In this episode of Rationally Speaking, Massimo and Julia discuss what we can learn from these "Philosophical shock tactics," the public reaction to them, and what role emotion should play in philosophy.
Julia's pick: "What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought."
Massimo's pick: "Graphing the history of philosophy."
References:
* Philosophical shock tactics
* Be a Communications Consequentialist
Enjoyed the podcast as usual, but I have to say that the closing comments on consistency were deeply problematic.
ReplyDeleteI take it that the whole point of the podcast was, roughly, "despite our negative gut reactions, we should take formal arguments seriously." Well, I'm sure you guys are aware of a formal argument that goes, and I'm paraphrasing here for emphasis, "Any formal system powerful enough to talk about itself MUST lead to contradiction."
And you finish the podcast by expressing your intuition that consistency is inviolate, without giving any arguments? In your defense, ever since Aristotle asserted the law of non-contradiction with a few flimsy supporting arguments, people have largely taken consistency as inviolate. I myself consider there to be little of higher value. But: thats not an argument! I guess I'd have to say I wish you guys had been a little more... consistent... on your discussion of consistency.