Think Hard: Recent Episodes
Danielle LaSusa & José Muñiz
Philosophy is sometimes seen as impractical and impenetrable, but on Think Hard, two trained philosophers have accessible and lively conversations about contemporary culture, politics, and society. Each episode, we weave together topics as current as the Black Lives Matter movement, the status of feminism, or the crafter “Etsy economy” with those as timeless as meaning, value, identity, truth, and knowledge
Danielle and José discuss having consistency in our ideas and beliefs. Why is consistency important? Should we have more allowance for nuance, evolution, or mushiness in our thoughts? What are the risks of remaining inconsistent or, conversely, of being too rigid in our thinking?
We welcome special guest Jeff Guenther LPC to defend the Law of Attraction, which we lambasted in #37 Vision Bored. Creator of Therapy Den and the Portland Therapy Center, Jeff claims that the law of attraction is the best model we have for how the universe works, and that there’s nothing problematic about it. José and Danielle are not so sure.
Danielle and José assess whether or not the Law of Attraction is total bullshit. After careful consideration, we’ve determined that although there are lots of ways in which the Law of Attraction might be helpful, it also can be politically dangerous and, at times, utter nonsense.
What happens when the responsibility to have an open mind pushes against the responsibility to protect people from hateful speech and ideology? José argues that having an open mind is required for us all to develop into our full selves, but cautions that this open-mindedness should happen primarily in the intimacy of private spaces, not necessarily on the public stage.This episode is the bookend to: “#11: Tolerating the Nazi Next Door,” so we recommend you take a listen to that one from our archives here.
Are you the same person that you were when you were six years old? Does identity exist over time? Danielle suggests that there is no such thing as a permanent essential self or soul and argues for the Buddhist idea of “no-self.” José is skeptical, believing instead that we are essentially the same over time.
Is prostitution immoral? Danielle begins this episode thinking that prostitution is morally permissible, if it is between two consenting adults. José argues that prostitution is morally wrong because it objectifies and dehumanizes women in a physical and irredeemable way. By the end of their conversation, Danielle’s not sure what she thinks anymore.
Why is feeling two or more conflicting things at the same time so hard? Danielle and José talk about the experience of ambivalence and dive into how our feelings are connected to our beliefs about the world. They explore some ways to understand, work through, or even just sometimes accept ambivalence in our daily lives.
José is troubled by his sexual fantasies of women because it objectifies them. Danielle and José consider: Does sexual desire always or necessarily involve the dehumanizing objectification of others? Is it morally acceptable to objectify someone in the privacy of your own mind or will that objectification always spill out into the way you interact with others? Is it possible to keep sexual fantasies completely separate from workplace relationships? Are there solutions to the social problems in which people are forced to navigate their sexual desires along with their desires to see others in their full humanity?
During this (past) holiday season, Danielle and José explored why cultivating gratitude may lead to increased well being, happiness, and richness of meaning. They suggest that gratitude is an achieved mental state that involves a re-cognition of our lives into a narrative of growth and positivity.
Links
Our music was graciously provided by BenSound.
Audio engineering and editing services were benevolently provided by Dan Short.
Come visit our website, our Facebook Page, or talk to us on twitter @thinkhardpod, @DanielleLaSusa, @themuniz.
Audible Sponsorship
This week, we’re sponsored by Audible. Right now, Think Hard listeners will get a special offer of one free audiobooks by signing up at thinkhardpodcast.com/audible. After 30 days, you get one audiobook a month for $14.95/month, and you’ll receive 30% off the price of additional audiobook purchases. Cancel at any time. A member’s books are theirs to keep, even if they cancel. That’s thinkhardpodcast.com/audible.
José hates casual clothes: jeans, cargo shorts, sweat pants, and the dreaded flip flops. He argues that the excuse many people give that these clothes are “comfortable” is really just a band-aid, and will never get to the real underlying source of discomfort that people feel. Danielle is not so sure.
Danielle is wondering how to make decisions about how to spend her money, which leads to the larger question of what constitutes the good life. What purchases will make us happy, and how do we know what to choose? José offers some budgeting wisdom.
José and Danielle discuss conspiracy theories. Why is it that some, otherwise rational, people get hooked into crazy conspiracy theories like the anti-vax or flat earth movements? José suggests that perhaps it’s because they’re tired of feeling like alienated sheep and want to start feeling like heroes in their own lives—and, he adds, we are all susceptible to this pitfall.
Danielle and José discuss whether philosophy can help save the crappy high school public education system. They talk about the real goals of high school public education, whether and how schools can actually teach critical thinking, and what kind of education will actually serve students for the world in which we live.
We welcome special guest Paul Waldau, recently retired Professor in the Animal Behavior, Ecology and Conservation Department and Director of the graduate program in Anthrozoology at Canisius College and author of Animal Rights, to talk about the relationships we humans have with non-human animals. How has viewing humans as special or distinct from other animals damaged our world? Should we view animals as having some of the same rights that we humans have, and if so, why?
José and Danielle respond to some listener criticism of episode #45: Everybody Has to Live Somewhere. They talk about what they got right—and wrong—in that episode, and they reflect more generally on how engaging with criticism can enrich and deepen our understanding of the world, each other, and ourselves.
Museums are weird, or so says Danielle. In fact, she thinks that they are glaring evidence of the racist imperialist history of the West, and because of that, she finds it hard to find the serenity and aesthetic transcendence that we have all been trained to expect there. José thinks that we have a chance to define ourselves and connect with others by engaging (quietly, please!) with these very same objects. They fight it out.
José and Danielle consider our ethical responsibility when we participate in gentrification. Is gentrification simply a natural process of changing neighborhoods, or do we have some responsibility for its negative impact on—and displacement of—poorer residents?
Is it ok to laugh at racist jokes? Does it make you racist? Does it matter who is telling the joke? José tries to stake a position between calling out racist jokes as harmful, and not becoming so politically correct that we take ourselves too seriously. Also, Danielle and José each tell—and laugh at—some racist jokes.
Special guest Lucy Collins joins Danielle and José to talk about motherhood and death. They explore the idea that motherhood allows women to be uniquely in touch with death, aging, and change. This experience is full of vulnerability and a confrontation with one’s life experience that cannot be ignored.
This episode, José and Danielle talk about how to have difficult conversations. José suggests that the classic way of thinking about conversations—as the communication of information or beliefs—does not actually get the best results. Instead, if we are to find truth, connection, and a shared public life, we need to learn to identify and communicate emotional feelings, a much more difficult task.
It’s our annual Year in Review show, and we welcome our audio editor and engineer, Dan Short, as our special guest. José, Danielle, and Dan reflect on how Think Hard has grown in the last year, what we’ve learned, and what our favorite episodes are. We also discuss some goals for the future of Think Hard in the year to come. (Spoiler: We want to connect more with you, our listeners!)
During this holiday season, Danielle and José explore why cultivating gratitude may lead to increased well being, happiness, and richness of meaning. They suggest that gratitude is an achieved mental state that involves a re-cognition of our lives into a narrative of growth and positivity.
José thinks all television shows are bad because they share in two fatal flaws: the problem of overlapping narrative arcs and the limitation of outsider influence. After going back-and-forth, Danielle argues that newer television shows successfully manage these limitations, and José agrees to watch suggested shows and report back in a future episode.
Danielle and José circle back to their conversation about the existence of God that they first had in episode #12: Is it Morally Wrong to Believe in God? This time, they debate not only the morality of the belief, but get right to the heart of the question: Does God exist? José is a theist and Danielle an atheist, so the conversation is rather lively!
Danielle is an atheist and José is a theist, but he feels bad about believing in something for which he does not have evidence. Given all of the warfare and destruction in the name of God, is it morally wrong to hold this belief without sufficient evidence? José outlines an argument by William James, which attempts to justify belief in God as a special and specific kind of belief that one can hold by pure will. Is it enough to convince Danielle?
Danielle and José wonder if the truth matters. Why do we (including your hosts!) often believe things in the face of contrary evidence? What separates us from those who endanger themselves (and the world) by refusing to acknowledge the truth, and acting out of what they want to be true. After considering how enmeshed our beliefs, desires, and wills are, they turn to some practical solutions for saving ourselves (and the world) from this danger.
Danielle and José assess whether or not the Law of Attraction is total bullshit. After careful consideration, we’ve determined that although there are lots of ways in which the Law of Attraction might be helpful, it also can be politically dangerous and, at times, utter nonsense.
In this episode, Danielle argues that philosophy makes an excellent foundation for counseling and coaching. Not only is history of philosophy foundational for psychology, but philosophers have skills of critical inquiry and analysis, which they bring to a whole host of human experiences and aspects of the human condition.
Are snobs just obnoxious, self-righteous jerks, or do they contribute something of value to society? José argues that snobs are the protectors of culture and ought to be defended. Snobs save us from the faceless demands of a watered down marketplace and set a standard for the human experience. Danielle is skeptical, and wonders if snobbery is an expression of classist myopia, confusing personal preferences for objective standards.
In this episode, special guest Charlie Gilkey—philosopher and founder of Productive Flourishing and author of the forthcoming Start Finishing and The Small Business Life Cycle—argues that all American citizens should serve three years in the military. He claims that such an experience engenders courage and fulfills a moral obligation of all citizens to meaningfully participate in the national defense. Although José seems persuaded by this idea, Danielle is not so sure.
Why do we get paralyzed in the face of freedom? Why are we left spinning our wheels, unable to make a decision, when faced with too many options? Danielle and José suggest that freedom paralysis happens when we are unclear about our values and priorities. Choosing one option means killing off the others. We make some suggestions for how to get unstuck.
José claims boredom sucks because it shows us how meaningless the world is. This realization leads us to either make something meaningful or to wallow in the emptiness. Danielle explores how we can cultivate our attention to things we might otherwise dismiss, thus finding a cure for boredom.
Danielle and José talk about perception and meditation. Danielle claims that meditation is the key to seeing, feeling, and perceiving the world in a radically new way. Can meditation change the brain so much that we can cease to feel pain? Where is sensation: in the nerves or in the mind’s response? And what happens if, indeed, we do have responsibility for how we interpret sense data?
When is anger a justified or appropriate response to a situation? Guest Greg Sadler, founder of ReasonIO which puts philosophy into practice, is on the show to talk about when, how, and with whom we should be angry. We consider anger’s role in political movements, its relationship to clear and rational thinking, and how to cope with anger so that it doesn’t swallow us up.
Do morally bad artists always make bad art? Should knowing that an artist drugged and raped women (Cosby), married his semi-teenage step-daughter (Allen), or killed several million Jews (Hitler) change how judge their art? José claims that the artist can never be separated from the art, while Danielle wonders if the art and artist should be judged independently.
José gives an extended response to a listener question about what it means to be yourself. Who are you, really, and how do you know if you’re being yourself? Is the self a fixed identity that is sustained through time, or is it fractured into lots of different selves? How do you become a certain kind of person?
Danielle suggests that identity politics—organizing and motivating political action through features of your identity such as race, gender, class, nationality, religion, etc.—is insufficient for the type of collective action needed to solve some important global problems. How do we, as a society, tackle issues like climate change or global poverty when we see ourselves as fractured groups, each with its own concerns? José believes that all political action must necessarily begin with the interests, needs, and perspectives of identity.
We welcome guest Dr. Jack Russell Weinstein, Director of the Institute for Philosophy in Public Life at the University of North Dakota and host of the public radio show and podcast Why? Philosophical Discussions About Everyday Life, to talk about public philosophy. How is talking to a public audience about philosophy different than speaking to those in traditional academic settings? What do philosophers have to offer the public? What exactly are we doing here on Think Hard?
Why is it so hard to make friends in adulthood? José suggests that the very work it takes to make and maintain friendships is self-defeating because friendships are meant to be easy, spontaneous, and effortless. Danielle is not so sure.
Danielle wonders if the choice to have a child is morally unjustifiable. Given over-population, the current environmental crisis, and the potential for a future full of hardship and suffering, is it ethical to have kids? José defends parenthood as an expression of human development.
Is it ok to laugh at racist jokes? Does it make you racist? Does it matter who is telling the joke? José tries to stake a position between calling out racist jokes as harmful, and not becoming so politically correct that we take ourselves too seriously. Also, Danielle and José each tell—and laugh at—some racist jokes.
Suppose you were visiting your favorite work of art at a museum and came to discover that you had been admiring a replica. How would you feel? We tackle the question: Why do we want the real thing? What makes the original special and why do we feel the strong desire to be near it? We suggest that perhaps the answer is not really about the thing itself at all.
For those who don’t believe in a benevolent, higher power, where do we look for hope and guidance when things are looking grim? This episode, we bring you the audio from a public lecture that Danielle gave to Sunday Assembly Portland. Afterward, we do a Q and A, and José gets a chance to ask questions and challenge some ideas.
José opens up about polyamory. He explains how being poly helped him become better at love and relationships. What about having multiple partners provides opportunity for personal growth and development? What kind of work is required for polyamorous relationships that makes them likely to succeed?
So many people deal with everyday anxiety. Danielle suggests that all anxiety—whether it be about social gatherings, sexual performance, job stress, or choosing restaurants—can be understood as one or more of three basic fears, all of which are fundamental features of the human condition. If we can understand these fears and how they operate within us—through talk therapy and/or philosophical reflection—we can go a long way in managing our anxiety.
Danielle and José try to answer a listener question that asks: How do I know when to accept myself as I am and when to strive to improve myself? José offers a philosophical approach to knowing when enough is enough.
In this episode, we welcome special guest Dr. Cori Wong, a feminist philosopher who chats with us about feminist friendship. Cori considers the current tensions that exist between white women and women of color in the “feminist movement” and considers how we can do better in bridging the gaps between ourselves and people who are different from us, to stand in solidarity and in friendship with them.
In this first episode of 2018, Danielle and José take this opportunity to look back at the first year of Think Hard. We reflect on the process of podcasting, give some updates on our favorite episodes, and imagine what we’d like to achieve in the year ahead. As always, we end by talking about What We’ve Been Thinking About and give some recommendations.
We’re taking this week off to enjoy the holidays, so we’re bringing you an old favorite from our archives. It’s the holiday season, so we’re revisiting the conversation in which Danielle and José ask: Are there rational reasons for giving to those less fortunate? What responsibilities or duties to we have to give to the poor? Does giving to the poor end up doing more harm than good? We end with “What We’re Thinking About” and give our recommendations for this episode. We hope you enjoy, and we’ll be back with a new episode right after the new year.
This episode, Danielle claims that we should be teaching hopeful thinking as an integral part of teaching critical thinking. If ignorance is bliss, critical thinking often can lead to depression, cynicism, and apathy, as students lose faith in old values, beliefs, and structures of meaning. Danielle argues that we must also teach our students to create new values and beliefs and to take action, even in the face of meaningless absurdity. José wonders how to best teach this. We end by giving recommendations in our What We’ve Been Thinking About segment.
Through the examples of The Breakfast Club, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, and 10 Things I Hate About You, José argues that teen movies are important cultural artifacts that show us how to view the world with complexity, nuance, and depth—qualities that will allow us to have better conversations with those with whom we disagree. Danielle loves teen movies, but she’s not sure she buys it.
In this episode, Danielle and José talk about how to think about truth in the era of fake news. With new technologies that have the ability to literally change what we see and hear through audio and video manipulation, how do we know our beliefs are justified? How can we ever have real knowledge? Is it possible to change someone’s mind about the truth through critical thinking and reasoning or do we have to appeal to emotions and values? Is all news actually fake news?
José is troubled by his sexual fantasies of women because it objectifies them. Danielle and José consider: Does sexual desire always or necessarily involve the dehumanizing objectification of others? Is it morally acceptable to objectify someone in the privacy of your own mind or will that objectification always spill out into the way you interact with others? Is it possible to keep sexual fantasies completely separate from workplace relationships? Are there solutions to the social problems in which people are forced to navigate their sexual desires along with their desires to see others in their full humanity?
Why is it so hard for white people to talk about racism? Danielle and José talk about white fragility—the idea that white folks are emotionally fragile, and blow up or shut down, when it comes to talking about race. Danielle offers some ideas about why she and so many of her fellow white people have such a tough time, (they’re terrified of being called a racist, for example), and what they should do about it.
Danielle is an atheist and José is a theist, but he feels bad about believing in something for which he does not have evidence. Given all of the warfare and destruction in the name of God, is it morally wrong to hold this belief without sufficient evidence? José outlines an argument by William James, which attempts to justify belief in God as a special and specific kind of belief that one can hold by pure will. Is it enough to convince Danielle?
Danielle and José discuss the value of tolerance. Tolerance is a paradox because if we tolerate everyone, we have to tolerate those who are intolerant, thus threatening our tolerant society. Is there really a clear line between tolerating people’s speech and beliefs and tolerating their actions and policies? Why should we value tolerance, and how do we treat those who are intolerant?
Danielle and José discuss philosophy as self-help. José hates self-help as a genre, and Danielle claims that philosophy would make for better self-help than many of the books currently on the market. She outlines how philosophy could address what makes so many self-help books annoying and ultimately disappointing.
Are snobs just obnoxious, self-righteous jerks, or do they contribute something of value to society? José argues that snobs are the protectors of culture and ought to be defended. Snobs save us from the faceless demands of a watered down marketplace and set a standard for the human experience. Danielle is skeptical, and wonders if snobbery is an expression of classist myopia, confusing personal preferences for objective standards.
Danielle and José talk about perception and meditation. Danielle claims that meditation is the key to seeing, feeling, and perceiving the world in a radically new way. Can meditation change the brain so much that we can cease to feel pain? Where is sensation: in the nerves or in the mind’s response? And what happens if, indeed, we do have responsibility for how we interpret sense data?
José fears that dance is on its deathbed! Is social dancing on the decline? And if so, what do we lose if it dies? Danielle and José suggest that losing dance means losing opportunities for mastery over our bodies, as well as communication and coordination with others in a playful and non-verbal way. Dance is both related to but different from both sports and sex, and we can feel self-conscious about it in a way that we don’t with those other forms of bodily expression. We end, as always, by talking about what we’ve been thinking about since our last show.
Danielle and José talk about cultural appropriation. What’s wrong with a white person wearing a Native American headdress for Halloween? Where is the line between cultural exchange and appropriation? To what extent is it legitimate for an artist to draw from other cultures in order to make something new? We end, as always, with what we've been thinking about and give some recommendations.
Live from PDX, Danielle and José discuss risk. What happens in our mind when we think about whether or not to take a risk? How do we know if we are taking a good risk or a bad risk? What should we do when our risks impact others? How does our culture view risk? We end, as always, with what we are thinking about and give some recommendations.
This episode, Danielle and José talk about poverty. Are there rational reasons for giving to those less fortunate? What responsibilities or duties do we have to give to the poor? Does giving to the poor end up doing more harm than good? We end with “What We’re Thinking About” and give our recommendations for this episode.
Danielle and José discuss whether the mainstreaming of feminism has sold it out to capitalist interests. Can we be both a feminist and a capitalist? Is capitalism inherently patriarchal? Does feminism require a kind of collective action that capitalism works to undermine? How does capitalism exploit women’s unpaid labor of childrearing and household care? Are ad campaigns that promote feminist ideas actually feminist or just another way to sell products? We end with recommendations for what we’ve been thinking about since the last episode.
In this episode, Danielle and José consider the force, function, and fragility of political protests. We consider some of the recent Republican-backed legislation that threatens to limit the ability for people to protest. What purpose do protests serve in the public arena? In what ways do protests help build a sense of community? Is violence in public protesting ever acceptable? Here is a Washington Post article summarizing the national trend in legislation against protests
In our inaugural episode, Danielle and José discuss travel and authenticity. When we go on trips, many of us are in search of some kind of authentic experience of another place. Where does this desire for authenticity come from and is it possible to achieve? Is the search for authenticity harmful for the places we travel? We end the show by discussing what we’ve been thinking about over the last few weeks, and leave our listeners with some recommendations.