Welcome to a special edition of the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson. It is great to have you with us. And if you are a regular listener, you've heard me say that this show is about bringing the voices of Americans in the geographic, political, and philosophical middle into the national conversation. Well, this hour, finally, we are going to focus on that last one, the philosophical middle.

Welcome to a special edition of the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson. It is great to have you with us. And if you are a regular listener, you've heard me say that this show is about bringing the voices of Americans in the geographic, political, and philosophical middle into the national conversation. Well, this hour, finally, we are going to focus on that last one, the philosophical middle.

What is that? What does it mean?

What is that? What does it mean?

Well, there is the middle Way in Buddhism, there is Aristotle's Golden Mean, and there are other components of philosophical thought that urge people to avoid the.

Well, there is the middle Way in Buddhism, there is Aristotle's Golden Mean, and there are other components of philosophical thought that urge people to avoid the.

Extremes and find compromise.

Extremes and find compromise.

We're going to talk about that and more with two philosophers this hour. But first, last week on the show, we asked you for your thoughts on the so called Big Beautiful Bill and what it could mean for you if it becomes law.

We're going to talk about that and more with two philosophers this hour. But first, last week on the show, we asked you for your thoughts on the so called Big Beautiful Bill and what it could mean for you if it becomes law.

Here are some of the voicemails that came in hither.

Here are some of the voicemails that came in hither.

My name's Louis. I'm calling from Wyoming. I think this bill is going to be a big failure for Republicans. I'm curious how many everyday voters people like that will actually see the negative impact. And I think it would be great if it packed or it didn't add so much to the deficit. However, since it is, it's going to be really bad if it passes for our country.

My name's Louis. I'm calling from Wyoming. I think this bill is going to be a big failure for Republicans. I'm curious how many everyday voters people like that will actually see the negative impact. And I think it would be great if it packed or it didn't add so much to the deficit. However, since it is, it's going to be really bad if it passes for our country.

Hi, my name's Anita and I'm from Say Georgie Talk, and I am concerned about the bill leaving my grandchildren and my great.

Hi, my name's Anita and I'm from Say Georgie Talk, and I am concerned about the bill leaving my grandchildren and my great.

Grandchildren in bigger debt.

Grandchildren in bigger debt.

And who's to say what's really really going to be in the bill in the first place.

And who's to say what's really really going to be in the bill in the first place.

I mean, Bardriie Taylor Green said that she signed it and she didn't even.

I mean, Bardriie Taylor Green said that she signed it and she didn't even.

Know what was in it.

Know what was in it.

Hi, my name is Tobias, sir, which I'm calling you from Baltimore and Maryland. It's a big, horrible bill that will take democracy backwards and the last thing I want is to see this bill react into law.

Hi, my name is Tobias, sir, which I'm calling you from Baltimore and Maryland. It's a big, horrible bill that will take democracy backwards and the last thing I want is to see this bill react into law.

Well, thanks to everyone who called in, and you can hear that entire episode on our podcast in partnership with iHeart Podcasts on the iHeart app or wherever you listen to podcasts. So now to our topic this hour, the philosophical middle, what it is and how we can weave philosophy into our politics and our daily lives. Joining me this hour Agnes Callard, Professor of philosophy at the University of Chicago. Her new book is called Open Socrates, The Case for a Philosophical Life.

Well, thanks to everyone who called in, and you can hear that entire episode on our podcast in partnership with iHeart Podcasts on the iHeart app or wherever you listen to podcasts. So now to our topic this hour, the philosophical middle, what it is and how we can weave philosophy into our politics and our daily lives. Joining me this hour Agnes Callard, Professor of philosophy at the University of Chicago. Her new book is called Open Socrates, The Case for a Philosophical Life.

Agnes Collard welcome, thank you, thanks for having me.

Agnes Collard welcome, thank you, thanks for having me.

And Stephen Asthma is also with us, professor of Philosophy at Columbia College Chicago. You can also hear him on the Chin Wag podcast, which he co hosts with the actor Paul Giamati.

And Stephen Asthma is also with us, professor of Philosophy at Columbia College Chicago. You can also hear him on the Chin Wag podcast, which he co hosts with the actor Paul Giamati.

Stephen, welcome to you.

Stephen, welcome to you.

Thanks for having me.

Thanks for having me.

Well, let me first ask each of you how you would describe the philosophical middle.

Well, let me first ask each of you how you would describe the philosophical middle.

Agnes, I'll start with you, So.

Agnes, I'll start with you, So.

In terms of ethical theories, I think what I would say is remarkable about philosophy is that it is a domain that's just very hospitable to extremism. So we have philosophers who deny the existence of the external world, deny that there are other minds, philosophers who are skeptics about basically anything you can possible be a skeptic about, who have radically different conceptions of what a good life is and how you should live one and all of those philosophers can kind of miraculously interact harmoniously and have productive conversations with one another, despite the fact that they occupy many different kinds of extremes.

In terms of ethical theories, I think what I would say is remarkable about philosophy is that it is a domain that's just very hospitable to extremism. So we have philosophers who deny the existence of the external world, deny that there are other minds, philosophers who are skeptics about basically anything you can possible be a skeptic about, who have radically different conceptions of what a good life is and how you should live one and all of those philosophers can kind of miraculously interact harmoniously and have productive conversations with one another, despite the fact that they occupy many different kinds of extremes.

Well, how do they do that? Where do they find the middle?

Well, how do they do that? Where do they find the middle?

I think it's in the norms of interaction, that is, they all agree on a set of norms about how to talk to one another.

I think it's in the norms of interaction, that is, they all agree on a set of norms about how to talk to one another.

Stephen, what do you think?

Stephen, what do you think?

Yeah?

Yeah?

I like what Agnes is saying is because especially modern philosophy has this tendency to do these thought experiments that are quite extreme. But I think the ancients, whether it's Aristotle or Confucius or the Buddha and Plato two, they had a kind of suspicion and a kind of worry about extreme emotions and extreme beliefs. They felt that if you didn't sort of can your appetites and your emotions like anger and find some kind of moderation path, then you would be easily sort of manipulated by your own inner drives and sort of forces. So the idea you see in Plato's Republic is how do you get it so that your reason will rule over your sort of emotions or your spirited part, which then they team up together against your appetites. And so there's this worry in the ancient world that your cravings, whether it's like for sex or chocolate cake, or the latest TikTok video that's going to basically send you into a kind of spiral. So a lot of them saw the moderation in the Middle Way as the kind of life preserver, the raft that you could hold on to.

I like what Agnes is saying is because especially modern philosophy has this tendency to do these thought experiments that are quite extreme. But I think the ancients, whether it's Aristotle or Confucius or the Buddha and Plato two, they had a kind of suspicion and a kind of worry about extreme emotions and extreme beliefs. They felt that if you didn't sort of can your appetites and your emotions like anger and find some kind of moderation path, then you would be easily sort of manipulated by your own inner drives and sort of forces. So the idea you see in Plato's Republic is how do you get it so that your reason will rule over your sort of emotions or your spirited part, which then they team up together against your appetites. And so there's this worry in the ancient world that your cravings, whether it's like for sex or chocolate cake, or the latest TikTok video that's going to basically send you into a kind of spiral. So a lot of them saw the moderation in the Middle Way as the kind of life preserver, the raft that you could hold on to.

They recognize that their positions were extreme, even though they had them.

They recognize that their positions were extreme, even though they had them.

Well, they saw extreme positions all around them in religion, for example, mostly in religion, and they thought of reason as a kind of I mean, maybe we'd agree on this Agnes that they were naive about how powerful reason was and that it could save us. But the Enlightenment project was that if you let your conspiracy theories fly, then you end up with a kind of chaotic you know, you end up with a thirty years war, and you end up with religious fighting, and you end up with our contemporary, you know, polarizing politics. So they thought reason was this middle territory that everyone shared, and if you could cultivate your rationality, you would stop these kind of overly dramatic passions.

Well, they saw extreme positions all around them in religion, for example, mostly in religion, and they thought of reason as a kind of I mean, maybe we'd agree on this Agnes that they were naive about how powerful reason was and that it could save us. But the Enlightenment project was that if you let your conspiracy theories fly, then you end up with a kind of chaotic you know, you end up with a thirty years war, and you end up with religious fighting, and you end up with our contemporary, you know, polarizing politics. So they thought reason was this middle territory that everyone shared, and if you could cultivate your rationality, you would stop these kind of overly dramatic passions.

So taming the passion is important. Yeah.

So taming the passion is important. Yeah.

The Buddha, the historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gotama is living in like the sixth century BC, and he he lived like his early part of his life, he was a rich kid, so he was a wealthy son of like you know, landed gentry. And then he thought he realized that everybody suffers from age and disease and disappointments, and so he leaves this wealthy sort of life of privilege and he goes in totally the opposite direction. So then he starts living like a wandering mendicant. He's an ascetic. He doesn't eat much. He just practices yoga all day long. He starves himself meditating. But eventually he almost drowns, like in the Ganges River, and he's fished out of there. And then he resolves, Okay, I've tried both extremes. I've lived like a rich, opulent lifestyle and I've lived this life of self denial, and these don't get you anywhere. So he says, I'm now going to live the middle way, which is a technical term for Buddhism. It means like avoid the extremes, not just in terms of wealth, but also in terms of knowledge and metaphysics and all this other stuff. So it's a nice I think the Buddhism really clings to the middle. Yeah, should be your patrons sayd here the Buddha.

The Buddha, the historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gotama is living in like the sixth century BC, and he he lived like his early part of his life, he was a rich kid, so he was a wealthy son of like you know, landed gentry. And then he thought he realized that everybody suffers from age and disease and disappointments, and so he leaves this wealthy sort of life of privilege and he goes in totally the opposite direction. So then he starts living like a wandering mendicant. He's an ascetic. He doesn't eat much. He just practices yoga all day long. He starves himself meditating. But eventually he almost drowns, like in the Ganges River, and he's fished out of there. And then he resolves, Okay, I've tried both extremes. I've lived like a rich, opulent lifestyle and I've lived this life of self denial, and these don't get you anywhere. So he says, I'm now going to live the middle way, which is a technical term for Buddhism. It means like avoid the extremes, not just in terms of wealth, but also in terms of knowledge and metaphysics and all this other stuff. So it's a nice I think the Buddhism really clings to the middle. Yeah, should be your patrons sayd here the Buddha.

Maybe we should change the logo of the show, Agnes, what about what about the golden mean from Aristotle?

Maybe we should change the logo of the show, Agnes, what about what about the golden mean from Aristotle?

What can you just tell us briefly about that?

What can you just tell us briefly about that?

What is that?

What is that?

It's not a principle that's meant to regulate ethical theories. It's a principle about the kind of character that you should have. And the idea is that to be virtuous is to inhabit a middle condition between two vices, so that a courageous person is not falling into the excess of cowardice, but is also not falling into the excess of rashness, of being like too bold. But even there, when when Aristol describes the mean, he says, it's the middle condition in accordance with orthos logos, the correct account, correct reason. And there's a sense in which for Aristotle, as for pretty much all of his sort of contemporaries and his descendants, and certainly for Plato and Socrates, his kind of ancestors, there is a kind of primacy of reason as having the role of determining what this middle course is. He didn't think it was obvious. He didn't think you just somehow average together the worst kind of cowardice with the worst kind of rashness, and you'll get this perfect golden mean in the middle. He thinks that you have to use the power of reason to bring the middle state to light. And so I do think that thinkers like Aristotle and Plato, maybe Plato more so than Aristotle, had a huge amount of faith in the power of reason, and they were in that way extremists about that claim. That is, they didn't think you'd be able to find the middle way except in except by understanding it.

It's not a principle that's meant to regulate ethical theories. It's a principle about the kind of character that you should have. And the idea is that to be virtuous is to inhabit a middle condition between two vices, so that a courageous person is not falling into the excess of cowardice, but is also not falling into the excess of rashness, of being like too bold. But even there, when when Aristol describes the mean, he says, it's the middle condition in accordance with orthos logos, the correct account, correct reason. And there's a sense in which for Aristotle, as for pretty much all of his sort of contemporaries and his descendants, and certainly for Plato and Socrates, his kind of ancestors, there is a kind of primacy of reason as having the role of determining what this middle course is. He didn't think it was obvious. He didn't think you just somehow average together the worst kind of cowardice with the worst kind of rashness, and you'll get this perfect golden mean in the middle. He thinks that you have to use the power of reason to bring the middle state to light. And so I do think that thinkers like Aristotle and Plato, maybe Plato more so than Aristotle, had a huge amount of faith in the power of reason, and they were in that way extremists about that claim. That is, they didn't think you'd be able to find the middle way except in except by understanding it.

Now, when you talk about these different philosophies and trying to get to the middle, trying to find reason, trying to find the more rational approach, agnes, when you look at the country today, it does seem like in many cases in our media and our politics, we're moving in the opposite direction. We're getting more toward the extremes with a common set of facts. Do you agree with that or what do you think is going on in our society right now?

Now, when you talk about these different philosophies and trying to get to the middle, trying to find reason, trying to find the more rational approach, agnes, when you look at the country today, it does seem like in many cases in our media and our politics, we're moving in the opposite direction. We're getting more toward the extremes with a common set of facts. Do you agree with that or what do you think is going on in our society right now?

I think that's a really hard question to answer. And one of the striking things about the world we live in is how ready people are to pronounce confidently on where things are going, which is like it's just like an It's like an incredibly complicated math problem. How are things going? You have to choose what to pay attention to. It does feel to me like right now everything is very loud. There are a lot of loud voices, and they're kind of all yelling at the same time. I would separate the question about polarization from a second question about whether we can have rational dialogue. To me, those are really different questions for the reason that I gave earlier, which is that philosophy can be very polarized. People can adopt very extreme positions, and that doesn't mean that everyone is shouting and nobody can talk to each other. In fact, it facilitates people. It facilitates interesting conversations in the same way as you might in many context we like polarization. If you know that you can see two movies and one of those movies everyone kind of says it's okay, and the other movies like you either love it, it's your favorite movie ever, or you hate it. Which one do you want to see? Maybe you want to see the second one where you love it or you hate it. Right, it's not terrible if something is polarizing. Polarization by itself is not necessarily a problem. What's a problem is when those polarized positions become structured as a kind of war where one side is trying to defeat the other, instead of a situation where people use the fact that they have.

I think that's a really hard question to answer. And one of the striking things about the world we live in is how ready people are to pronounce confidently on where things are going, which is like it's just like an It's like an incredibly complicated math problem. How are things going? You have to choose what to pay attention to. It does feel to me like right now everything is very loud. There are a lot of loud voices, and they're kind of all yelling at the same time. I would separate the question about polarization from a second question about whether we can have rational dialogue. To me, those are really different questions for the reason that I gave earlier, which is that philosophy can be very polarized. People can adopt very extreme positions, and that doesn't mean that everyone is shouting and nobody can talk to each other. In fact, it facilitates people. It facilitates interesting conversations in the same way as you might in many context we like polarization. If you know that you can see two movies and one of those movies everyone kind of says it's okay, and the other movies like you either love it, it's your favorite movie ever, or you hate it. Which one do you want to see? Maybe you want to see the second one where you love it or you hate it. Right, it's not terrible if something is polarizing. Polarization by itself is not necessarily a problem. What's a problem is when those polarized positions become structured as a kind of war where one side is trying to defeat the other, instead of a situation where people use the fact that they have.

Very different vantage points.

Very different vantage points.

To their advantage in an inquiry, which is what we're trying to do in philosophy. So I think what we're seeing today with just the very many loud voices is there's a bunch of conversations that we're sort of trying to have, but we're failing to have them. It's hard to know, That's what I was getting at the beginning. It's hard to know which aspect of that to emphasize. Is it really bad because we're failing to have them, or is it kind of good because we're sort of trying to have them. We've just, you know, been the beneficiaries of a bunch of communication technology that makes it, at least in principle, kind of feasible to think in terms of having this big national conversation, and then all we hear is a bunch of loud voices. But I find it hard to assess that situation.

To their advantage in an inquiry, which is what we're trying to do in philosophy. So I think what we're seeing today with just the very many loud voices is there's a bunch of conversations that we're sort of trying to have, but we're failing to have them. It's hard to know, That's what I was getting at the beginning. It's hard to know which aspect of that to emphasize. Is it really bad because we're failing to have them, or is it kind of good because we're sort of trying to have them. We've just, you know, been the beneficiaries of a bunch of communication technology that makes it, at least in principle, kind of feasible to think in terms of having this big national conversation, and then all we hear is a bunch of loud voices. But I find it hard to assess that situation.

You say, we've been the beneficiaries. I guess in broad strokes, we have benefited from technology, but in some ways you could say we are the victims.

You say, we've been the beneficiaries. I guess in broad strokes, we have benefited from technology, but in some ways you could say we are the victims.

Of this value.

Of this value.

We're the recipients.

We're the recipients.

We're the recipients, were the.

We're the recipients, were the.

Recipients of a bunch of technology. The jury is still out as to how we choose.

Recipients of a bunch of technology. The jury is still out as to how we choose.

To use it.

To use it.

Yeah, well, stand by because at a moment we're going to talk about how philosophy applies to our politics these days. But as we go to break, listen here to the British philosopher Bertrand Russell talking in nineteen fifty nine about the lessons he would want to impart on future generations.

Yeah, well, stand by because at a moment we're going to talk about how philosophy applies to our politics these days. But as we go to break, listen here to the British philosopher Bertrand Russell talking in nineteen fifty nine about the lessons he would want to impart on future generations.

Love is wise, Hatred is foolish. In this world which is getting more and more closely interconnected, to learn to tolerate each other. We have to learn to put up with the fact that some people say things that we don't like. We can only live together in that way, and if we are to live together and not die together, we must learn the kind of charity and kind of tolerance which is absolutely vital to the continuation of human life on this planet.

Love is wise, Hatred is foolish. In this world which is getting more and more closely interconnected, to learn to tolerate each other. We have to learn to put up with the fact that some people say things that we don't like. We can only live together in that way, and if we are to live together and not die together, we must learn the kind of charity and kind of tolerance which is absolutely vital to the continuation of human life on this planet.

Bertrand Russell, whose English is so proper he makes King Charles sound like a commoner, stay with us more about the philosophical middle. Coming up, This is the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson. This hour, we're focusing on the philosophical middle and talking about what we can learn from philosophy and apply to our lives politically and socially. I'm joined by Agnes Collard, Professor of philosophy at the University of Chicago, and Steven Asthma, Professor of philosophy at Columbia College Chicago. Stephen, you've written about Donald Trump and Trump is in a philosophical way, not really making judgments about it, but just looking at it as objectively as possible. What do you make of Trump's dominance of our politics?

Bertrand Russell, whose English is so proper he makes King Charles sound like a commoner, stay with us more about the philosophical middle. Coming up, This is the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson. This hour, we're focusing on the philosophical middle and talking about what we can learn from philosophy and apply to our lives politically and socially. I'm joined by Agnes Collard, Professor of philosophy at the University of Chicago, and Steven Asthma, Professor of philosophy at Columbia College Chicago. Stephen, you've written about Donald Trump and Trump is in a philosophical way, not really making judgments about it, but just looking at it as objectively as possible. What do you make of Trump's dominance of our politics?

Oh?

Oh?

God, okay, we may need several more shows. But I was sort of making a general comment about My own background is in philosophy of biology, and I sort of look at things through an evolutionary perspective. I think in many ways politics for me has to be understood in terms of the larger question of human evolution and cooperation. So I look at somebody like Trump and I see that he appeals to certain parts of the human being all of us, which is somebody who has a sense of certainty, direction mission. Even if you don't believe that he can deliver on any of those things. He represents a classic straw man I'm sorry strong man, which might be a strong man as well. That's sort of it's oftentimes the case that when there's chaos, people will give over their freedoms to somebody that has a kind of authoritarian approach. I lived in Cambodia for a while after the Cambodian kim Erusian after the civil war, people were willing to hand over a lot of their freedoms to the Prime Minister Hunsen, and he has held power there for over thirty years. And it's possible that somebody like trump fulfills that need when people are feeling unstable. But I think what's happening is that the media, for example, also hijacks human nature. So we have an outrage media that hijacks the human attention towards threats, so we key in on things that cause fear and are threatening. So it's no accident that the media basically gives us two stories, like you're either with us or you're against us. Because it's not just that the media is out to get is they're just simply hijacking a human system of attention, and human beings evolved to survive, so they attend to things that are fearful, and if you keep feeding them fear, they will keep tuning in. And so that's sort of the approach that I have about politics and media.

God, okay, we may need several more shows. But I was sort of making a general comment about My own background is in philosophy of biology, and I sort of look at things through an evolutionary perspective. I think in many ways politics for me has to be understood in terms of the larger question of human evolution and cooperation. So I look at somebody like Trump and I see that he appeals to certain parts of the human being all of us, which is somebody who has a sense of certainty, direction mission. Even if you don't believe that he can deliver on any of those things. He represents a classic straw man I'm sorry strong man, which might be a strong man as well. That's sort of it's oftentimes the case that when there's chaos, people will give over their freedoms to somebody that has a kind of authoritarian approach. I lived in Cambodia for a while after the Cambodian kim Erusian after the civil war, people were willing to hand over a lot of their freedoms to the Prime Minister Hunsen, and he has held power there for over thirty years. And it's possible that somebody like trump fulfills that need when people are feeling unstable. But I think what's happening is that the media, for example, also hijacks human nature. So we have an outrage media that hijacks the human attention towards threats, so we key in on things that cause fear and are threatening. So it's no accident that the media basically gives us two stories, like you're either with us or you're against us. Because it's not just that the media is out to get is they're just simply hijacking a human system of attention, and human beings evolved to survive, so they attend to things that are fearful, and if you keep feeding them fear, they will keep tuning in. And so that's sort of the approach that I have about politics and media.

Well, and Agnes.

Well, and Agnes.

It kind of gets to what you were saying a moment ago about sort of having such certainty about your position.

It kind of gets to what you were saying a moment ago about sort of having such certainty about your position.

Trump feels not so foreign to me as a kind of scholar of the ancient world. There were just a lot of tyrannical personalities and figures who achieved what they achieved. I think because they were good at appealing to people. They were good at getting the people to set them up as a tyrant. That's how Plato would put it. That was a common figure, and in fact it was. There's a dialogue in which Socrates is asked, but look, isn't that what everyone secretly wants wants? Don't we all secretly want to be Trump? Don't we all secretly want to rule the world in a way where we are not subject to the usual constraints of the law or morality. And the person that he's talking to just thinks it's obvious, that's what everyone wants.

Trump feels not so foreign to me as a kind of scholar of the ancient world. There were just a lot of tyrannical personalities and figures who achieved what they achieved. I think because they were good at appealing to people. They were good at getting the people to set them up as a tyrant. That's how Plato would put it. That was a common figure, and in fact it was. There's a dialogue in which Socrates is asked, but look, isn't that what everyone secretly wants wants? Don't we all secretly want to be Trump? Don't we all secretly want to rule the world in a way where we are not subject to the usual constraints of the law or morality. And the person that he's talking to just thinks it's obvious, that's what everyone wants.

We just most of us can't get it.

We just most of us can't get it.

And you know, maybe we admire Trump because he's getting the thing we want, or maybe we hate him because he's getting a thing we secretly want, but we all agree that that's secretly, deeply what we would want. And Socrates says, no, if you're asking me whether I admire this tyrant, he's not asked but Trump, obviously, but he's being asked about a certain tyrant in his world. He's like, well, what I want to know about him is how does he stand with respect to justice and injustice? That is, is he a good or bad person? I need to know that before I can admire him or not. And I think Socrates thought we really could get our bearings in that way, that is, we could educate ourselves into a position where we would we would learn not to admire people who were unjust, but that that took philosophy. It took philosophical work to educate ourselves out of that. And so like, that's the thought I often have. If Socrates were alive today, he would I think. The thing I could say about him is he wouldn't be jealous of Trump, which is like not a thing.

And you know, maybe we admire Trump because he's getting the thing we want, or maybe we hate him because he's getting a thing we secretly want, but we all agree that that's secretly, deeply what we would want. And Socrates says, no, if you're asking me whether I admire this tyrant, he's not asked but Trump, obviously, but he's being asked about a certain tyrant in his world. He's like, well, what I want to know about him is how does he stand with respect to justice and injustice? That is, is he a good or bad person? I need to know that before I can admire him or not. And I think Socrates thought we really could get our bearings in that way, that is, we could educate ourselves into a position where we would we would learn not to admire people who were unjust, but that that took philosophy. It took philosophical work to educate ourselves out of that. And so like, that's the thought I often have. If Socrates were alive today, he would I think. The thing I could say about him is he wouldn't be jealous of Trump, which is like not a thing.

I'm sure I could.

I'm sure I could.

I'm sure I can say about anybody else, but I feel sure that I could say that about Socrates. And is related to a certainty. It has to do with like you can be very certain of things and you can be wrong. And if you're certain of things where there are moral claims and you're wrong about them, then you might be in a very bad way and be unaware of it. That's what Socrates was worried about.

I'm sure I can say about anybody else, but I feel sure that I could say that about Socrates. And is related to a certainty. It has to do with like you can be very certain of things and you can be wrong. And if you're certain of things where there are moral claims and you're wrong about them, then you might be in a very bad way and be unaware of it. That's what Socrates was worried about.

Stephen, is there a philosophical basis for democratic politics right now? Do you see anything in a similar way to how the democrats act philosophically?

Stephen, is there a philosophical basis for democratic politics right now? Do you see anything in a similar way to how the democrats act philosophically?

I thought you were asking about a sort of democracy small d but you're asking about the party of parties right well, God, there is a kind of just sort of going off of what Agnes was pointing out, there is a kind of obvious tyrant, which is in the case of one person who's achieved a kind of outsize power, and as Plato and many of the ancients would agree, that person might look like they're happy because they have so much power, but inside psychologically they're very distressed. They're constant. It's like a gangster movie like you watch, you know, Goodfellows or something. It looks great until you look at how paranoid and freaked out they are in their minds. And so that's sort of against the sort of centralized authoritarian tyrant. But there's also a tyranny of ideas. And what I think the left is good at, and I don't mean this as a compliment, but they're good at making an ideology that you must conform to, and if you don't conform to that ideology, you're considered either a racist or a bigot, or otherwise some degenerate, deplorable. They're very good at formalizing this nest of litmus test ideas, and it becomes its own kind of tyranny. You can't identify it so clearly, like oh, that's the guy, but you feel very distinctly like I better not share this idea at work because all these lefties are going to crucify me. And that's a common problem in the academy where it's dominated by the left.

I thought you were asking about a sort of democracy small d but you're asking about the party of parties right well, God, there is a kind of just sort of going off of what Agnes was pointing out, there is a kind of obvious tyrant, which is in the case of one person who's achieved a kind of outsize power, and as Plato and many of the ancients would agree, that person might look like they're happy because they have so much power, but inside psychologically they're very distressed. They're constant. It's like a gangster movie like you watch, you know, Goodfellows or something. It looks great until you look at how paranoid and freaked out they are in their minds. And so that's sort of against the sort of centralized authoritarian tyrant. But there's also a tyranny of ideas. And what I think the left is good at, and I don't mean this as a compliment, but they're good at making an ideology that you must conform to, and if you don't conform to that ideology, you're considered either a racist or a bigot, or otherwise some degenerate, deplorable. They're very good at formalizing this nest of litmus test ideas, and it becomes its own kind of tyranny. You can't identify it so clearly, like oh, that's the guy, but you feel very distinctly like I better not share this idea at work because all these lefties are going to crucify me. And that's a common problem in the academy where it's dominated by the left.

Was the world of philosophy Agnes touched by the kind of cancel culture that occurred a few years ago.

Was the world of philosophy Agnes touched by the kind of cancel culture that occurred a few years ago.

I think touched as an understatement.

I think touched as an understatement.

It's like deeplichaped by it in the ways that Stephen was just saying that is it's not coming from the outside, the message is coming from inside the house. We I think it's a really nice point about tyrannical ideology, and I had never thought of it that way.

It's like deeplichaped by it in the ways that Stephen was just saying that is it's not coming from the outside, the message is coming from inside the house. We I think it's a really nice point about tyrannical ideology, and I had never thought of it that way.

That in so far as.

That in so far as.

You get a discipline where there is a fair amount of political agreement among people in the discipline, and that's true for philosophy, as it is for all of that kademia, then at least it's not going to be true for all of the philosophy, but the parts of philosophy that kind of touch on politics, So political philosophy or ethics or whatever there is, there is going to be this kind of deep sensitivity to.

You get a discipline where there is a fair amount of political agreement among people in the discipline, and that's true for philosophy, as it is for all of that kademia, then at least it's not going to be true for all of the philosophy, but the parts of philosophy that kind of touch on politics, So political philosophy or ethics or whatever there is, there is going to be this kind of deep sensitivity to.

Having your examples come out on the right side.

Having your examples come out on the right side.

And so it's not it's not at the level of here's a thing I'm afraid to say. It's slightly worse than that. It's like you don't even think of saying the thing. You're afraid, you're not even afraid of saying it because you're so fully indoctrinated into the way that people.

And so it's not it's not at the level of here's a thing I'm afraid to say. It's slightly worse than that. It's like you don't even think of saying the thing. You're afraid, you're not even afraid of saying it because you're so fully indoctrinated into the way that people.

Like you talk.

Like you talk.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I was just talking to a political science professor the other day who said he used to ask his students at the beginning of the class to kind of talk about what's going on in the news, and they're so afraid to say anything right now that he doesn't even do that anymore.

I was just talking to a political science professor the other day who said he used to ask his students at the beginning of the class to kind of talk about what's going on in the news, and they're so afraid to say anything right now that he doesn't even do that anymore.

That's sad, Really, it is sad. It is sad.

That's sad, Really, it is sad. It is sad.

We heard bertrand Russell talking a moment ago about tolerance, Steven, tolerating other people even when they disagree because we're so interconnected. Now, how do we get more of that, especially in our politics these days, to tolerate people whose ideas are dissimilar.

We heard bertrand Russell talking a moment ago about tolerance, Steven, tolerating other people even when they disagree because we're so interconnected. Now, how do we get more of that, especially in our politics these days, to tolerate people whose ideas are dissimilar.

Yeah, I think there is a because things are so polarized now, there's a sense that if you're in the middle, that you must be some kind of coward and you just don't feel strongly about your views, and that you know, it's a position of weakness. I think this is a huge mistake. There's a wonderful tradition that bertrand Russell's drawing on there. It goes back to people like Erasmus and in Praise of Folly, where it's okay to not know, it's all right to say I need more information, I haven't made up my mind about this. That teaches you a kind of what philosophers would call sort of an epistemic human like an intellectual humility. You know, if you look at Erasmus, or you look at a lot of stuff that Bertrand Russell writes, it shows you that you should not be very confident about your views because knowledge is such a it's just fraught with doubt and skepticism. And exactly when you think you have the truth, then you learn, oh, you were totally wrong about that, even in the sciences and physics. So people should just learn to hold their ideas a little more lightly. And when you do that, it tends to give you a little more charity towards other people's views instead of just damning them. And so that's the threat of dogmatism. And I feel like philosophy can provide some helpful there's too much skepticism when you don't know what to do or say or think. But healthy skepticism is just sort of, I don't know, levening your views with a little humility.

Yeah, I think there is a because things are so polarized now, there's a sense that if you're in the middle, that you must be some kind of coward and you just don't feel strongly about your views, and that you know, it's a position of weakness. I think this is a huge mistake. There's a wonderful tradition that bertrand Russell's drawing on there. It goes back to people like Erasmus and in Praise of Folly, where it's okay to not know, it's all right to say I need more information, I haven't made up my mind about this. That teaches you a kind of what philosophers would call sort of an epistemic human like an intellectual humility. You know, if you look at Erasmus, or you look at a lot of stuff that Bertrand Russell writes, it shows you that you should not be very confident about your views because knowledge is such a it's just fraught with doubt and skepticism. And exactly when you think you have the truth, then you learn, oh, you were totally wrong about that, even in the sciences and physics. So people should just learn to hold their ideas a little more lightly. And when you do that, it tends to give you a little more charity towards other people's views instead of just damning them. And so that's the threat of dogmatism. And I feel like philosophy can provide some helpful there's too much skepticism when you don't know what to do or say or think. But healthy skepticism is just sort of, I don't know, levening your views with a little humility.

I was lucky enough during college to take a class with Elie Wesel, a Nobel Peace Laurate Holocaust survivor, and he would quote, I believe a philosopher who said trust those who seek the truth, distrust those who found it at which I thought was just a great, a great.

I was lucky enough during college to take a class with Elie Wesel, a Nobel Peace Laurate Holocaust survivor, and he would quote, I believe a philosopher who said trust those who seek the truth, distrust those who found it at which I thought was just a great, a great.

Line of agnes.

Line of agnes.

You know, if you listen to politicians these days and they talk about the willingness to compromise, the thing that they'll say in the next breath is, but I you know, I'm gonna stand firm in my beliefs when I need to. Is it possible to do both of those things at the same time.

You know, if you listen to politicians these days and they talk about the willingness to compromise, the thing that they'll say in the next breath is, but I you know, I'm gonna stand firm in my beliefs when I need to. Is it possible to do both of those things at the same time.

To both compromise and stand firm with respect to the very same things.

To both compromise and stand firm with respect to the very same things.

No, I don't think so.

No, I don't think so.

I actually think there's a real problem here, like that Wezel quote trust those who seek the truth, but don't trust those who found it. Like, on the face of it, that's just kind of nonsense, Like if it matters for them to seek it, it'd be even better if they found it. Now, the way I think we're supposed to read that is, don't trust those who claim they found it.

I actually think there's a real problem here, like that Wezel quote trust those who seek the truth, but don't trust those who found it. Like, on the face of it, that's just kind of nonsense, Like if it matters for them to seek it, it'd be even better if they found it. Now, the way I think we're supposed to read that is, don't trust those who claim they found it.

Right if they actually found it, yes, you should trust them.

Right if they actually found it, yes, you should trust them.

And so I think that this reveals like kind of I kind of disagree with Russell and with Wiseel in that way that I don't think tolerance is the highest value.

And so I think that this reveals like kind of I kind of disagree with Russell and with Wiseel in that way that I don't think tolerance is the highest value.

I don't think compromise is the end point is the goal.

I don't think compromise is the end point is the goal.

Compromise is the means, and tolerance is like how we get through a rough patch. But the word I would prefer to use is patience. And that's because I think these questions where we're trying to figure out the answer, they're they're really important and it's not okay that we disagree about them, and there's a there's a way in which tolerant, the attitude of tolerance, can trivialize the disagreement. So I have a colleague who reports that with her students, when they talk about really charged topics, the students all say to one another, your opinion is really valid. That was that was a valid opinion. And she says to them, wait a minute, you disagree with this other person, Like, I want to hear it. I want All they want to say is your opinion is valid. So they're scared to disagree. They want to just tolerate. And I think that that can lead us we can kind of stall out on the seeking that Weisel was pointing us towards. We can stall out on the inquiry. So I guess the way that I see the value of compromise is that it has to serve a higher end of like Ultimately, I'm going to get where I want by compromising. The compromise itself is not a perfect instantiation of what I want. It's a compromise. And similarly, instead of tolerance, I would say, look, I'm gonna have patience with people who disagree with me, because it could be that I'm the one who's wrong and they're gonna show me that I'm wrong. I'm not just tolerating their views because again, I might be the one who's wrong, So tolerance will be the wrong attitude. But it's that we're in the middle of a journey, not at the end of it.

Compromise is the means, and tolerance is like how we get through a rough patch. But the word I would prefer to use is patience. And that's because I think these questions where we're trying to figure out the answer, they're they're really important and it's not okay that we disagree about them, and there's a there's a way in which tolerant, the attitude of tolerance, can trivialize the disagreement. So I have a colleague who reports that with her students, when they talk about really charged topics, the students all say to one another, your opinion is really valid. That was that was a valid opinion. And she says to them, wait a minute, you disagree with this other person, Like, I want to hear it. I want All they want to say is your opinion is valid. So they're scared to disagree. They want to just tolerate. And I think that that can lead us we can kind of stall out on the seeking that Weisel was pointing us towards. We can stall out on the inquiry. So I guess the way that I see the value of compromise is that it has to serve a higher end of like Ultimately, I'm going to get where I want by compromising. The compromise itself is not a perfect instantiation of what I want. It's a compromise. And similarly, instead of tolerance, I would say, look, I'm gonna have patience with people who disagree with me, because it could be that I'm the one who's wrong and they're gonna show me that I'm wrong. I'm not just tolerating their views because again, I might be the one who's wrong, So tolerance will be the wrong attitude. But it's that we're in the middle of a journey, not at the end of it.

Well, and Stephen, let me throw one other thing at you that probably a lot of our listeners have experienced, which is people who on social media, where a lot of the conversation takes place these days, they just start unfriending or getting rid of the people who say things that they don't want to hear. So then they end up even in more of a bubble where they only reinforce the beliefs that they already had.

Well, and Stephen, let me throw one other thing at you that probably a lot of our listeners have experienced, which is people who on social media, where a lot of the conversation takes place these days, they just start unfriending or getting rid of the people who say things that they don't want to hear. So then they end up even in more of a bubble where they only reinforce the beliefs that they already had.

Yeah, that's a common problem, and I think it's we have to change that view about beliefs really and about I suppose even about the ideas about the truth. It's very common for family members to even like break apart just because they disagree about politics. And when I was a kid, nobody did that. You would disagree about politics, but there was a sense there was a shared world as well, and you could exit your political bubble and enter this shared world together, which I think is harder to find because we're increasingly living in this simularckrum all the time, this online world of extremes, and even just you know, you have to understand who the stakeholders are. You might have a very very hardcore Republican and a very hardcore Democrat. But then maybe they meet at their kids, you know, fencing or Little League game, and they share like a conversation. They realize the other person's not a monster. There's a sense in which these like I think they're sometimes called third spaces by social science, right space, so they're decreased maybe, and that they act as a wonderful curative to some of the partisan sort of living in a bubble problem. I also think there's a kind of maybe a utopian sense about the truth, which is, when you have it, all of the truths are going to live together with each other and I'm sort of more of a conservative and think that actually what happens is it's not like you're right and they're wrong. They're right and they're wrong. Oftentimes it's a battle between two good things. They just are mutually exclusive. And that's a difficult thing for us to accept because we're all kind of utopian, liberal minded. We think everyone's going to be able to share and get along and it's going to be a kind of kumbaya thing ultimately when we get there. But ultimately, some of the good things for my family are not going to be good things for your family. That's just the way it is. From my point of view. It's I'm sort of influenced by a philosopher named Isaiah Berlin who thinks about the good as not absolutely opposed to the evil or bad, but rather politics is about trying to balance and find coexistence between goods. But ultimately there's friction and contest and conflict ages.

Yeah, that's a common problem, and I think it's we have to change that view about beliefs really and about I suppose even about the ideas about the truth. It's very common for family members to even like break apart just because they disagree about politics. And when I was a kid, nobody did that. You would disagree about politics, but there was a sense there was a shared world as well, and you could exit your political bubble and enter this shared world together, which I think is harder to find because we're increasingly living in this simularckrum all the time, this online world of extremes, and even just you know, you have to understand who the stakeholders are. You might have a very very hardcore Republican and a very hardcore Democrat. But then maybe they meet at their kids, you know, fencing or Little League game, and they share like a conversation. They realize the other person's not a monster. There's a sense in which these like I think they're sometimes called third spaces by social science, right space, so they're decreased maybe, and that they act as a wonderful curative to some of the partisan sort of living in a bubble problem. I also think there's a kind of maybe a utopian sense about the truth, which is, when you have it, all of the truths are going to live together with each other and I'm sort of more of a conservative and think that actually what happens is it's not like you're right and they're wrong. They're right and they're wrong. Oftentimes it's a battle between two good things. They just are mutually exclusive. And that's a difficult thing for us to accept because we're all kind of utopian, liberal minded. We think everyone's going to be able to share and get along and it's going to be a kind of kumbaya thing ultimately when we get there. But ultimately, some of the good things for my family are not going to be good things for your family. That's just the way it is. From my point of view. It's I'm sort of influenced by a philosopher named Isaiah Berlin who thinks about the good as not absolutely opposed to the evil or bad, but rather politics is about trying to balance and find coexistence between goods. But ultimately there's friction and contest and conflict ages.

What do you think about that.

What do you think about that.

People who sort of go into their information bubbles or they just you know, they'll take any fact or news item and just use it to bolster their preconceived notions about something.

People who sort of go into their information bubbles or they just you know, they'll take any fact or news item and just use it to bolster their preconceived notions about something.

I'm inclined to think that when we frame a person that way, we're just not understanding them very well. That is, that's a caricature of a person, and if they were here, we'd have any conversation about that.

I'm inclined to think that when we frame a person that way, we're just not understanding them very well. That is, that's a caricature of a person, and if they were here, we'd have any conversation about that.

So we're repeating the problem by thinking about it that way.

So we're repeating the problem by thinking about it that way.

But I think I think it's interesting this, this Berlin thought, this thought that conflicts of interest are final or something that's really very deeply different from the way people thought in the ancient world, where they believed in the unity of the virtues.

But I think I think it's interesting this, this Berlin thought, this thought that conflicts of interest are final or something that's really very deeply different from the way people thought in the ancient world, where they believed in the unity of the virtues.

So this is Plano, this is Aristotle.

So this is Plano, this is Aristotle.

They all believed that, like you know, it's not going to end up that the courageous.

They all believed that, like you know, it's not going to end up that the courageous.

Thing to do is an unjust thing to do.

Thing to do is an unjust thing to do.

And so if a courageous thing for me to do would be unjust to you, it would be bad for your family or something. I'm not gonna it won't be courageous, that won't be the good thing for me to do. I guess in that way, I'm a naive ancient thinker in that I believe in the unity of the virtues. I think it's sort of incoherent that the good could be divided from itself in that way. However, I think conflicts of interests are very much endemic to ignorant creatures.

And so if a courageous thing for me to do would be unjust to you, it would be bad for your family or something. I'm not gonna it won't be courageous, that won't be the good thing for me to do. I guess in that way, I'm a naive ancient thinker in that I believe in the unity of the virtues. I think it's sort of incoherent that the good could be divided from itself in that way. However, I think conflicts of interests are very much endemic to ignorant creatures.

So that's what we are.

So that's what we are.

It's not that we understand the good, but it's conflicting with itself. It's that our understanding, we're messed up in. Our understand is poor, and so it looks as though the good contradicts itself. So that's the situation we're in, and that's why we're bad at talking to each other, is that we're ignorant.

It's not that we understand the good, but it's conflicting with itself. It's that our understanding, we're messed up in. Our understand is poor, and so it looks as though the good contradicts itself. So that's the situation we're in, and that's why we're bad at talking to each other, is that we're ignorant.

Well, on that note, let's take another Listen to the British philosopher Brian McGhee talking about the Enlightenment thinker John Locke. Here he is talking about that.

Well, on that note, let's take another Listen to the British philosopher Brian McGhee talking about the Enlightenment thinker John Locke. Here he is talking about that.

One thing that I admire. In fact, I think the thing I admire most in Locke's political philosophy is the clarion call for tolerance, and at least one of his arguments for that is based on his insistence that, after all, we don't really know all that much in this life. We are wrong about a lot of things. A great deal is mysterious to us, and therefore we are not justified in imposing our opinions on others by force.

One thing that I admire. In fact, I think the thing I admire most in Locke's political philosophy is the clarion call for tolerance, and at least one of his arguments for that is based on his insistence that, after all, we don't really know all that much in this life. We are wrong about a lot of things. A great deal is mysterious to us, and therefore we are not justified in imposing our opinions on others by force.

Stephen, as we go to break What do you make of that?

Stephen, as we go to break What do you make of that?

Yeah?

Yeah?

I think that's right. I mean, I can't figure out how to grow good tomatoes in my garden. I can't even get along with my neighbor. But I'm supposed to like have the right ideas about international policies. People think they know a lot more than they do. I think we should accept this sort of general skepticism and tolerance.

I think that's right. I mean, I can't figure out how to grow good tomatoes in my garden. I can't even get along with my neighbor. But I'm supposed to like have the right ideas about international policies. People think they know a lot more than they do. I think we should accept this sort of general skepticism and tolerance.

Yeah, that is philosopher Steven Asmad also speaking with philosopher Agnes Callard. We will be right back with more of the middle. This is the middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson. This hour we're focusing on the philosophical middle and how that can improve our politics and our daily lives. I'm joined by Steven Asthma, professor philosophy at Columbia College, Chicago, and Agnes Callard, a professor of philosophy at the University of Chicago.

Yeah, that is philosopher Steven Asmad also speaking with philosopher Agnes Callard. We will be right back with more of the middle. This is the middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson. This hour we're focusing on the philosophical middle and how that can improve our politics and our daily lives. I'm joined by Steven Asthma, professor philosophy at Columbia College, Chicago, and Agnes Callard, a professor of philosophy at the University of Chicago.

So, Agnes, your book is called.

So, Agnes, your book is called.

Open Socrates, The Case for a Philosophical Life. What does it mean to live a philosophical life in the modern context and how do we do that?

Open Socrates, The Case for a Philosophical Life. What does it mean to live a philosophical life in the modern context and how do we do that?

It's living your life as though you don't know how to live it, as though the project of your life we're trying to find we're to find out. So your life has lived in pursuit of knowledge. The way you pursue knowledge is by talking to people, because since you don't already know how to do it, you can't guide yourself. And it's a specific kind of conversation. It's the kind of conversation where when you say something wrong, the other person corrects you.

It's living your life as though you don't know how to live it, as though the project of your life we're trying to find we're to find out. So your life has lived in pursuit of knowledge. The way you pursue knowledge is by talking to people, because since you don't already know how to do it, you can't guide yourself. And it's a specific kind of conversation. It's the kind of conversation where when you say something wrong, the other person corrects you.

But I think of like, as you get older in life, you want to know how to live your life. You want to say, Okay, I've got this down, I've figured this out, I'm doing this properly.

But I think of like, as you get older in life, you want to know how to live your life. You want to say, Okay, I've got this down, I've figured this out, I'm doing this properly.

This works for me. You're saying that we should continue to question.

This works for me. You're saying that we should continue to question.

I think it's going to be this is going to be a really hard sell to old people, and they're probably not going to embrace it. But if I get the young people, they might stick with it.

I think it's going to be this is going to be a really hard sell to old people, and they're probably not going to embrace it. But if I get the young people, they might stick with it.

Stephen, what do you think?

Stephen, what do you think?

How do you How much do you incorporate philosophy into your daily life?

How do you How much do you incorporate philosophy into your daily life?

A lot? I hope I try to do what Agnes is describing, although I also think philosophers from the time of Socrates down to the present oftentimes are very much in their head, and they're very much about the language and the conversation. So for them, the meaning of life is in this conversation and the tradition really embraces this. It's a very you know, it's a very conversational tradition. But I myself want to remember the body, and I think the body is extremely important in living the good life. And there's been a sort of movement in the last i don't know, ten twenty years called embodied cognition, and a lot of the way we understand the world is through the body, through making art, through things like dance, through investigation with the body, and a lot of these things can't be expressed directly into conversation. They don't submit to language very well. Language is sort of like just the top part of how the mind works. But there's all this mammalian problem solving ability that we have. And I think somebody like Aristotle understood this, so he said, you can't just talk your way to the good or the right. You have to develop habits. So there's kind of behaviors that you have to sculpt and model and always be changed. Your habits informed by conversation and discourse. But I think also just creativity and doing something creative is also a kind of meditation, and it's a kind of philosophy. But a lot of philosophers haven't really noticed that. They'll sort of dismiss that as a kind of esthetic exercise, not a way of gaining knowledge or investigating the world. But anybody who does art knows that they are also investigating the world.

A lot? I hope I try to do what Agnes is describing, although I also think philosophers from the time of Socrates down to the present oftentimes are very much in their head, and they're very much about the language and the conversation. So for them, the meaning of life is in this conversation and the tradition really embraces this. It's a very you know, it's a very conversational tradition. But I myself want to remember the body, and I think the body is extremely important in living the good life. And there's been a sort of movement in the last i don't know, ten twenty years called embodied cognition, and a lot of the way we understand the world is through the body, through making art, through things like dance, through investigation with the body, and a lot of these things can't be expressed directly into conversation. They don't submit to language very well. Language is sort of like just the top part of how the mind works. But there's all this mammalian problem solving ability that we have. And I think somebody like Aristotle understood this, so he said, you can't just talk your way to the good or the right. You have to develop habits. So there's kind of behaviors that you have to sculpt and model and always be changed. Your habits informed by conversation and discourse. But I think also just creativity and doing something creative is also a kind of meditation, and it's a kind of philosophy. But a lot of philosophers haven't really noticed that. They'll sort of dismiss that as a kind of esthetic exercise, not a way of gaining knowledge or investigating the world. But anybody who does art knows that they are also investigating the world.

Ages have you lived by what you write about in your book Living a Philosophical Life?

Ages have you lived by what you write about in your book Living a Philosophical Life?

I try to.

I try to.

I think it's very demanding, and you can't do it all the time. And I agree that sometimes the body calls you to pay attention to it. And maybe I just view those moments slightly differently from Steven. I don't embrace them like I wish my body would shut up so I could do philosophy.

I think it's very demanding, and you can't do it all the time. And I agree that sometimes the body calls you to pay attention to it. And maybe I just view those moments slightly differently from Steven. I don't embrace them like I wish my body would shut up so I could do philosophy.

But I can't make it shut up all the time.

But I can't make it shut up all the time.

And so there's just the way that I see it is we live lives of leisure relative to almost everyone in human history that is quite wealthy. Everyone who's listening to this show has the leisure to listen to it, and we have the leisure to be here and to sit and talk. And philosophy is an answer to the question what do you do with leisure? That is, what do you do when you're not constantly worrying about how you're going to survive? When you freed up some time and Socrates. Socrates's answer, I agree with Steve, it's different from Aristotles. But Socrates's answer to that question was, well, maybe you use that time to figure out what.

And so there's just the way that I see it is we live lives of leisure relative to almost everyone in human history that is quite wealthy. Everyone who's listening to this show has the leisure to listen to it, and we have the leisure to be here and to sit and talk. And philosophy is an answer to the question what do you do with leisure? That is, what do you do when you're not constantly worrying about how you're going to survive? When you freed up some time and Socrates. Socrates's answer, I agree with Steve, it's different from Aristotles. But Socrates's answer to that question was, well, maybe you use that time to figure out what.

You actually should be doing, how you actually should be living.

You actually should be doing, how you actually should be living.

And that means that I guess in a concrete way and everyday interactions. What you do is when someone is talking to you, you listen for the criticism.

And that means that I guess in a concrete way and everyday interactions. What you do is when someone is talking to you, you listen for the criticism.

In what they're saying.

In what they're saying.

People often present a criticism in a way where you could hear it as like just an observation or just a right, but you intentionally hear it as a criticism and you welcome it. You respond joyfully to that. And when you do that, you're kind of giving a signal that you're to the other person that you're open to inquiry. And I think so you thought that's the most fundamental way in which human beings can help each other is we can help each other.

People often present a criticism in a way where you could hear it as like just an observation or just a right, but you intentionally hear it as a criticism and you welcome it. You respond joyfully to that. And when you do that, you're kind of giving a signal that you're to the other person that you're open to inquiry. And I think so you thought that's the most fundamental way in which human beings can help each other is we can help each other.

Think Stevid, do you think we do that enough that we are open to that kind of criticism, or even that we think philosophical that we use our free time to think about things as opposed to just doom scrolling on Instagram or something.

Think Stevid, do you think we do that enough that we are open to that kind of criticism, or even that we think philosophical that we use our free time to think about things as opposed to just doom scrolling on Instagram or something.

Like Yeah, no, I think that's right. I mean, as Agnes was describing it, I was just realizing how hard it is to do what she is suggesting. But it's there. It's the core idea in Socratic method, which is you can't have a deep conversation unless the participants are willing to engage in something that might damage the egos lightly in the conversation. I would say our Western tradition. I've lived on and off in China and taught in China, and the Confucian tradition, which I have a great respect for, does not like questioning authority. It's not the model. They say, like the authority is contained in the elder son and the father, and it's this sort of top down authoritarian so you don't challenge authority and you master wisdom by understanding the tradition you're in. But in the West, from Socrates, it's we're taught to challenge authority and that authority has to justify itself through some kind of rational explanation. And even though I think today we don't do that very much, it's very much part of the Western tradition. We could get back to it, but at the moment, the media is not Foster. I mean, this show is a good example of how it could be done, but it's a rarity in the media to find a conversation like.

Like Yeah, no, I think that's right. I mean, as Agnes was describing it, I was just realizing how hard it is to do what she is suggesting. But it's there. It's the core idea in Socratic method, which is you can't have a deep conversation unless the participants are willing to engage in something that might damage the egos lightly in the conversation. I would say our Western tradition. I've lived on and off in China and taught in China, and the Confucian tradition, which I have a great respect for, does not like questioning authority. It's not the model. They say, like the authority is contained in the elder son and the father, and it's this sort of top down authoritarian so you don't challenge authority and you master wisdom by understanding the tradition you're in. But in the West, from Socrates, it's we're taught to challenge authority and that authority has to justify itself through some kind of rational explanation. And even though I think today we don't do that very much, it's very much part of the Western tradition. We could get back to it, but at the moment, the media is not Foster. I mean, this show is a good example of how it could be done, but it's a rarity in the media to find a conversation like.

This, Agnes.

This, Agnes.

When you think about the strands of philosophy, the big ones existentialism, nihilism, hedonism, stoicism, et cetera, which one do you think is most prevalent in the United States. We just heard about China and Confucianism, but what about in the US.

When you think about the strands of philosophy, the big ones existentialism, nihilism, hedonism, stoicism, et cetera, which one do you think is most prevalent in the United States. We just heard about China and Confucianism, but what about in the US.

I think what's most prevalent is confusion and inconsistency. I think people will be hedonist in one moment when that serves them, and they'll pull up stoicism when that makes them feel good about them. They will vacillate between all of these positions. And they mean Socrates thought the basic problem with.

I think what's most prevalent is confusion and inconsistency. I think people will be hedonist in one moment when that serves them, and they'll pull up stoicism when that makes them feel good about them. They will vacillate between all of these positions. And they mean Socrates thought the basic problem with.

People was not that they were stubborn. It's not that they're dogmatic.

People was not that they were stubborn. It's not that they're dogmatic.

It's that they're unable to stick to any claim for more than like thirty seconds, and that what they will do is they will cover their vacillation over with language. So you know, if I don't like the fact that you are changing yourself and amending what you do to please other people, I'll call you a conformist. If I like it, I'll call you cooperative. I'll just choose the word based on whether I like it or I don't like it. You know, I'll call it freedom of speech when I like it, and I might and I'll call it by a variety of bad names when I don't like that kind of speech. And it's not there is no position that I'm consistently adopting. I am at the mercy of my whims and I'm at the mercy of what I can say to please the people around me.

It's that they're unable to stick to any claim for more than like thirty seconds, and that what they will do is they will cover their vacillation over with language. So you know, if I don't like the fact that you are changing yourself and amending what you do to please other people, I'll call you a conformist. If I like it, I'll call you cooperative. I'll just choose the word based on whether I like it or I don't like it. You know, I'll call it freedom of speech when I like it, and I might and I'll call it by a variety of bad names when I don't like that kind of speech. And it's not there is no position that I'm consistently adopting. I am at the mercy of my whims and I'm at the mercy of what I can say to please the people around me.

Uh.

Uh.

And that's just totally inconsistent. It's there's no theory that underwrites it all all along, from beginning to end.

And that's just totally inconsistent. It's there's no theory that underwrites it all all along, from beginning to end.

Stephen, Agnes loves when you criticize and disagree with her.

Stephen, Agnes loves when you criticize and disagree with her.

So do you agree with what she just said?

So do you agree with what she just said?

Well, here, I have to say. This is what's funny about what Agnes just said is that it sort of describes how Plato talks about the about democracy that in this you know, in the order of states, like the one that's just next to being the worst, tyranny is the worst, but the second to that he thinks is democracy. Because of the problem Agne has talked about. Since everybody they this is basically what you know, the Federalists were sort of arguing this too. They think everybody is Homer Simpson. So like you see something shiny and you run in that direction, and then you should see something over here and you run in that direction. So it is a problem. I think it depends on how you know pessimistic you are as to how big the problem is. But I think it's true that human beings are easily manipulated and easily distracted. And now we have these phones and these social networking sites that are really keeping us completely distracted, and it keeps us from having a kind of pro like a program or a purpose what Aristotle will call a teleological orientation in life. And the existentialists talked about this too. We are just buffeting back and forth from one stimulus to another too, and that's sort of how modern life is. So you almost have to do things like have a media diet, stop for like a week, get offline. As the kids say, go touch grass. You know, you have to have these like measures by which you can can reconnect to real life instead of just being bounced around because of this these appetites that we have.