of our genes &#8212; or not? Join Ken and John and famed philosopher of biology John Dupre to see how trapped you are by your genes.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6148/genetic-determinism.mp3" length="20218566" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Are there genes for practically everything? For being gay? For being mean? For being a philosopher? Does modern science show that we are largely the product of our genes &#8212; or not? Join Ken and John and famed philosopher of biology John Dupre to see how trapped you are by your genes.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T143046.188.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>42:07</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Are there genes for practically everything? For being gay? For being mean? For being a philosopher? Does modern science show that we are largely the product of our genes &#8212; or not? Join Ken and John and famed philosopher of biology John Dupre to see how trapped you are by your genes.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T143046.188.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Schopenhauer</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/schopenhauer/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2005 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5865</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Arthur Schopenhauer, the great Nineteenth Century philosopher, had a pessimistic vision of the world as &#8220;will and idea.” Our will to survive serves no high purpose; the world is at best a shared illusion. &#160; Schopenhauer influenced Nietzsche and Wittgenstein and inspired our guest, prominent psychiatrist Irv Yalom, to write the novel The Schopenhauer Cure. What truths, metaphysical or psychological, can we wrest from Schopenhauer&#8217;s gloomy vision?]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Arthur Schopenhauer, the great Nineteenth Century philosopher, had a pessimistic vision of the world as &#8220;will and idea.” Our will to survive serves no high purpose; the world is at best a shared illusion. &#160; Schopenhauer influenced Nietzsche an]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Arthur Schopenhauer, the great Nineteenth Century philosopher, had a pessimistic vision of the world as &#8220;will and idea.” Our will to survive serves no high purpose; the world is at best a shared illusion. &#160; Schopenhauer influenced Nietzsche and Wittgenstein and inspired our guest, prominent psychiatrist Irv Yalom, to write the novel The Schopenhauer Cure. What truths, metaphysical or psychological, can we wrest from Schopenhauer&#8217;s gloomy vision?]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5865/schopenhauer.mp3" length="24111438" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Arthur Schopenhauer, the great Nineteenth Century philosopher, had a pessimistic vision of the world as &#8220;will and idea.” Our will to survive serves no high purpose; the world is at best a shared illusion. &#160; Schopenhauer influenced Nietzsche and Wittgenstein and inspired our guest, prominent psychiatrist Irv Yalom, to write the novel The Schopenhauer Cure. What truths, metaphysical or psychological, can we wrest from Schopenhauer&#8217;s gloomy vision?]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/U2FN1Yfxz9A.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Arthur Schopenhauer, the great Nineteenth Century philosopher, had a pessimistic vision of the world as &#8220;will and idea.” Our will to survive serves no high purpose; the world is at best a shared illusion. &#160; Schopenhauer influenced Nietzsche and Wittgenstein and inspired our guest, prominent psychiatrist Irv Yalom, to write the novel The Schopenhauer Cure. What truths, metaphysical or psychological, can we wrest from Schopenhauer&#8217;s gloomy vision?]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/U2FN1Yfxz9A.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Is Free Will an Illusion?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/is-free-will-an-illusion/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/is-free-will-an-illusion/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[We like to think of ourselves as enjoying unrestricted freedom of the will.&#160;&#160;But modern science increasingly teaches us that our choices are causally determined by some combination of our genes, our upbringing, and our present circumstances.&#160;&#160;Can the idea of freedom of the will be reconciled with the scientific outlook or is free will an illusion?&#160;&#160;If we give up on the idea that we have freedom, what follows for our practice of holding people morally responsible for their actions and choices? John and Ken talk freely with John Fischer from UC Riverside, co-author of&#160;Four Views on Free Will.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[We like to think of ourselves as enjoying unrestricted freedom of the will.&#160;&#160;But modern science increasingly teaches us that our choices are causally determined by some combination of our genes, our upbringing, and our present circumstances.&#1]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[We like to think of ourselves as enjoying unrestricted freedom of the will.&#160;&#160;But modern science increasingly teaches us that our choices are causally determined by some combination of our genes, our upbringing, and our present circumstances.&#160;&#160;Can the idea of freedom of the will be reconciled with the scientific outlook or is free will an illusion?&#160;&#160;If we give up on the idea that we have freedom, what follows for our practice of holding people morally responsible for their actions and choices? John and Ken talk freely with John Fischer from UC Riverside, co-author of&#160;Four Views on Free Will.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5806/is-free-will-an-illusion.mp3" length="47911915" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[We like to think of ourselves as enjoying unrestricted freedom of the will.&#160;&#160;But modern science increasingly teaches us that our choices are causally determined by some combination of our genes, our upbringing, and our present circumstances.&#160;&#160;Can the idea of freedom of the will be reconciled with the scientific outlook or is free will an illusion?&#160;&#160;If we give up on the idea that we have freedom, what follows for our practice of holding people morally responsible for their actions and choices? John and Ken talk freely with John Fischer from UC Riverside, co-author of&#160;Four Views on Free Will.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T142614.337-1.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[We like to think of ourselves as enjoying unrestricted freedom of the will.&#160;&#160;But modern science increasingly teaches us that our choices are causally determined by some combination of our genes, our upbringing, and our present circumstances.&#160;&#160;Can the idea of freedom of the will be reconciled with the scientific outlook or is free will an illusion?&#160;&#160;If we give up on the idea that we have freedom, what follows for our practice of holding people morally responsible for their actions and choices? John and Ken talk freely with John Fischer from UC Riverside, co-author of&#160;Four Views on Free Will.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T142614.337-1.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Neurocosmetology</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/neurocosmetology/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/neurocosmetology/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Progress in neuroscience may soon make possible an age of neurocosmetology: the use of drugs to let people affect the way their brains work, so as to make them more effective, more attractive, and more like their &#8220;cognitive ideal.&#8221;&#160;A world where all the women are beautiful and all the men handsome might be bearable if boring. But would a society full of type-A&#8217;s work at all?&#160;Can it be rational to choose to change in ways that may change who you are? Should there be moral or legal prohibitions against healthy people messing with their own brain chemistry? John and Ken put on their best face with&#160;Sam Barondes from UCSF, author of&#160;Better than Prozac: Creating the Next Generation of Psychiatric Drugs.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Progress in neuroscience may soon make possible an age of neurocosmetology: the use of drugs to let people affect the way their brains work, so as to make them more effective, more attractive, and more like their &#8220;cognitive ideal.&#8221;&#160;A wor]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Progress in neuroscience may soon make possible an age of neurocosmetology: the use of drugs to let people affect the way their brains work, so as to make them more effective, more attractive, and more like their &#8220;cognitive ideal.&#8221;&#160;A world where all the women are beautiful and all the men handsome might be bearable if boring. But would a society full of type-A&#8217;s work at all?&#160;Can it be rational to choose to change in ways that may change who you are? Should there be moral or legal prohibitions against healthy people messing with their own brain chemistry? John and Ken put on their best face with&#160;Sam Barondes from UCSF, author of&#160;Better than Prozac: Creating the Next Generation of Psychiatric Drugs.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5801/neurocosmetology.mp3" length="47633136" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Progress in neuroscience may soon make possible an age of neurocosmetology: the use of drugs to let people affect the way their brains work, so as to make them more effective, more attractive, and more like their &#8220;cognitive ideal.&#8221;&#160;A world where all the women are beautiful and all the men handsome might be bearable if boring. But would a society full of type-A&#8217;s work at all?&#160;Can it be rational to choose to change in ways that may change who you are? Should there be moral or legal prohibitions against healthy people messing with their own brain chemistry? John and Ken put on their best face with&#160;Sam Barondes from UCSF, author of&#160;Better than Prozac: Creating the Next Generation of Psychiatric Drugs.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-31T160903.089-1.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Progress in neuroscience may soon make possible an age of neurocosmetology: the use of drugs to let people affect the way their brains work, so as to make them more effective, more attractive, and more like their &#8220;cognitive ideal.&#8221;&#160;A world where all the women are beautiful and all the men handsome might be bearable if boring. But would a society full of type-A&#8217;s work at all?&#160;Can it be rational to choose to change in ways that may change who you are? Should there be moral or legal prohibitions against healthy people messing with their own brain chemistry? John and Ken put on their best face with&#160;Sam Barondes from UCSF, author of&#160;Better than Prozac: Creating the Next Generation of Psychiatric Drugs.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-31T160903.089-1.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>What is Beauty?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/what-is-beauty/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/what-is-beauty/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Are there objective standards of beauty? Or is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Must art be beautiful to be great art? What is the role of the experience of beauty in a good life? John and Ken take in the beauty with Alexander Nehamas from Princeton University, author of Only a Promise of Happiness: The Place of Beauty in a World of Art.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Are there objective standards of beauty? Or is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Must art be beautiful to be great art? What is the role of the experience of beauty in a good life? John and Ken take in the beauty with Alexander Nehamas from Princeton Un]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Are there objective standards of beauty? Or is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Must art be beautiful to be great art? What is the role of the experience of beauty in a good life? John and Ken take in the beauty with Alexander Nehamas from Princeton University, author of Only a Promise of Happiness: The Place of Beauty in a World of Art.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5774/what-is-beauty.mp3" length="29876506" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Are there objective standards of beauty? Or is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Must art be beautiful to be great art? What is the role of the experience of beauty in a good life? John and Ken take in the beauty with Alexander Nehamas from Princeton University, author of Only a Promise of Happiness: The Place of Beauty in a World of Art.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2005/12/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T142345.846-1.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Are there objective standards of beauty? Or is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Must art be beautiful to be great art? What is the role of the experience of beauty in a good life? John and Ken take in the beauty with Alexander Nehamas from Princeton University, author of Only a Promise of Happiness: The Place of Beauty in a World of Art.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2005/12/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T142345.846-1.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Religion and the Secular State</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/religion-and-the-secular-state/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2005 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/religion-and-the-secular-state/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Can committed believers and committed non-believers share a common political life in the context of a secular state?&#160;&#160;Committed believers may want the policies of the state&#160;to reflect their deeply held&#160;religious convictions and values.&#160;&#160;Committed non-believers may not&#160;want the state imposing religiously inspired values in the absence of any purely secular justification.&#160;&#160;Must religion retreat from the public sphere or can religion find a place in the public sphere, even in a purely secular state? John and Ken welcome Robert Audio from the University of Notre Dame, author of&#160;Democratic Authority and the Separation of Church and State.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Can committed believers and committed non-believers share a common political life in the context of a secular state?&#160;&#160;Committed believers may want the policies of the state&#160;to reflect their deeply held&#160;religious convictions and values]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Can committed believers and committed non-believers share a common political life in the context of a secular state?&#160;&#160;Committed believers may want the policies of the state&#160;to reflect their deeply held&#160;religious convictions and values.&#160;&#160;Committed non-believers may not&#160;want the state imposing religiously inspired values in the absence of any purely secular justification.&#160;&#160;Must religion retreat from the public sphere or can religion find a place in the public sphere, even in a purely secular state? John and Ken welcome Robert Audio from the University of Notre Dame, author of&#160;Democratic Authority and the Separation of Church and State.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5798/religion-and-the-secular-state.mp3" length="47687053" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Can committed believers and committed non-believers share a common political life in the context of a secular state?&#160;&#160;Committed believers may want the policies of the state&#160;to reflect their deeply held&#160;religious convictions and values.&#160;&#160;Committed non-believers may not&#160;want the state imposing religiously inspired values in the absence of any purely secular justification.&#160;&#160;Must religion retreat from the public sphere or can religion find a place in the public sphere, even in a purely secular state? John and Ken welcome Robert Audio from the University of Notre Dame, author of&#160;Democratic Authority and the Separation of Church and State.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2006/04/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T141337.670-1.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Can committed believers and committed non-believers share a common political life in the context of a secular state?&#160;&#160;Committed believers may want the policies of the state&#160;to reflect their deeply held&#160;religious convictions and values.&#160;&#160;Committed non-believers may not&#160;want the state imposing religiously inspired values in the absence of any purely secular justification.&#160;&#160;Must religion retreat from the public sphere or can religion find a place in the public sphere, even in a purely secular state? John and Ken welcome Robert Audio from the University of Notre Dame, author of&#160;Democratic Authority and the Separation of Church and State.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2006/04/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T141337.670-1.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Hume</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/hume/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6124</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[David Hume was a superb essayist, a brilliant philosopher, and a world-class bon vivant. His philosophical views in ethics, epistemology, aesthetics, and the philosophy of religion, though shocking to many in his own time, are enduring touchstones of modern philosophy, still required reading of every student of philosophy. Join John and Ken for a tour of a few of Hume&#8217;s most startling ideas with Don Garrett from NYU, author of Cognition and Commitment in Hume’s Philosophy.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[David Hume was a superb essayist, a brilliant philosopher, and a world-class bon vivant. His philosophical views in ethics, epistemology, aesthetics, and the philosophy of religion, though shocking to many in his own time, are enduring touchstones of mod]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[David Hume was a superb essayist, a brilliant philosopher, and a world-class bon vivant. His philosophical views in ethics, epistemology, aesthetics, and the philosophy of religion, though shocking to many in his own time, are enduring touchstones of modern philosophy, still required reading of every student of philosophy. Join John and Ken for a tour of a few of Hume&#8217;s most startling ideas with Don Garrett from NYU, author of Cognition and Commitment in Hume’s Philosophy.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6124/hume.mp3" length="24720822" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[David Hume was a superb essayist, a brilliant philosopher, and a world-class bon vivant. His philosophical views in ethics, epistemology, aesthetics, and the philosophy of religion, though shocking to many in his own time, are enduring touchstones of modern philosophy, still required reading of every student of philosophy. Join John and Ken for a tour of a few of Hume&#8217;s most startling ideas with Don Garrett from NYU, author of Cognition and Commitment in Hume’s Philosophy.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/A4sHIQHOVHQ.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>51:30</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[David Hume was a superb essayist, a brilliant philosopher, and a world-class bon vivant. His philosophical views in ethics, epistemology, aesthetics, and the philosophy of religion, though shocking to many in his own time, are enduring touchstones of modern philosophy, still required reading of every student of philosophy. Join John and Ken for a tour of a few of Hume&#8217;s most startling ideas with Don Garrett from NYU, author of Cognition and Commitment in Hume’s Philosophy.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/A4sHIQHOVHQ.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Erotic vs. The Pornographic</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-erotic-vs-the-pornographic/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2005 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6408</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Erotic experience is a human good. Mature, consenting adults should be able to explore the erotic realm freely, without outside interference. Pornography is illicit and destructive. But what is the real difference between the erotic and the pornographic?  Is there a bright line? In our attempts to regulate pornography do we run the risk of infringing upon the erotic freedoms of consenting adults? John and Ken draw the line with Anne Ashbaugh from Colgate University.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Erotic experience is a human good. Mature, consenting adults should be able to explore the erotic realm freely, without outside interference. Pornography is illicit and destructive. But what is the real difference between the erotic and the pornographic?]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Erotic experience is a human good. Mature, consenting adults should be able to explore the erotic realm freely, without outside interference. Pornography is illicit and destructive. But what is the real difference between the erotic and the pornographic?  Is there a bright line? In our attempts to regulate pornography do we run the risk of infringing upon the erotic freedoms of consenting adults? John and Ken draw the line with Anne Ashbaugh from Colgate University.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6408/the-erotic-vs-the-pornographic.mp3" length="47782347" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Erotic experience is a human good. Mature, consenting adults should be able to explore the erotic realm freely, without outside interference. Pornography is illicit and destructive. But what is the real difference between the erotic and the pornographic?  Is there a bright line? In our attempts to regulate pornography do we run the risk of infringing upon the erotic freedoms of consenting adults? John and Ken draw the line with Anne Ashbaugh from Colgate University.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T140716.330.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>49:46</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Erotic experience is a human good. Mature, consenting adults should be able to explore the erotic realm freely, without outside interference. Pornography is illicit and destructive. But what is the real difference between the erotic and the pornographic?  Is there a bright line? In our attempts to regulate pornography do we run the risk of infringing upon the erotic freedoms of consenting adults? John and Ken draw the line with Anne Ashbaugh from Colgate University.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T140716.330.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Ethics in Sport</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/ethics-in-sport/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2005 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6114</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Once upon a time, student athletes were students first, athletes second; the Olympics was about amateurism and the pursuit of excellence, not the pursuit of endorsements; and professional athletes enhanced the physics through rigorous work-outs, not through performance enhancing substances. No doubt athletic excellence is at an all time high, but are ethics in athletics at an all time low? John and Ken explore ethics in sport with Myles Brand, President of the NCAA.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Once upon a time, student athletes were students first, athletes second; the Olympics was about amateurism and the pursuit of excellence, not the pursuit of endorsements; and professional athletes enhanced the physics through rigorous work-outs, not thro]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Once upon a time, student athletes were students first, athletes second; the Olympics was about amateurism and the pursuit of excellence, not the pursuit of endorsements; and professional athletes enhanced the physics through rigorous work-outs, not through performance enhancing substances. No doubt athletic excellence is at an all time high, but are ethics in athletics at an all time low? John and Ken explore ethics in sport with Myles Brand, President of the NCAA.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6114/ethics-in-sport.mp3" length="29192359" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Once upon a time, student athletes were students first, athletes second; the Olympics was about amateurism and the pursuit of excellence, not the pursuit of endorsements; and professional athletes enhanced the physics through rigorous work-outs, not through performance enhancing substances. No doubt athletic excellence is at an all time high, but are ethics in athletics at an all time low? John and Ken explore ethics in sport with Myles Brand, President of the NCAA.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T140208.035.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Once upon a time, student athletes were students first, athletes second; the Olympics was about amateurism and the pursuit of excellence, not the pursuit of endorsements; and professional athletes enhanced the physics through rigorous work-outs, not through performance enhancing substances. No doubt athletic excellence is at an all time high, but are ethics in athletics at an all time low? John and Ken explore ethics in sport with Myles Brand, President of the NCAA.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T140208.035.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Evil</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/evil/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2005 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6107</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Is there such a thing as pure evil in the world? How should we confront evil? Can evil ever be finally overcome? If the universe was created by a supremely good, supremely powerful, supremely loving deity, why is there evil in the world to begin with? On the other hand, if there is no God and everything is permitted, what distinguishes the truly evil from the purely good? John and Ken weigh good and evil with Peter van Inwagen from the University of Notre Dame.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Is there such a thing as pure evil in the world? How should we confront evil? Can evil ever be finally overcome? If the universe was created by a supremely good, supremely powerful, supremely loving deity, why is there evil in the world to begin with? On]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Is there such a thing as pure evil in the world? How should we confront evil? Can evil ever be finally overcome? If the universe was created by a supremely good, supremely powerful, supremely loving deity, why is there evil in the world to begin with? On the other hand, if there is no God and everything is permitted, what distinguishes the truly evil from the purely good? John and Ken weigh good and evil with Peter van Inwagen from the University of Notre Dame.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6107/evil.mp3" length="48163526" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Is there such a thing as pure evil in the world? How should we confront evil? Can evil ever be finally overcome? If the universe was created by a supremely good, supremely powerful, supremely loving deity, why is there evil in the world to begin with? On the other hand, if there is no God and everything is permitted, what distinguishes the truly evil from the purely good? John and Ken weigh good and evil with Peter van Inwagen from the University of Notre Dame.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T135934.970.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:10</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Is there such a thing as pure evil in the world? How should we confront evil? Can evil ever be finally overcome? If the universe was created by a supremely good, supremely powerful, supremely loving deity, why is there evil in the world to begin with? On the other hand, if there is no God and everything is permitted, what distinguishes the truly evil from the purely good? John and Ken weigh good and evil with Peter van Inwagen from the University of Notre Dame.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T135934.970.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Aristotle</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/aristotle/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/aristotle/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Aristotle&#8217;s&#160;philosophical doctrines have permeated and helped shape Western Culture in spheres as disparate as cosmology, biology, ethics, physics, politics, and logic.&#160;John and Ken take a tour of some of the greatest hits of one of the greatest philosophers of&#160;Antiquity with Chris Bobonich from Stanford University.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Aristotle&#8217;s&#160;philosophical doctrines have permeated and helped shape Western Culture in spheres as disparate as cosmology, biology, ethics, physics, politics, and logic.&#160;John and Ken take a tour of some of the greatest hits of one of the g]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Aristotle&#8217;s&#160;philosophical doctrines have permeated and helped shape Western Culture in spheres as disparate as cosmology, biology, ethics, physics, politics, and logic.&#160;John and Ken take a tour of some of the greatest hits of one of the greatest philosophers of&#160;Antiquity with Chris Bobonich from Stanford University.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5787/aristotle.mp3" length="23826808" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Aristotle&#8217;s&#160;philosophical doctrines have permeated and helped shape Western Culture in spheres as disparate as cosmology, biology, ethics, physics, politics, and logic.&#160;John and Ken take a tour of some of the greatest hits of one of the greatest philosophers of&#160;Antiquity with Chris Bobonich from Stanford University.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2005/01/7dBoWcctxGw.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Aristotle&#8217;s&#160;philosophical doctrines have permeated and helped shape Western Culture in spheres as disparate as cosmology, biology, ethics, physics, politics, and logic.&#160;John and Ken take a tour of some of the greatest hits of one of the greatest philosophers of&#160;Antiquity with Chris Bobonich from Stanford University.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2005/01/7dBoWcctxGw.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Mystery of Mind</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-mystery-of-mind/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2005 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-mystery-of-mind/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Modern science tells us that the mind is just the brain working. But science cannot yet tell us how consciousness, rationality, free will, autonomy, or even our sense of self arises out of the merely material processes of the brain. Could our confidence that mind is just the brain working possibly be misplaced? John and Ken delve into the mystery of the mind with UC Berkeley philosopher John Searle.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Modern science tells us that the mind is just the brain working. But science cannot yet tell us how consciousness, rationality, free will, autonomy, or even our sense of self arises out of the merely material processes of the brain. Could our confidence ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Modern science tells us that the mind is just the brain working. But science cannot yet tell us how consciousness, rationality, free will, autonomy, or even our sense of self arises out of the merely material processes of the brain. Could our confidence that mind is just the brain working possibly be misplaced? John and Ken delve into the mystery of the mind with UC Berkeley philosopher John Searle.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5779/the-mystery-of-mind.mp3" length="48966426" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Modern science tells us that the mind is just the brain working. But science cannot yet tell us how consciousness, rationality, free will, autonomy, or even our sense of self arises out of the merely material processes of the brain. Could our confidence that mind is just the brain working possibly be misplaced? John and Ken delve into the mystery of the mind with UC Berkeley philosopher John Searle.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T135504.289-2.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Modern science tells us that the mind is just the brain working. But science cannot yet tell us how consciousness, rationality, free will, autonomy, or even our sense of self arises out of the merely material processes of the brain. Could our confidence that mind is just the brain working possibly be misplaced? John and Ken delve into the mystery of the mind with UC Berkeley philosopher John Searle.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T135504.289-2.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Gender</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/gender/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2005 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6387</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Are gender roles and differences fixed, once and for, all by biology? Or is gender socially constructed and culturally variable?  How does gender differ from sex? John and Ken explore whether men and women are really from different planets after all with Anne Fausto-Sterling from Brown University, author of Myths of Gender: Biological Theories about Women and Men.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Are gender roles and differences fixed, once and for, all by biology? Or is gender socially constructed and culturally variable?  How does gender differ from sex? John and Ken explore whether men and women are really from different planets after all with]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Are gender roles and differences fixed, once and for, all by biology? Or is gender socially constructed and culturally variable?  How does gender differ from sex? John and Ken explore whether men and women are really from different planets after all with Anne Fausto-Sterling from Brown University, author of Myths of Gender: Biological Theories about Women and Men.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6387/gender.mp3" length="24348003" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Are gender roles and differences fixed, once and for, all by biology? Or is gender socially constructed and culturally variable?  How does gender differ from sex? John and Ken explore whether men and women are really from different planets after all with Anne Fausto-Sterling from Brown University, author of Myths of Gender: Biological Theories about Women and Men.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T135339.114.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:44</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Are gender roles and differences fixed, once and for, all by biology? Or is gender socially constructed and culturally variable?  How does gender differ from sex? John and Ken explore whether men and women are really from different planets after all with Anne Fausto-Sterling from Brown University, author of Myths of Gender: Biological Theories about Women and Men.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T135339.114.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Nature vs. Nurture</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/nature-vs-nurture/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 14 Dec 2004 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/nature-vs-nurture/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The philosopher John Locke thought we had no innate ideas; our minds are blank slates, upon which experience writes.&#160;&#160;Nurture is everything, nature nothing.&#160;&#160;Modern popular genetics gives the impression that we are nothing but the stage on which a play written by our genes is performed; nature is everything, nurture nothing.&#160;&#160;What are the facts, and what are the philosophical principles that are used to interpret these facts? John and Ken nurture their conversation with Alison Gopnik from UC Berkeley, author of&#160;The Scientist in the Crib: What Early Learning Tells Us About the Mind.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The philosopher John Locke thought we had no innate ideas; our minds are blank slates, upon which experience writes.&#160;&#160;Nurture is everything, nature nothing.&#160;&#160;Modern popular genetics gives the impression that we are nothing but the sta]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The philosopher John Locke thought we had no innate ideas; our minds are blank slates, upon which experience writes.&#160;&#160;Nurture is everything, nature nothing.&#160;&#160;Modern popular genetics gives the impression that we are nothing but the stage on which a play written by our genes is performed; nature is everything, nurture nothing.&#160;&#160;What are the facts, and what are the philosophical principles that are used to interpret these facts? John and Ken nurture their conversation with Alison Gopnik from UC Berkeley, author of&#160;The Scientist in the Crib: What Early Learning Tells Us About the Mind.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5782/nature-vs-nurture.mp3" length="48603637" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The philosopher John Locke thought we had no innate ideas; our minds are blank slates, upon which experience writes.&#160;&#160;Nurture is everything, nature nothing.&#160;&#160;Modern popular genetics gives the impression that we are nothing but the stage on which a play written by our genes is performed; nature is everything, nurture nothing.&#160;&#160;What are the facts, and what are the philosophical principles that are used to interpret these facts? John and Ken nurture their conversation with Alison Gopnik from UC Berkeley, author of&#160;The Scientist in the Crib: What Early Learning Tells Us About the Mind.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2006/02/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-31T160314.225-1.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The philosopher John Locke thought we had no innate ideas; our minds are blank slates, upon which experience writes.&#160;&#160;Nurture is everything, nature nothing.&#160;&#160;Modern popular genetics gives the impression that we are nothing but the stage on which a play written by our genes is performed; nature is everything, nurture nothing.&#160;&#160;What are the facts, and what are the philosophical principles that are used to interpret these facts? John and Ken nurture their conversation with Alison Gopnik from UC Berkeley, author of&#160;The Scientist in the Crib: What Early Learning Tells Us About the Mind.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2006/02/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-31T160314.225-1.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Disability</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/disability/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 07 Dec 2004 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6342</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The Americans with Disabilities Act recognizes that people with disabilities are often prevented from leading productive and satisfying lives because social, school and work environments are often thoughtlessly and unnecessarily designed with only people with the standard set of abilities in mind. In many cases &#8220;reasonable accommodation&#8221; to the ways people with disabilities need to do things is required. What is reasonable? Elevators in schools? Probably. How about elevators in the Grand Canyon? What is a disability? Blindness? Certainly. How about obesity? Where do we draw lines, and on what principles? John and Ken test their abilities with Anita Silvers from San Francisco State University, author of Disability, Difference, Discrimination: Perspectives on Justice in Bioethics and Public Policy.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The Americans with Disabilities Act recognizes that people with disabilities are often prevented from leading productive and satisfying lives because social, school and work environments are often thoughtlessly and unnecessarily designed with only people]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The Americans with Disabilities Act recognizes that people with disabilities are often prevented from leading productive and satisfying lives because social, school and work environments are often thoughtlessly and unnecessarily designed with only people with the standard set of abilities in mind. In many cases &#8220;reasonable accommodation&#8221; to the ways people with disabilities need to do things is required. What is reasonable? Elevators in schools? Probably. How about elevators in the Grand Canyon? What is a disability? Blindness? Certainly. How about obesity? Where do we draw lines, and on what principles? John and Ken test their abilities with Anita Silvers from San Francisco State University, author of Disability, Difference, Discrimination: Perspectives on Justice in Bioethics and Public Policy.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6342/disability.mp3" length="47780931" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The Americans with Disabilities Act recognizes that people with disabilities are often prevented from leading productive and satisfying lives because social, school and work environments are often thoughtlessly and unnecessarily designed with only people with the standard set of abilities in mind. In many cases &#8220;reasonable accommodation&#8221; to the ways people with disabilities need to do things is required. What is reasonable? Elevators in schools? Probably. How about elevators in the Grand Canyon? What is a disability? Blindness? Certainly. How about obesity? Where do we draw lines, and on what principles? John and Ken test their abilities with Anita Silvers from San Francisco State University, author of Disability, Difference, Discrimination: Perspectives on Justice in Bioethics and Public Policy.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T134424.777.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>49:46</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The Americans with Disabilities Act recognizes that people with disabilities are often prevented from leading productive and satisfying lives because social, school and work environments are often thoughtlessly and unnecessarily designed with only people with the standard set of abilities in mind. In many cases &#8220;reasonable accommodation&#8221; to the ways people with disabilities need to do things is required. What is reasonable? Elevators in schools? Probably. How about elevators in the Grand Canyon? What is a disability? Blindness? Certainly. How about obesity? Where do we draw lines, and on what principles? John and Ken test their abilities with Anita Silvers from San Francisco State University, author of Disability, Difference, Discrimination: Perspectives on Justice in Bioethics and Public Policy.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T134424.777.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Love</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/love/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6374</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Is love just a (second-hand) emotion?  Is it a feeling?  A disparate group of feelings, glandular responses, and ill-considered commitments called by a single word so that poets will have something to write about?  A poor substitute for true friendship imposed upon us by lust?  Or the deepest and most satisfying of human conditions? John and Ken question their love with Noel Merino from Humboldt State University.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Is love just a (second-hand) emotion?  Is it a feeling?  A disparate group of feelings, glandular responses, and ill-considered commitments called by a single word so that poets will have something to write about?  A poor substitute for true friendship i]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Is love just a (second-hand) emotion?  Is it a feeling?  A disparate group of feelings, glandular responses, and ill-considered commitments called by a single word so that poets will have something to write about?  A poor substitute for true friendship imposed upon us by lust?  Or the deepest and most satisfying of human conditions? John and Ken question their love with Noel Merino from Humboldt State University.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6374/love.mp3" length="48331546" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Is love just a (second-hand) emotion?  Is it a feeling?  A disparate group of feelings, glandular responses, and ill-considered commitments called by a single word so that poets will have something to write about?  A poor substitute for true friendship imposed upon us by lust?  Or the deepest and most satisfying of human conditions? John and Ken question their love with Noel Merino from Humboldt State University.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T134300.717.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:21</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Is love just a (second-hand) emotion?  Is it a feeling?  A disparate group of feelings, glandular responses, and ill-considered commitments called by a single word so that poets will have something to write about?  A poor substitute for true friendship imposed upon us by lust?  Or the deepest and most satisfying of human conditions? John and Ken question their love with Noel Merino from Humboldt State University.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T134300.717.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Truth and Relativism</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/truth-and-relativism/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 16 Nov 2004 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6174</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Is there such a thing as absolute truth, independent of who is doing the thinking, and where? Or is truth relative to backgrounds, cultures, creeds, times, and places? Can it be true that what is right for me isn&#8217;t right for you? John and Ken search for truth with Helen Longino, Professor of Philosophy and Women&#8217;s Studies at the University of Minnesota.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Is there such a thing as absolute truth, independent of who is doing the thinking, and where? Or is truth relative to backgrounds, cultures, creeds, times, and places? Can it be true that what is right for me isn&#8217;t right for you? John and Ken searc]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Is there such a thing as absolute truth, independent of who is doing the thinking, and where? Or is truth relative to backgrounds, cultures, creeds, times, and places? Can it be true that what is right for me isn&#8217;t right for you? John and Ken search for truth with Helen Longino, Professor of Philosophy and Women&#8217;s Studies at the University of Minnesota.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6174/truth-and-relativism.mp3" length="48660736" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Is there such a thing as absolute truth, independent of who is doing the thinking, and where? Or is truth relative to backgrounds, cultures, creeds, times, and places? Can it be true that what is right for me isn&#8217;t right for you? John and Ken search for truth with Helen Longino, Professor of Philosophy and Women&#8217;s Studies at the University of Minnesota.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T144839.886-1.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:41</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Is there such a thing as absolute truth, independent of who is doing the thinking, and where? Or is truth relative to backgrounds, cultures, creeds, times, and places? Can it be true that what is right for me isn&#8217;t right for you? John and Ken search for truth with Helen Longino, Professor of Philosophy and Women&#8217;s Studies at the University of Minnesota.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T144839.886-1.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Time</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/time/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 2004 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6319</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Time is the most familiar thing in the world, and yet philosophically one of the most puzzling. Is the present what&#8217;s left when you subtract what has already happened, and what is yet to happen? Then it seems to vanish into a mere instant. Are future events completely unreal? Or are they just the things we can&#8217;t know yet? Is time unreal, as many philosophers have thought? Columbia&#8217;s Dave Albert joins John and Ken for a fascinating hour.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Time is the most familiar thing in the world, and yet philosophically one of the most puzzling. Is the present what&#8217;s left when you subtract what has already happened, and what is yet to happen? Then it seems to vanish into a mere instant. Are futu]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Time is the most familiar thing in the world, and yet philosophically one of the most puzzling. Is the present what&#8217;s left when you subtract what has already happened, and what is yet to happen? Then it seems to vanish into a mere instant. Are future events completely unreal? Or are they just the things we can&#8217;t know yet? Is time unreal, as many philosophers have thought? Columbia&#8217;s Dave Albert joins John and Ken for a fascinating hour.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6319/time.mp3" length="30040033" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Time is the most familiar thing in the world, and yet philosophically one of the most puzzling. Is the present what&#8217;s left when you subtract what has already happened, and what is yet to happen? Then it seems to vanish into a mere instant. Are future events completely unreal? Or are they just the things we can&#8217;t know yet? Is time unreal, as many philosophers have thought? Columbia&#8217;s Dave Albert joins John and Ken for a fascinating hour.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T144958.995.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:21</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Time is the most familiar thing in the world, and yet philosophically one of the most puzzling. Is the present what&#8217;s left when you subtract what has already happened, and what is yet to happen? Then it seems to vanish into a mere instant. Are future events completely unreal? Or are they just the things we can&#8217;t know yet? Is time unreal, as many philosophers have thought? Columbia&#8217;s Dave Albert joins John and Ken for a fascinating hour.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T144958.995.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Is This Any Way to Run a Democracy?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/is-this-any-way-to-run-a-democracy/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 02 Nov 2004 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6383</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[America prides itself on being the oldest continuous democracy in the world. But criticisms of the America system are widespread. Our system is tailored to narrow interests and wealthy elites. Our two parties lock out alternative voices. Our voting procedures discourage participation and lead to unrepresentative outcomes. Is this really the best way to run a democracy? Join John and Ken as they examine the philosophical underpinnings of democracy in America with Josh Ober from Princeton University, author of Athenian Legacies: Essays on the Politics of Going On Together.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[America prides itself on being the oldest continuous democracy in the world. But criticisms of the America system are widespread. Our system is tailored to narrow interests and wealthy elites. Our two parties lock out alternative voices. Our voting proce]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[America prides itself on being the oldest continuous democracy in the world. But criticisms of the America system are widespread. Our system is tailored to narrow interests and wealthy elites. Our two parties lock out alternative voices. Our voting procedures discourage participation and lead to unrepresentative outcomes. Is this really the best way to run a democracy? Join John and Ken as they examine the philosophical underpinnings of democracy in America with Josh Ober from Princeton University, author of Athenian Legacies: Essays on the Politics of Going On Together.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6383/is-this-any-way-to-run-a-democracy.mp3" length="30122057" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[America prides itself on being the oldest continuous democracy in the world. But criticisms of the America system are widespread. Our system is tailored to narrow interests and wealthy elites. Our two parties lock out alternative voices. Our voting procedures discourage participation and lead to unrepresentative outcomes. Is this really the best way to run a democracy? Join John and Ken as they examine the philosophical underpinnings of democracy in America with Josh Ober from Princeton University, author of Athenian Legacies: Essays on the Politics of Going On Together.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T133819.723.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[America prides itself on being the oldest continuous democracy in the world. But criticisms of the America system are widespread. Our system is tailored to narrow interests and wealthy elites. Our two parties lock out alternative voices. Our voting procedures discourage participation and lead to unrepresentative outcomes. Is this really the best way to run a democracy? Join John and Ken as they examine the philosophical underpinnings of democracy in America with Josh Ober from Princeton University, author of Athenian Legacies: Essays on the Politics of Going On Together.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T133819.723.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Karl Marx</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/karl-marx/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 19 Oct 2004 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6359</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The ideas of Karl Marx vie with those of Rousseau, Locke and Jefferson for shaping the politics of the twentieth century. Are Marx&#8217;s ideas of real philosophical value and interest, or simply relics of interest only in trying to understand the benighted century we have left behind? John and Ken divide their labor with Jonathan Wolff from University College London, author of Why Read Marx Today?]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[The ideas of Karl Marx vie with those of Rousseau, Locke and Jefferson for shaping the politics of the twentieth century. Are Marx&#8217;s ideas of real philosophical value and interest, or simply relics of interest only in trying to understand the benig]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The ideas of Karl Marx vie with those of Rousseau, Locke and Jefferson for shaping the politics of the twentieth century. Are Marx&#8217;s ideas of real philosophical value and interest, or simply relics of interest only in trying to understand the benighted century we have left behind? John and Ken divide their labor with Jonathan Wolff from University College London, author of Why Read Marx Today?]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6359/karl-marx.mp3" length="48242358" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[The ideas of Karl Marx vie with those of Rousseau, Locke and Jefferson for shaping the politics of the twentieth century. Are Marx&#8217;s ideas of real philosophical value and interest, or simply relics of interest only in trying to understand the benighted century we have left behind? John and Ken divide their labor with Jonathan Wolff from University College London, author of Why Read Marx Today?]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/5c5IzNwVtqk.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:15</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[The ideas of Karl Marx vie with those of Rousseau, Locke and Jefferson for shaping the politics of the twentieth century. Are Marx&#8217;s ideas of real philosophical value and interest, or simply relics of interest only in trying to understand the benighted century we have left behind? John and Ken divide their labor with Jonathan Wolff from University College London, author of Why Read Marx Today?]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/5c5IzNwVtqk.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Feminism</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/feminism/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2004 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5909</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Some feminists hold that there are specially feminine ways of knowing, and the current scientific research is flawed for not recognizing them. Some hold that philosophy itself is a thoroughly phallocentric enterprise, and deeply flawed. Other feminists vigorously reject these views. Join John and Ken as they discuss the philosophies of feminism with Barrie Thorne from UC Berkeley, co-author of Feminist Sociology: Life Histories of a Movement.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Some feminists hold that there are specially feminine ways of knowing, and the current scientific research is flawed for not recognizing them. Some hold that philosophy itself is a thoroughly phallocentric enterprise, and deeply flawed. Other feminists v]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Some feminists hold that there are specially feminine ways of knowing, and the current scientific research is flawed for not recognizing them. Some hold that philosophy itself is a thoroughly phallocentric enterprise, and deeply flawed. Other feminists vigorously reject these views. Join John and Ken as they discuss the philosophies of feminism with Barrie Thorne from UC Berkeley, co-author of Feminist Sociology: Life Histories of a Movement.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5909/feminism.mp3" length="49182929" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Some feminists hold that there are specially feminine ways of knowing, and the current scientific research is flawed for not recognizing them. Some hold that philosophy itself is a thoroughly phallocentric enterprise, and deeply flawed. Other feminists vigorously reject these views. Join John and Ken as they discuss the philosophies of feminism with Barrie Thorne from UC Berkeley, co-author of Feminist Sociology: Life Histories of a Movement.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T133413.047.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>51:14</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Some feminists hold that there are specially feminine ways of knowing, and the current scientific research is flawed for not recognizing them. Some hold that philosophy itself is a thoroughly phallocentric enterprise, and deeply flawed. Other feminists vigorously reject these views. Join John and Ken as they discuss the philosophies of feminism with Barrie Thorne from UC Berkeley, co-author of Feminist Sociology: Life Histories of a Movement.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T133413.047.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Environment and Global Justice</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-environment-and-global-justice/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2004 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6334</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Our current way of life is unsustainable. Depletion of the ozone layer, the dwindling of the rain forest, the loss of animal habitat, and toxic runoff into lakes, streams and rivers are just a few of the environmental challenges we face. The environment is a global problem that no one nation can address on its own. Something must give, somewhere. But who will pay what costs for improving the global environment? Wealthy nations of the North? Developing nations of the South? By what principles of justice shall we decide? John and Ken take justice into their own hands with Larry Goulder from Stanford University.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Our current way of life is unsustainable. Depletion of the ozone layer, the dwindling of the rain forest, the loss of animal habitat, and toxic runoff into lakes, streams and rivers are just a few of the environmental challenges we face. The environment ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Our current way of life is unsustainable. Depletion of the ozone layer, the dwindling of the rain forest, the loss of animal habitat, and toxic runoff into lakes, streams and rivers are just a few of the environmental challenges we face. The environment is a global problem that no one nation can address on its own. Something must give, somewhere. But who will pay what costs for improving the global environment? Wealthy nations of the North? Developing nations of the South? By what principles of justice shall we decide? John and Ken take justice into their own hands with Larry Goulder from Stanford University.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6334/the-environment-and-global-justice.mp3" length="29995886" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Our current way of life is unsustainable. Depletion of the ozone layer, the dwindling of the rain forest, the loss of animal habitat, and toxic runoff into lakes, streams and rivers are just a few of the environmental challenges we face. The environment is a global problem that no one nation can address on its own. Something must give, somewhere. But who will pay what costs for improving the global environment? Wealthy nations of the North? Developing nations of the South? By what principles of justice shall we decide? John and Ken take justice into their own hands with Larry Goulder from Stanford University.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Image-scaled.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Our current way of life is unsustainable. Depletion of the ozone layer, the dwindling of the rain forest, the loss of animal habitat, and toxic runoff into lakes, streams and rivers are just a few of the environmental challenges we face. The environment is a global problem that no one nation can address on its own. Something must give, somewhere. But who will pay what costs for improving the global environment? Wealthy nations of the North? Developing nations of the South? By what principles of justice shall we decide? John and Ken take justice into their own hands with Larry Goulder from Stanford University.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Image-scaled.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Corporations</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/corporations/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 21 Sep 2004 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5899</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Corporations are recognized as persons in the eyes of the law. But if they are persons, they would seem to be pathologically self-interested persons, driven by nothing but the desire for their own further aggrandizement. John and Ken ask how we can cope with such persons in our midst with Lawrence Mitchell from the George Washington University Law School.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Corporations are recognized as persons in the eyes of the law. But if they are persons, they would seem to be pathologically self-interested persons, driven by nothing but the desire for their own further aggrandizement. John and Ken ask how we can cope ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Corporations are recognized as persons in the eyes of the law. But if they are persons, they would seem to be pathologically self-interested persons, driven by nothing but the desire for their own further aggrandizement. John and Ken ask how we can cope with such persons in our midst with Lawrence Mitchell from the George Washington University Law School.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5899/corporations.mp3" length="20873717" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Corporations are recognized as persons in the eyes of the law. But if they are persons, they would seem to be pathologically self-interested persons, driven by nothing but the desire for their own further aggrandizement. John and Ken ask how we can cope with such persons in our midst with Lawrence Mitchell from the George Washington University Law School.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/logos.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>43:29</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Corporations are recognized as persons in the eyes of the law. But if they are persons, they would seem to be pathologically self-interested persons, driven by nothing but the desire for their own further aggrandizement. John and Ken ask how we can cope with such persons in our midst with Lawrence Mitchell from the George Washington University Law School.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/logos.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Plato</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/plato/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5890</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[From his theory of the Forms, to his views about morality, justice, and the soul Plato was one the greatest and most influential philosophers of all time. Indeed, it has been said that all of philosophy is but a footnote to Plato. Find out why as John and Ken dig into the philosophical views of Plato, with their guest, Chris Bobonich, author of Plato&#8217;s Utopia Recast.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[From his theory of the Forms, to his views about morality, justice, and the soul Plato was one the greatest and most influential philosophers of all time. Indeed, it has been said that all of philosophy is but a footnote to Plato. Find out why as John an]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[From his theory of the Forms, to his views about morality, justice, and the soul Plato was one the greatest and most influential philosophers of all time. Indeed, it has been said that all of philosophy is but a footnote to Plato. Find out why as John and Ken dig into the philosophical views of Plato, with their guest, Chris Bobonich, author of Plato&#8217;s Utopia Recast.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5890/plato.mp3" length="21887268" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[From his theory of the Forms, to his views about morality, justice, and the soul Plato was one the greatest and most influential philosophers of all time. Indeed, it has been said that all of philosophy is but a footnote to Plato. Find out why as John and Ken dig into the philosophical views of Plato, with their guest, Chris Bobonich, author of Plato&#8217;s Utopia Recast.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/plato.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[From his theory of the Forms, to his views about morality, justice, and the soul Plato was one the greatest and most influential philosophers of all time. Indeed, it has been said that all of philosophy is but a footnote to Plato. Find out why as John and Ken dig into the philosophical views of Plato, with their guest, Chris Bobonich, author of Plato&#8217;s Utopia Recast.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/plato.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Happiness</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/happiness/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2004 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6165</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Is happiness a mere psychological state? And if so, what&#8217;s so important about it? Is there anything more to being happy than just thinking you&#8217;re happy? Or is happiness a way of life? John and Ken get happy with Robert Solomon from the University of Texas at Austin, author of True to Our Feelings: What Our Emotions Are Really Telling Us]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Is happiness a mere psychological state? And if so, what&#8217;s so important about it? Is there anything more to being happy than just thinking you&#8217;re happy? Or is happiness a way of life? John and Ken get happy with Robert Solomon from the Univer]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Is happiness a mere psychological state? And if so, what&#8217;s so important about it? Is there anything more to being happy than just thinking you&#8217;re happy? Or is happiness a way of life? John and Ken get happy with Robert Solomon from the University of Texas at Austin, author of True to Our Feelings: What Our Emotions Are Really Telling Us]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6165/happiness.mp3" length="24842866" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Is happiness a mere psychological state? And if so, what&#8217;s so important about it? Is there anything more to being happy than just thinking you&#8217;re happy? Or is happiness a way of life? John and Ken get happy with Robert Solomon from the University of Texas at Austin, author of True to Our Feelings: What Our Emotions Are Really Telling Us]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T144141.341.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>51:45</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Is happiness a mere psychological state? And if so, what&#8217;s so important about it? Is there anything more to being happy than just thinking you&#8217;re happy? Or is happiness a way of life? John and Ken get happy with Robert Solomon from the University of Texas at Austin, author of True to Our Feelings: What Our Emotions Are Really Telling Us]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T144141.341.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Gambling</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/gambling/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2004 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6132</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Rolling the dice in a game you&#8217;re rigged to lose sounds like a bad idea. So why is it so much fun? Is gambling an exciting pastime, or a vicious addiction? John and Ken take their chances with Will Barrett from the University of Melbourne, author of &#8220;Luck and Decision.&#8221;]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Rolling the dice in a game you&#8217;re rigged to lose sounds like a bad idea. So why is it so much fun? Is gambling an exciting pastime, or a vicious addiction? John and Ken take their chances with Will Barrett from the University of Melbourne, author o]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Rolling the dice in a game you&#8217;re rigged to lose sounds like a bad idea. So why is it so much fun? Is gambling an exciting pastime, or a vicious addiction? John and Ken take their chances with Will Barrett from the University of Melbourne, author of &#8220;Luck and Decision.&#8221;]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6132/gambling.mp3" length="24647680" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Rolling the dice in a game you&#8217;re rigged to lose sounds like a bad idea. So why is it so much fun? Is gambling an exciting pastime, or a vicious addiction? John and Ken take their chances with Will Barrett from the University of Melbourne, author of &#8220;Luck and Decision.&#8221;]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T142925.391.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>51:21</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Rolling the dice in a game you&#8217;re rigged to lose sounds like a bad idea. So why is it so much fun? Is gambling an exciting pastime, or a vicious addiction? John and Ken take their chances with Will Barrett from the University of Melbourne, author of &#8220;Luck and Decision.&#8221;]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T142925.391.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Affirmative Action</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/affirmative-action/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6099</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Is affirmative action a way of balancing out inequality? Or is it just another form of bias in admissions and hiring practices? And where&#8217;s the line between fostering diversity and lowering standards? John and Ken affirmatively welcome Elizabeth Anderson from the University of Michigan, auhor of The Imperative of Integration.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Is affirmative action a way of balancing out inequality? Or is it just another form of bias in admissions and hiring practices? And where&#8217;s the line between fostering diversity and lowering standards? John and Ken affirmatively welcome Elizabeth An]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Is affirmative action a way of balancing out inequality? Or is it just another form of bias in admissions and hiring practices? And where&#8217;s the line between fostering diversity and lowering standards? John and Ken affirmatively welcome Elizabeth Anderson from the University of Michigan, auhor of The Imperative of Integration.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6099/affirmative-action.mp3" length="30318627" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Is affirmative action a way of balancing out inequality? Or is it just another form of bias in admissions and hiring practices? And where&#8217;s the line between fostering diversity and lowering standards? John and Ken affirmatively welcome Elizabeth Anderson from the University of Michigan, auhor of The Imperative of Integration.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T135111.786.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Is affirmative action a way of balancing out inequality? Or is it just another form of bias in admissions and hiring practices? And where&#8217;s the line between fostering diversity and lowering standards? John and Ken affirmatively welcome Elizabeth Anderson from the University of Michigan, auhor of The Imperative of Integration.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T135111.786.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Who Owns Ideas?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/who-owns-ideas/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2004 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6093</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[You can own a car or a bicycle. But what about an idea? If you invent a program it seems like you should have some say about its use. But can you really own the idea itself? Listen in and steal an idea or two from Larry Lessig, author of The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[You can own a car or a bicycle. But what about an idea? If you invent a program it seems like you should have some say about its use. But can you really own the idea itself? Listen in and steal an idea or two from Larry Lessig, author of The Future of Id]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[You can own a car or a bicycle. But what about an idea? If you invent a program it seems like you should have some say about its use. But can you really own the idea itself? Listen in and steal an idea or two from Larry Lessig, author of The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6093/who-owns-ideas.mp3" length="30394776" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[You can own a car or a bicycle. But what about an idea? If you invent a program it seems like you should have some say about its use. But can you really own the idea itself? Listen in and steal an idea or two from Larry Lessig, author of The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T133045.193.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[You can own a car or a bicycle. But what about an idea? If you invent a program it seems like you should have some say about its use. But can you really own the idea itself? Listen in and steal an idea or two from Larry Lessig, author of The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T133045.193.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Paternalism and Health</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/paternalism-and-health/</link>
	<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:29:37 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=12319</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Paternalism and Health: Some diseases such as Alzheimer&#8217;s inhibit our abilities to make decisions and lessen our quality of life. In cases like these, we often think that others are justified in stepping in and making decisions for that person. But what about the case where the person in question is relatively healthy but suffers, perhaps, from minor depression, or an anxiety disorder? When (if ever) is it OK to step in and take charge of someone else&#8217;s life or body?]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Paternalism and Health: Some diseases such as Alzheimer&#8217;s inhibit our abilities to make decisions and lessen our quality of life. In cases like these, we often think that others are justified in stepping in and making decisions for that person. But]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Paternalism and Health: Some diseases such as Alzheimer&#8217;s inhibit our abilities to make decisions and lessen our quality of life. In cases like these, we often think that others are justified in stepping in and making decisions for that person. But what about the case where the person in question is relatively healthy but suffers, perhaps, from minor depression, or an anxiety disorder? When (if ever) is it OK to step in and take charge of someone else&#8217;s life or body?]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/12319/paternalism-and-health.mp3" length="49506847" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Paternalism and Health: Some diseases such as Alzheimer&#8217;s inhibit our abilities to make decisions and lessen our quality of life. In cases like these, we often think that others are justified in stepping in and making decisions for that person. But what about the case where the person in question is relatively healthy but suffers, perhaps, from minor depression, or an anxiety disorder? When (if ever) is it OK to step in and take charge of someone else&#8217;s life or body?]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Your-paragraph-text-100.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Paternalism and Health: Some diseases such as Alzheimer&#8217;s inhibit our abilities to make decisions and lessen our quality of life. In cases like these, we often think that others are justified in stepping in and making decisions for that person. But what about the case where the person in question is relatively healthy but suffers, perhaps, from minor depression, or an anxiety disorder? When (if ever) is it OK to step in and take charge of someone else&#8217;s life or body?]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Your-paragraph-text-100.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Humans: The Irrational Animal</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/humans-the-irrational-animal/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2004 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5524</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Some psychologists claim to have demonstrated that humans are systematically, deeply and perhaps irredeemably irrational in their reasoning and decision making. But what is rationality and why does it matter? If we are really so irrational, how have we managed to get this far as a species? Maybe rationality isn&#8217;t such a big deal after all. Tune in as Ken Taylor and guest host Nadeem Hussain size up the human mind with Stephen Stich from Rutgers University, author of From Folk Psychology to Cognitive Science: The Case Against Belief.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Some psychologists claim to have demonstrated that humans are systematically, deeply and perhaps irredeemably irrational in their reasoning and decision making. But what is rationality and why does it matter? If we are really so irrational, how have we m]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Some psychologists claim to have demonstrated that humans are systematically, deeply and perhaps irredeemably irrational in their reasoning and decision making. But what is rationality and why does it matter? If we are really so irrational, how have we managed to get this far as a species? Maybe rationality isn&#8217;t such a big deal after all. Tune in as Ken Taylor and guest host Nadeem Hussain size up the human mind with Stephen Stich from Rutgers University, author of From Folk Psychology to Cognitive Science: The Case Against Belief.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5524/humans-the-irrational-animal.mp3" length="29614759" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Some psychologists claim to have demonstrated that humans are systematically, deeply and perhaps irredeemably irrational in their reasoning and decision making. But what is rationality and why does it matter? If we are really so irrational, how have we managed to get this far as a species? Maybe rationality isn&#8217;t such a big deal after all. Tune in as Ken Taylor and guest host Nadeem Hussain size up the human mind with Stephen Stich from Rutgers University, author of From Folk Psychology to Cognitive Science: The Case Against Belief.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-99.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Some psychologists claim to have demonstrated that humans are systematically, deeply and perhaps irredeemably irrational in their reasoning and decision making. But what is rationality and why does it matter? If we are really so irrational, how have we managed to get this far as a species? Maybe rationality isn&#8217;t such a big deal after all. Tune in as Ken Taylor and guest host Nadeem Hussain size up the human mind with Stephen Stich from Rutgers University, author of From Folk Psychology to Cognitive Science: The Case Against Belief.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-99.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Virtue</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/virtue/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2004 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6350</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What is virtue? Is virtue the key human happiness and flourishing, as the ancients held, or a quaint notion of at best secondary interest for ethics, as many modern theorists hold? Does the return of virtue ethics to contemporary philosophy mark an advance in our thinking about morality or is it just a nostalgia for morally simpler times? John and Ken sing the praises of Julia Driver from Dartmouth College, author of Uneasy Virtue.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What is virtue? Is virtue the key human happiness and flourishing, as the ancients held, or a quaint notion of at best secondary interest for ethics, as many modern theorists hold? Does the return of virtue ethics to contemporary philosophy mark an advan]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What is virtue? Is virtue the key human happiness and flourishing, as the ancients held, or a quaint notion of at best secondary interest for ethics, as many modern theorists hold? Does the return of virtue ethics to contemporary philosophy mark an advance in our thinking about morality or is it just a nostalgia for morally simpler times? John and Ken sing the praises of Julia Driver from Dartmouth College, author of Uneasy Virtue.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6350/virtue.mp3" length="30151315" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What is virtue? Is virtue the key human happiness and flourishing, as the ancients held, or a quaint notion of at best secondary interest for ethics, as many modern theorists hold? Does the return of virtue ethics to contemporary philosophy mark an advance in our thinking about morality or is it just a nostalgia for morally simpler times? John and Ken sing the praises of Julia Driver from Dartmouth College, author of Uneasy Virtue.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T145944.633.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What is virtue? Is virtue the key human happiness and flourishing, as the ancients held, or a quaint notion of at best secondary interest for ethics, as many modern theorists hold? Does the return of virtue ethics to contemporary philosophy mark an advance in our thinking about morality or is it just a nostalgia for morally simpler times? John and Ken sing the praises of Julia Driver from Dartmouth College, author of Uneasy Virtue.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T145944.633.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Dignity and the End of Life</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/dignity-and-end-life/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2004 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/dignity-and-end-life/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Is physician assisted suicide morally okay? What about active euthanasia for patients suffering terminal illnesses? If we begin traveling down this path, how do we put a break to our slide down the slippery slope toward a world in which we license physicians to kill or assist the suicide of severely depressed but not terminally ill patients? John and Ken have a dignified discussion with Margaret Battin from the University of Utah, author of Ending Life: Ethics and the Way We Die.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Is physician assisted suicide morally okay? What about active euthanasia for patients suffering terminal illnesses? If we begin traveling down this path, how do we put a break to our slide down the slippery slope toward a world in which we license physic]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Is physician assisted suicide morally okay? What about active euthanasia for patients suffering terminal illnesses? If we begin traveling down this path, how do we put a break to our slide down the slippery slope toward a world in which we license physicians to kill or assist the suicide of severely depressed but not terminally ill patients? John and Ken have a dignified discussion with Margaret Battin from the University of Utah, author of Ending Life: Ethics and the Way We Die.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/270/dignity-and-end-life.mp3" length="49152417" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Is physician assisted suicide morally okay? What about active euthanasia for patients suffering terminal illnesses? If we begin traveling down this path, how do we put a break to our slide down the slippery slope toward a world in which we license physicians to kill or assist the suicide of severely depressed but not terminally ill patients? John and Ken have a dignified discussion with Margaret Battin from the University of Utah, author of Ending Life: Ethics and the Way We Die.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T150355.466.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Is physician assisted suicide morally okay? What about active euthanasia for patients suffering terminal illnesses? If we begin traveling down this path, how do we put a break to our slide down the slippery slope toward a world in which we license physicians to kill or assist the suicide of severely depressed but not terminally ill patients? John and Ken have a dignified discussion with Margaret Battin from the University of Utah, author of Ending Life: Ethics and the Way We Die.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Your-paragraph-text-2020-03-30T150355.466.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Terrorism</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/terrorism/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2004 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5882</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[We like to think that terrorism is always wrong. But what if the cause is just? Do the ends ever justify the means? And how do we define &#8220;terrorism&#8221; anyway?]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[We like to think that terrorism is always wrong. But what if the cause is just? Do the ends ever justify the means? And how do we define &#8220;terrorism&#8221; anyway?]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[We like to think that terrorism is always wrong. But what if the cause is just? Do the ends ever justify the means? And how do we define &#8220;terrorism&#8221; anyway?]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5882/terrorism.mp3" length="48935497" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[We like to think that terrorism is always wrong. But what if the cause is just? Do the ends ever justify the means? And how do we define &#8220;terrorism&#8221; anyway?]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-98.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>50:58</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[We like to think that terrorism is always wrong. But what if the cause is just? Do the ends ever justify the means? And how do we define &#8220;terrorism&#8221; anyway?]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-98.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Meaning of Life</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/meaning-life/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 18 May 2004 17:49:51 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=12157</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Does life have a meaning? If we were created by a powerful God, would that give our lives meaning? Who gave God&#8217;s existence meaning? What if we were created by a crazy scientist wholly for the purpose of irritating their spouse? John and Ken search for meaning with Howard Wettstein from UC Riverside.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Does life have a meaning? If we were created by a powerful God, would that give our lives meaning? Who gave God&#8217;s existence meaning? What if we were created by a crazy scientist wholly for the purpose of irritating their spouse? John and Ken search]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Does life have a meaning? If we were created by a powerful God, would that give our lives meaning? Who gave God&#8217;s existence meaning? What if we were created by a crazy scientist wholly for the purpose of irritating their spouse? John and Ken search for meaning with Howard Wettstein from UC Riverside.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/12157/meaning-life.mp3" length="30284017" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Does life have a meaning? If we were created by a powerful God, would that give our lives meaning? Who gave God&#8217;s existence meaning? What if we were created by a crazy scientist wholly for the purpose of irritating their spouse? John and Ken search for meaning with Howard Wettstein from UC Riverside.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Your-paragraph-text-96.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Does life have a meaning? If we were created by a powerful God, would that give our lives meaning? Who gave God&#8217;s existence meaning? What if we were created by a crazy scientist wholly for the purpose of irritating their spouse? John and Ken search for meaning with Howard Wettstein from UC Riverside.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Your-paragraph-text-96.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Animal Rights</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/animal-rights/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2004 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6080</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[We shouldn&#8217;t be mean to animals. Is that because animals have rights, like people do? Or is it just because people care about animals? Is it intrinsically worse to step on dog than on a spider? John and Ken play nice with Lori Gruen from Wesleyan University, author of Ethics and Animals: An Introduction.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[We shouldn&#8217;t be mean to animals. Is that because animals have rights, like people do? Or is it just because people care about animals? Is it intrinsically worse to step on dog than on a spider? John and Ken play nice with Lori Gruen from Wesleyan U]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[We shouldn&#8217;t be mean to animals. Is that because animals have rights, like people do? Or is it just because people care about animals? Is it intrinsically worse to step on dog than on a spider? John and Ken play nice with Lori Gruen from Wesleyan University, author of Ethics and Animals: An Introduction.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6080/animal-rights.mp3" length="29980996" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[We shouldn&#8217;t be mean to animals. Is that because animals have rights, like people do? Or is it just because people care about animals? Is it intrinsically worse to step on dog than on a spider? John and Ken play nice with Lori Gruen from Wesleyan University, author of Ethics and Animals: An Introduction.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-95.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[We shouldn&#8217;t be mean to animals. Is that because animals have rights, like people do? Or is it just because people care about animals? Is it intrinsically worse to step on dog than on a spider? John and Ken play nice with Lori Gruen from Wesleyan University, author of Ethics and Animals: An Introduction.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-95.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Whose Language Is It?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/whose-language-is-it/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 04 May 2004 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6070</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Is there a right and a wrong way to speak English? Is there really something wrong with saying, &#8220;Hopefully, we&#8217;ll have a good century,&#8221; or &#8220;Where is the library at?&#8221; or &#8220;There is no way to correctly split an infinitive&#8221;? Is grammatical purity just snobbism? John and Ken don&#8217;t hold their tongues with linguist and NPR commentator Geoff Nunberg.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Is there a right and a wrong way to speak English? Is there really something wrong with saying, &#8220;Hopefully, we&#8217;ll have a good century,&#8221; or &#8220;Where is the library at?&#8221; or &#8220;There is no way to correctly split an infinitive]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Is there a right and a wrong way to speak English? Is there really something wrong with saying, &#8220;Hopefully, we&#8217;ll have a good century,&#8221; or &#8220;Where is the library at?&#8221; or &#8220;There is no way to correctly split an infinitive&#8221;? Is grammatical purity just snobbism? John and Ken don&#8217;t hold their tongues with linguist and NPR commentator Geoff Nunberg.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6070/whose-language-is-it.mp3" length="49543627" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Is there a right and a wrong way to speak English? Is there really something wrong with saying, &#8220;Hopefully, we&#8217;ll have a good century,&#8221; or &#8220;Where is the library at?&#8221; or &#8220;There is no way to correctly split an infinitive&#8221;? Is grammatical purity just snobbism? John and Ken don&#8217;t hold their tongues with linguist and NPR commentator Geoff Nunberg.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-94.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>51:36</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Is there a right and a wrong way to speak English? Is there really something wrong with saying, &#8220;Hopefully, we&#8217;ll have a good century,&#8221; or &#8220;Where is the library at?&#8221; or &#8220;There is no way to correctly split an infinitive&#8221;? Is grammatical purity just snobbism? John and Ken don&#8217;t hold their tongues with linguist and NPR commentator Geoff Nunberg.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-94.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Baseball</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/baseball/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:43:18 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=12127</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What can we learn from baseball? Are the passions we have for our baseball teams and heroes irrational?  If so, what makes passions for families, cities, countries, universities, or radio stations more rational? Are all allegiances and loyalties ultimately arbitrary?  Eminent Kant scholar and baseball fan extraordinare Allen Wood visits.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What can we learn from baseball? Are the passions we have for our baseball teams and heroes irrational?  If so, what makes passions for families, cities, countries, universities, or radio stations more rational? Are all allegiances and loyalties ultimate]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What can we learn from baseball? Are the passions we have for our baseball teams and heroes irrational?  If so, what makes passions for families, cities, countries, universities, or radio stations more rational? Are all allegiances and loyalties ultimately arbitrary?  Eminent Kant scholar and baseball fan extraordinare Allen Wood visits.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/12127/baseball.mp3" length="49167302" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What can we learn from baseball? Are the passions we have for our baseball teams and heroes irrational?  If so, what makes passions for families, cities, countries, universities, or radio stations more rational? Are all allegiances and loyalties ultimately arbitrary?  Eminent Kant scholar and baseball fan extraordinare Allen Wood visits.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/rZxePFzopus.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What can we learn from baseball? Are the passions we have for our baseball teams and heroes irrational?  If so, what makes passions for families, cities, countries, universities, or radio stations more rational? Are all allegiances and loyalties ultimately arbitrary?  Eminent Kant scholar and baseball fan extraordinare Allen Wood visits.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/rZxePFzopus.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Taxation</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/taxation/</link>
	<pubDate>Wed, 14 Apr 2004 02:23:39 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5505</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[How is taxation different from stealing? What right does the government have to take some of our money? No taxation without representation? What difference does representation make? John and Ken pay their dues with Barbara Fried from the Stanford Law School.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[How is taxation different from stealing? What right does the government have to take some of our money? No taxation without representation? What difference does representation make? John and Ken pay their dues with Barbara Fried from the Stanford Law Sch]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[How is taxation different from stealing? What right does the government have to take some of our money? No taxation without representation? What difference does representation make? John and Ken pay their dues with Barbara Fried from the Stanford Law School.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5505/taxation.mp3" length="49139879" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[How is taxation different from stealing? What right does the government have to take some of our money? No taxation without representation? What difference does representation make? John and Ken pay their dues with Barbara Fried from the Stanford Law School.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Screenshot-2025-03-21-at-3.51.43 PM.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[How is taxation different from stealing? What right does the government have to take some of our money? No taxation without representation? What difference does representation make? John and Ken pay their dues with Barbara Fried from the Stanford Law School.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Screenshot-2025-03-21-at-3.51.43 PM.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Consciousness</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/consciousness/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Apr 2004 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=6120</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Is the conscious mind just the brain or something more? Can science explain consciousness? How does Ken know that John is a conscious being and not just an automaton programmed to act like a conscious being? Or is John just an automaton? John and Ken consciously welcome David Chalmers from the Australian National University, author of The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Is the conscious mind just the brain or something more? Can science explain consciousness? How does Ken know that John is a conscious being and not just an automaton programmed to act like a conscious being? Or is John just an automaton? John and Ken con]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Is the conscious mind just the brain or something more? Can science explain consciousness? How does Ken know that John is a conscious being and not just an automaton programmed to act like a conscious being? Or is John just an automaton? John and Ken consciously welcome David Chalmers from the Australian National University, author of The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/6120/consciousness.mp3" length="29850123" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Is the conscious mind just the brain or something more? Can science explain consciousness? How does Ken know that John is a conscious being and not just an automaton programmed to act like a conscious being? Or is John just an automaton? John and Ken consciously welcome David Chalmers from the Australian National University, author of The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture33.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Is the conscious mind just the brain or something more? Can science explain consciousness? How does Ken know that John is a conscious being and not just an automaton programmed to act like a conscious being? Or is John just an automaton? John and Ken consciously welcome David Chalmers from the Australian National University, author of The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Capture33.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Humor</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/humor/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 2004 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5502</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What is humor? What makes some jokes funny? Why did the chicken cross the road? Tune in for deep thoughts and big laughs as Ken, John and guest Ted Cohen, author of Jokes: Philosophical Thoughts on Joking Matters, discuss the philosophical aspects of humor.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What is humor? What makes some jokes funny? Why did the chicken cross the road? Tune in for deep thoughts and big laughs as Ken, John and guest Ted Cohen, author of Jokes: Philosophical Thoughts on Joking Matters, discuss the philosophical aspects of hum]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What is humor? What makes some jokes funny? Why did the chicken cross the road? Tune in for deep thoughts and big laughs as Ken, John and guest Ted Cohen, author of Jokes: Philosophical Thoughts on Joking Matters, discuss the philosophical aspects of humor.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5502/humor.mp3" length="48043572" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What is humor? What makes some jokes funny? Why did the chicken cross the road? Tune in for deep thoughts and big laughs as Ken, John and guest Ted Cohen, author of Jokes: Philosophical Thoughts on Joking Matters, discuss the philosophical aspects of humor.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-89.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What is humor? What makes some jokes funny? Why did the chicken cross the road? Tune in for deep thoughts and big laughs as Ken, John and guest Ted Cohen, author of Jokes: Philosophical Thoughts on Joking Matters, discuss the philosophical aspects of humor.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-89.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Has Science Replaced Religion?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/has-science-replaced-religion/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2004 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5877</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Has science replaced religion? Can one be religious and maintain a scientific viewpoint? Does belief in evolution undermine morality or belief in God, or vice versa? Ken and John take on the big questions with George Ellis from the University of Cape Town, author of On the Moral Nature of the Universe.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Has science replaced religion? Can one be religious and maintain a scientific viewpoint? Does belief in evolution undermine morality or belief in God, or vice versa? Ken and John take on the big questions with George Ellis from the University of Cape Tow]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Has science replaced religion? Can one be religious and maintain a scientific viewpoint? Does belief in evolution undermine morality or belief in God, or vice versa? Ken and John take on the big questions with George Ellis from the University of Cape Town, author of On the Moral Nature of the Universe.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5877/has-science-replaced-religion.mp3" length="29682678" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Has science replaced religion? Can one be religious and maintain a scientific viewpoint? Does belief in evolution undermine morality or belief in God, or vice versa? Ken and John take on the big questions with George Ellis from the University of Cape Town, author of On the Moral Nature of the Universe.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/yS7qQTlXNWE.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Has science replaced religion? Can one be religious and maintain a scientific viewpoint? Does belief in evolution undermine morality or belief in God, or vice versa? Ken and John take on the big questions with George Ellis from the University of Cape Town, author of On the Moral Nature of the Universe.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/yS7qQTlXNWE.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Nietzsche</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/nietzsche/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2004 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5872</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Nietzsche. Ken and John and Übermensch-at-large Brian Leiter discuss everyone&#8217;s favorite syphilitic philosopher. Was he a mysogynistic Nazi-supporter, or an artistic visionary who sought to set us free from our moralistic chains? Boring radio is dead.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Nietzsche. Ken and John and Übermensch-at-large Brian Leiter discuss everyone&#8217;s favorite syphilitic philosopher. Was he a mysogynistic Nazi-supporter, or an artistic visionary who sought to set us free from our moralistic chains? Boring radio is de]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Nietzsche. Ken and John and Übermensch-at-large Brian Leiter discuss everyone&#8217;s favorite syphilitic philosopher. Was he a mysogynistic Nazi-supporter, or an artistic visionary who sought to set us free from our moralistic chains? Boring radio is dead.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5872/nietzsche.mp3" length="49158687" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Nietzsche. Ken and John and Übermensch-at-large Brian Leiter discuss everyone&#8217;s favorite syphilitic philosopher. Was he a mysogynistic Nazi-supporter, or an artistic visionary who sought to set us free from our moralistic chains? Boring radio is dead.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/3NrkY-ceRSA.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>51:12</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Nietzsche. Ken and John and Übermensch-at-large Brian Leiter discuss everyone&#8217;s favorite syphilitic philosopher. Was he a mysogynistic Nazi-supporter, or an artistic visionary who sought to set us free from our moralistic chains? Boring radio is dead.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/3NrkY-ceRSA.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Markets and Morality</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/markets-and-morality/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2004 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/markets-and-morality/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Does the free market provide incentives for behavior that is problematic from a moral perspective? Or does the free market punish morally problematic behavior? Is respecting the free market itself moral, insofar as respecting the free market is also respecting individual freedom of choice? John and Ken enter the marketplace of ideas with Elizabeth Anderson from the University of Michigan, author of Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don&#8217;t Talk about It).]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Does the free market provide incentives for behavior that is problematic from a moral perspective? Or does the free market punish morally problematic behavior? Is respecting the free market itself moral, insofar as respecting the free market is also resp]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Does the free market provide incentives for behavior that is problematic from a moral perspective? Or does the free market punish morally problematic behavior? Is respecting the free market itself moral, insofar as respecting the free market is also respecting individual freedom of choice? John and Ken enter the marketplace of ideas with Elizabeth Anderson from the University of Michigan, author of Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don&#8217;t Talk about It).]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/456/markets-and-morality.mp3" length="29763919" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Does the free market provide incentives for behavior that is problematic from a moral perspective? Or does the free market punish morally problematic behavior? Is respecting the free market itself moral, insofar as respecting the free market is also respecting individual freedom of choice? John and Ken enter the marketplace of ideas with Elizabeth Anderson from the University of Michigan, author of Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don&#8217;t Talk about It).]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Your-paragraph-text-88.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Does the free market provide incentives for behavior that is problematic from a moral perspective? Or does the free market punish morally problematic behavior? Is respecting the free market itself moral, insofar as respecting the free market is also respecting individual freedom of choice? John and Ken enter the marketplace of ideas with Elizabeth Anderson from the University of Michigan, author of Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don&#8217;t Talk about It).]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Your-paragraph-text-88.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Genetic Engineering and Cloning</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/genetic-engineering-and-cloning/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2004 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5520</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[When is genetic manipulation morally permissible? For health? Beauty? Wit? What sorts of animals is it acceptable to clone? Should we ban stem cell research? John and Ken discuss cloning and the ethical issues surrounding genetic engineering with Hank Greely from the Stanford Law School.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[When is genetic manipulation morally permissible? For health? Beauty? Wit? What sorts of animals is it acceptable to clone? Should we ban stem cell research? John and Ken discuss cloning and the ethical issues surrounding genetic engineering with Hank Gr]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[When is genetic manipulation morally permissible? For health? Beauty? Wit? What sorts of animals is it acceptable to clone? Should we ban stem cell research? John and Ken discuss cloning and the ethical issues surrounding genetic engineering with Hank Greely from the Stanford Law School.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5520/genetic-engineering-and-cloning.mp3" length="29870237" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[When is genetic manipulation morally permissible? For health? Beauty? Wit? What sorts of animals is it acceptable to clone? Should we ban stem cell research? John and Ken discuss cloning and the ethical issues surrounding genetic engineering with Hank Greely from the Stanford Law School.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-87.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[When is genetic manipulation morally permissible? For health? Beauty? Wit? What sorts of animals is it acceptable to clone? Should we ban stem cell research? John and Ken discuss cloning and the ethical issues surrounding genetic engineering with Hank Greely from the Stanford Law School.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-87.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Drug Legalization</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/drug-legalization/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:55:48 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=12129</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Does America&#8217;s drug problem rest on confused philosophy? Ken and John discuss the philosophical issues underlying arguments for and against the legalization of drugs with Peter De Marneffe from Arizona State University, co-author of The Legalization of Drugs.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Does America&#8217;s drug problem rest on confused philosophy? Ken and John discuss the philosophical issues underlying arguments for and against the legalization of drugs with Peter De Marneffe from Arizona State University, co-author of The Legalizatio]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Does America&#8217;s drug problem rest on confused philosophy? Ken and John discuss the philosophical issues underlying arguments for and against the legalization of drugs with Peter De Marneffe from Arizona State University, co-author of The Legalization of Drugs.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/12129/drug-legalization.mp3" length="49544045" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Does America&#8217;s drug problem rest on confused philosophy? Ken and John discuss the philosophical issues underlying arguments for and against the legalization of drugs with Peter De Marneffe from Arizona State University, co-author of The Legalization of Drugs.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2004/02/538773307.jpeg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Does America&#8217;s drug problem rest on confused philosophy? Ken and John discuss the philosophical issues underlying arguments for and against the legalization of drugs with Peter De Marneffe from Arizona State University, co-author of The Legalization of Drugs.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2004/02/538773307.jpeg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Insanity Defense</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/the-insanity-defense/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2004 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5499</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Ken and John debate (use?) the insanity defense. What difference does it make if the person who commits a crime is, in one way or another, mentally ill? Does this make punishment illegitimate? Why is punishment, rather than therapy, ever legitimate? Which sorts of mental illness should exempt a criminal from punishment? Inability to know right from wrong? Inability to resist compulsion? Irrational depravity? John and Ken defend themselves with Susan Wolf from UNC Chapel Hill.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Ken and John debate (use?) the insanity defense. What difference does it make if the person who commits a crime is, in one way or another, mentally ill? Does this make punishment illegitimate? Why is punishment, rather than therapy, ever legitimate? Whic]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Ken and John debate (use?) the insanity defense. What difference does it make if the person who commits a crime is, in one way or another, mentally ill? Does this make punishment illegitimate? Why is punishment, rather than therapy, ever legitimate? Which sorts of mental illness should exempt a criminal from punishment? Inability to know right from wrong? Inability to resist compulsion? Irrational depravity? John and Ken defend themselves with Susan Wolf from UNC Chapel Hill.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5499/the-insanity-defense.mp3" length="30074515" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Ken and John debate (use?) the insanity defense. What difference does it make if the person who commits a crime is, in one way or another, mentally ill? Does this make punishment illegitimate? Why is punishment, rather than therapy, ever legitimate? Which sorts of mental illness should exempt a criminal from punishment? Inability to know right from wrong? Inability to resist compulsion? Irrational depravity? John and Ken defend themselves with Susan Wolf from UNC Chapel Hill.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Screenshot-2025-03-21-at-3.46.42 PM.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Ken and John debate (use?) the insanity defense. What difference does it make if the person who commits a crime is, in one way or another, mentally ill? Does this make punishment illegitimate? Why is punishment, rather than therapy, ever legitimate? Which sorts of mental illness should exempt a criminal from punishment? Inability to know right from wrong? Inability to resist compulsion? Irrational depravity? John and Ken defend themselves with Susan Wolf from UNC Chapel Hill.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Screenshot-2025-03-21-at-3.46.42 PM.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Patriotism versus Cosmopolitanism</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/patriotism-versus-cosmopolitanism/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5868</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Patriotism versus Comopolitanism: Is your loyalty to America and Americans more important than the common humanity you share with everyone on the globe?]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Patriotism versus Comopolitanism: Is your loyalty to America and Americans more important than the common humanity you share with everyone on the globe?]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Patriotism versus Comopolitanism: Is your loyalty to America and Americans more important than the common humanity you share with everyone on the globe?]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5868/patriotism-versus-cosmopolitanism.mp3" length="24850181" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Patriotism versus Comopolitanism: Is your loyalty to America and Americans more important than the common humanity you share with everyone on the globe?]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-85.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>51:46</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Patriotism versus Comopolitanism: Is your loyalty to America and Americans more important than the common humanity you share with everyone on the globe?]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-85.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Marriage and the State</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/marriage-and-the-state/</link>
	<pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2004 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5492</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[With what right does the state say who can and cannot marry? The state has, at various times, said that people of different races cannot marry, that people of the same sex cannot marry, that no one can marry more than one person at at time. But with what legitimate authority can the state make such prohibitions? John and Ken welcome Richard Mohr from the University of illinois at Urbana-Champaign, author of The Long Arc of Justice: Lesbian and Gay Marriage, Equality, and Rights.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[With what right does the state say who can and cannot marry? The state has, at various times, said that people of different races cannot marry, that people of the same sex cannot marry, that no one can marry more than one person at at time. But with what]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[With what right does the state say who can and cannot marry? The state has, at various times, said that people of different races cannot marry, that people of the same sex cannot marry, that no one can marry more than one person at at time. But with what legitimate authority can the state make such prohibitions? John and Ken welcome Richard Mohr from the University of illinois at Urbana-Champaign, author of The Long Arc of Justice: Lesbian and Gay Marriage, Equality, and Rights.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5492/marriage-and-the-state.mp3" length="30730449" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[With what right does the state say who can and cannot marry? The state has, at various times, said that people of different races cannot marry, that people of the same sex cannot marry, that no one can marry more than one person at at time. But with what legitimate authority can the state make such prohibitions? John and Ken welcome Richard Mohr from the University of illinois at Urbana-Champaign, author of The Long Arc of Justice: Lesbian and Gay Marriage, Equality, and Rights.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-84_0.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[With what right does the state say who can and cannot marry? The state has, at various times, said that people of different races cannot marry, that people of the same sex cannot marry, that no one can marry more than one person at at time. But with what legitimate authority can the state make such prohibitions? John and Ken welcome Richard Mohr from the University of illinois at Urbana-Champaign, author of The Long Arc of Justice: Lesbian and Gay Marriage, Equality, and Rights.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-84_0.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>What Is Race?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/what-is-race/</link>
	<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2004 03:23:39 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5513</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Is race a discredited pseudo-scientific category? Or a real dimension of difference among humans? Or a socially constructed reality? What difference does it make? John and Ken question the category of race with Anthony Appiah from Princeton University.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Is race a discredited pseudo-scientific category? Or a real dimension of difference among humans? Or a socially constructed reality? What difference does it make? John and Ken question the category of race with Anthony Appiah from Princeton University.]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Is race a discredited pseudo-scientific category? Or a real dimension of difference among humans? Or a socially constructed reality? What difference does it make? John and Ken question the category of race with Anthony Appiah from Princeton University.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5513/what-is-race.mp3" length="24605466" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Is race a discredited pseudo-scientific category? Or a real dimension of difference among humans? Or a socially constructed reality? What difference does it make? John and Ken question the category of race with Anthony Appiah from Princeton University.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/ZP_-QEbp6zQ.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Is race a discredited pseudo-scientific category? Or a real dimension of difference among humans? Or a socially constructed reality? What difference does it make? John and Ken question the category of race with Anthony Appiah from Princeton University.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/ZP_-QEbp6zQ.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Would You Want to Live Forever?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/would-you-want-to-live-forever-previousnext/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2004 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5486</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Pick your favorite age. You are healthy, career thriving, family intact (at least pretend!). Would you like to live forever at that age, in that health, with those friends and family members also living forever with you? Immortality, on earth? How about an extra fifty or one hundred years or two hundred beyond your present life expectancy?
Yes! Think of all I could get done!
No. I would be bored!
Yes, I could sit on the beach, and be in no hurry to do anything.
No, life gets its meaning from having a shape, and things without boundaries have no shape.
Would an immortal human life be incredibly boring or is a good human life so good it&#8217;s worth living to eternity?]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Pick your favorite age. You are healthy, career thriving, family intact (at least pretend!). Would you like to live forever at that age, in that health, with those friends and family members also living forever with you? Immortality, on earth? How about ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Pick your favorite age. You are healthy, career thriving, family intact (at least pretend!). Would you like to live forever at that age, in that health, with those friends and family members also living forever with you? Immortality, on earth? How about an extra fifty or one hundred years or two hundred beyond your present life expectancy?
Yes! Think of all I could get done!
No. I would be bored!
Yes, I could sit on the beach, and be in no hurry to do anything.
No, life gets its meaning from having a shape, and things without boundaries have no shape.
Would an immortal human life be incredibly boring or is a good human life so good it&#8217;s worth living to eternity?]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5486/would-you-want-to-live-forever-previousnext.mp3" length="29973026" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Pick your favorite age. You are healthy, career thriving, family intact (at least pretend!). Would you like to live forever at that age, in that health, with those friends and family members also living forever with you? Immortality, on earth? How about an extra fifty or one hundred years or two hundred beyond your present life expectancy?
Yes! Think of all I could get done!
No. I would be bored!
Yes, I could sit on the beach, and be in no hurry to do anything.
No, life gets its meaning from having a shape, and things without boundaries have no shape.
Would an immortal human life be incredibly boring or is a good human life so good it&#8217;s worth living to eternity?]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-82-1.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Pick your favorite age. You are healthy, career thriving, family intact (at least pretend!). Would you like to live forever at that age, in that health, with those friends and family members also living forever with you? Immortality, on earth? How about an extra fifty or one hundred years or two hundred beyond your present life expectancy?
Yes! Think of all I could get done!
No. I would be bored!
Yes, I could sit on the beach, and be in no hurry to do anything.
No, life gets its meaning from having a shape, and things without boundaries have no shape.
Would an immortal human life be incredibly boring or is a good human life so good it&#8217;s worth living to eternity?]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-82-1.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>The Bush Doctrine of Preemptive Self-Defense</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/bush-doctrine-preemptive-self-defense/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5264</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What is the difference between mere aggression and preemptive self defense?  Can you really permissibly &#8220;defend&#8221; yourself against an attack that hasn&#8217;t even begun?  How does preemptive self defense differ from preventive war, from humanitarian intervention? John and Ken do not pre-empt their questions to George R. Lucas Jr., Professor of Ethics and Public Policy at the U.S. Naval Academy.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What is the difference between mere aggression and preemptive self defense?  Can you really permissibly &#8220;defend&#8221; yourself against an attack that hasn&#8217;t even begun?  How does preemptive self defense differ from preventive war, from human]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What is the difference between mere aggression and preemptive self defense?  Can you really permissibly &#8220;defend&#8221; yourself against an attack that hasn&#8217;t even begun?  How does preemptive self defense differ from preventive war, from humanitarian intervention? John and Ken do not pre-empt their questions to George R. Lucas Jr., Professor of Ethics and Public Policy at the U.S. Naval Academy.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5264/bush-doctrine-preemptive-self-defense.mp3" length="30143478" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What is the difference between mere aggression and preemptive self defense?  Can you really permissibly &#8220;defend&#8221; yourself against an attack that hasn&#8217;t even begun?  How does preemptive self defense differ from preventive war, from humanitarian intervention? John and Ken do not pre-empt their questions to George R. Lucas Jr., Professor of Ethics and Public Policy at the U.S. Naval Academy.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2004/01/Rkh23duZut4.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What is the difference between mere aggression and preemptive self defense?  Can you really permissibly &#8220;defend&#8221; yourself against an attack that hasn&#8217;t even begun?  How does preemptive self defense differ from preventive war, from humanitarian intervention? John and Ken do not pre-empt their questions to George R. Lucas Jr., Professor of Ethics and Public Policy at the U.S. Naval Academy.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2004/01/Rkh23duZut4.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Live Pilot: Is Lying Always Bad?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/live-pilot-lying-always-bad/</link>
	<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2003 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/live-pilot-lying-always-bad/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Many philosophers have been tempted to condemn lying as an absolute evil. The problem is that as soon as you articulate some absolute principle such as &#8220;Never lie!&#8221; you can almost immediately think of circumstances in which lying seems the better course.]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Many philosophers have been tempted to condemn lying as an absolute evil. The problem is that as soon as you articulate some absolute principle such as &#8220;Never lie!&#8221; you can almost immediately think of circumstances in which lying seems the be]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Many philosophers have been tempted to condemn lying as an absolute evil. The problem is that as soon as you articulate some absolute principle such as &#8220;Never lie!&#8221; you can almost immediately think of circumstances in which lying seems the better course.]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/513/live-pilot-lying-always-bad.mp3" length="48098324" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Many philosophers have been tempted to condemn lying as an absolute evil. The problem is that as soon as you articulate some absolute principle such as &#8220;Never lie!&#8221; you can almost immediately think of circumstances in which lying seems the better course.]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/kNVXfr50S0A-1.jpg"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Many philosophers have been tempted to condemn lying as an absolute evil. The problem is that as soon as you articulate some absolute principle such as &#8220;Never lie!&#8221; you can almost immediately think of circumstances in which lying seems the better course.]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/kNVXfr50S0A-1.jpg"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Demo #2: What Is Terrorism?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/demo-2-what-terrorism/</link>
	<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jan 2003 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://import.philosophytalk.local/demo-2-what-terrorism/</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[What is terrorism? Is terrorism morally worse than other forms of warfare. Was Truman&#8217;s decision to drop the A-bomb and act of terrorism? Is the US a terrorist State? Is terrorism an insult the powerful use to deligitimate the only means of resistance open to the disempowered?]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[What is terrorism? Is terrorism morally worse than other forms of warfare. Was Truman&#8217;s decision to drop the A-bomb and act of terrorism? Is the US a terrorist State? Is terrorism an insult the powerful use to deligitimate the only means of resista]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[What is terrorism? Is terrorism morally worse than other forms of warfare. Was Truman&#8217;s decision to drop the A-bomb and act of terrorism? Is the US a terrorist State? Is terrorism an insult the powerful use to deligitimate the only means of resistance open to the disempowered?]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/350/demo-2-what-terrorism.mp3" length="28203467" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[What is terrorism? Is terrorism morally worse than other forms of warfare. Was Truman&#8217;s decision to drop the A-bomb and act of terrorism? Is the US a terrorist State? Is terrorism an insult the powerful use to deligitimate the only means of resistance open to the disempowered?]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Your-paragraph-text-80.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>0:00</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[What is terrorism? Is terrorism morally worse than other forms of warfare. Was Truman&#8217;s decision to drop the A-bomb and act of terrorism? Is the US a terrorist State? Is terrorism an insult the powerful use to deligitimate the only means of resistance open to the disempowered?]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Your-paragraph-text-80.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Demo #1: Can Machines Think?</title>
	<link>https://philosophy.clientdev.site/shows/demo-1-can-machines-think/</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2002 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://philosophy.clientdev.site/?post_type=shows&#038;p=5484</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Will Computers someday be able to have humanlike consciousnes and intelligence? Will they someday outstrip the thinking of humans?  Would it matter if they did?  Or is Artificial Intelligence on fundamentally the wrong track?]]></description>
	<itunes:subtitle><![CDATA[Will Computers someday be able to have humanlike consciousnes and intelligence? Will they someday outstrip the thinking of humans?  Would it matter if they did?  Or is Artificial Intelligence on fundamentally the wrong track?]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[Will Computers someday be able to have humanlike consciousnes and intelligence? Will they someday outstrip the thinking of humans?  Would it matter if they did?  Or is Artificial Intelligence on fundamentally the wrong track?]]></content:encoded>
	<enclosure url="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/podcast-download/5484/demo-1-can-machines-think.mp3" length="34227461" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![CDATA[Will Computers someday be able to have humanlike consciousnes and intelligence? Will they someday outstrip the thinking of humans?  Would it matter if they did?  Or is Artificial Intelligence on fundamentally the wrong track?]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-79-1.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>57:03</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[Philosophy Talk]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay:description><![CDATA[Will Computers someday be able to have humanlike consciousnes and intelligence? Will they someday outstrip the thinking of humans?  Would it matter if they did?  Or is Artificial Intelligence on fundamentally the wrong track?]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://philosophy.clientdev.site/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Your-paragraph-text-79-1.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
