The Vim Podcast is the podcast of a group of academic philosophers who have banded together to think about our current political environment. Our primary outlet is the Vim blog. There we publish internally reviewed articles on topics like economic anxiety, gun control, the ethics of Facebook and AI, lying politicians, hypocrisy in politics, fascism, and how to talk to Trump supporters.
On the podcast vimmers usually discuss ideas found on the blog. We take an article and dig deeper. Sometimes, in our “The Vim Reads the News” episodes, we discuss an article found elsewhere.
The best description of what we do is found in a series of articles at the Vim blog called “What Philosophy Owes Society.” The series explores the various ways that philosophy, in content and practice, is always political. The current crisis of critical thinking should serve as a call to arms for philosophers to aid the society that provides them with careers and comfort. The Vim is born out of the awareness that philosophers are always grounded in the world of politics. There is no denying it. The attempt to do so is itself a political act.
How then should philosophers answer the call?
The podcast, like the articles, is meant to be a new type of public philosophy—one not preoccupied with translating academic approaches to academic problems into “everyday” language. The “translation model” of public philosophy, in which academics magnanimously explain their insights to the uninitiated, presupposes (and therefore creates and reinforces) a boundary between academic discourse and broader political discourse. The philosophers take the boundary to be indicative of a hierarchy: their discourse is superior. We call our society “anti-intellectual.” And many thinkers, disparaged as charlatans by philosophers, rise up to fill the gap in public discourse. We discuss these very issues on the show.
The Vim is about pushing back against this status quo. The podcast attempts to blur the boundaries. Although it brings the tools and insights of philosophy to bear on prevailing issues in politics, it attempts to do so without translating or ‘explaining down’ standard academic philosophy. The podcast is about improving political discourse, displaying media literacy, and embodying the proper role of the philosopher in a society that has, in many respects, lost its way.
So the Vim podcast faces the challenge of existing in two different markets while trying to change how both operate. We are very much a political podcast, but one that attempts to reach a level of depth, precision, and perspective that you don’t get elsewhere in the genre. The episodes aren’t embedded in the news cycle, aren’t a series of hot takes, and don’t spout (but rather challenge) “conventional wisdom.” We are also very much a philosophy podcast, but one that attempts to engage in politics without reliance on institutional credentials, name-dropping, and jargon. The episodes unearth the philosophical ideas embedded in our politics.
Although it is a risky move in the saturated podcast market, we don’t merely want to give people what they want. This drive is a large part of why political discourse has deteriorated so dramatically. Its natural consequence is clickbait, tribalism, and polarization—the conflation of popularity or virality with legitimacy. We seek to examine why people want what they want—and lead people to examine for themselves why they want what they want. What form should political content take? How much work should the audience have to do? How can we encourage people to stretch their attention and think about politics in new, deeper ways?
We at the Vim are trying to figure it out. The stakes are high. The future of philosophy is tied to the future of politics. Who will answer the call?
The Vim is a collection of philosophers who write about issues in politics
