I am baffled as to why the discipline of philosophy does not occupy a more prominent position in pop culture. Socrates was hailed as a celebrity in Ancient Greece, an intellectual titan at the forefront of truth (before they executed him, at least). Nowadays it seems that philosophy has largely been relegated to the hallways of academia. We do not see philosophers trending on twitter, or appearing as guests on popular late night talk shows. In my ideal world things would be different: the doors of the ivory tower would be smashed open and philosophy would be exposed to the sunlight of mainstream cultural attention.
My name is Cody Turner. I am currently a second year PhD student in philosophy at the University of Connecticut, primarily interested in the philosophy of consciousness and artificial intelligence. Last spring I created a podcast entitled ‘Tent Talks’ in which I have conversations with philosophers, artists, and other academics about their work. The podcast was originally inspired by the vision of ‘philosophy in pop-culture’. The name of the podcast was inspired by the popular TedTalks series. Indeed, I initially imagined Tent Talks as more informal: a relaxed audio setting in which thinkers can come to freely express themselves and their views.
It is, of course, astronomically unlikely that my podcast will become anywhere near as popular as TedTalks. I am perfectly aware of just how much existing digital content there is out there: podcasts, youtube videos, Netflix Tv shows, documentaries, apps, online courses, etc. There is an all-out war for our attention that is being waged on all fronts of the digital landscape, and I certainly do not expect to win this war; not with the masses at least.
But I can always dream. And more importantly, I can have a positive impact on my local community. This is and always has been the immediate goal of Tent Talks: to advertise the work of my colleagues to as many people as possible. I see brilliant humans around me dedicating their lives to ideas, and they’re making progress, and the world deserves to know. The podcast is a way of broadcasting their ideas to the world in an accessible manner.
Of course, it is not a completely altruistic affair. I do not believe in fully selfless acts. Every act is fundamentally motivated out of self-interest, including the act of creating a podcast. Hosting the podcast makes me a better conversationalist and serves as an incentive to constantly expand my social network. Most narcissistically though: the podcast functions as a potential gateway to digital immortality. I am not kidding! Some proponents of the philosophical doctrine of transhumanism hold that future machines will be able to perfectly simulate a person’s mind given enough audio data of that person. Perhaps, if Transhumanism is correct, our future supercomputer overlords will be able to simulate my mind, and I will be able to live forever: calm, cool and collected in the cloud! Call me crazy if you like, but this kind of quasi-religious, self-aggrandizing way of thinking can at times provide the inspiration necessary to remain committed to a creative endeavor.
And I have remained committed. I have thus far had many compelling conversations on the podcast with academics at all levels, including undergraduates, fellow graduate students, and professors. The topics covered in these conversations are truly diverse. For instance, in one episode I talk with Professor William Lycan about the mystery of consciousness, whereas in another I sit down with U.S. Coast Guard member Nathaniel Johnson to discuss military ethics. Examples of other episode titles include ‘The Science of Language’, ‘Buddhism and Cognitive Science’, ’The End of Psychological Suffering’, ‘The Philosophy of Hip Hop and Trap Music’, ‘Humor, Truth, and Logical Paradoxes’, ‘Intellectual Virtues and Vices’, ‘The Future of Technology’, and ’Escaping the Moral Matrix’.
The podcast, then, is not a domain-specific show that focuses on a particular area of philosophy. In fact, Tent Talks is not even constrained to philosophy as a subject matter. In some episodes I have conversed with academics from other disciplines outside of philosophy, such as linguistics (episode 25), anthropology (episode 3), biomedical engineering (episode 14), and environmental design (episode 13).
In addition to the main episodes, the podcast also contains two mini-series entitled Intellectual Downpour and Party in the Storm. The Intellectual Downpour episodes are solo episodes in which I explore some intellectual topic that captivates me. These episodes are not meant to be lessons, or objective presentations of the literature on the chosen topic. They are rather best conceptualized as subjective musings in which I convey and develop my thoughts on a subject matter that I have spent some time researching. Currently, I am doing research in preparation for an episode on Existentialism and the Philosophy of Horror, as well as for an episode on the Philosophy of Time. The Intellectual Downpour episodes are contrasted with the Party in the Storm episodes, which are impromptu conversations that I have with close friends over drinks. These episodes operate at some level as the comedic relief of the podcast. They are often sillier and more unhinged than the main episodes; partly, of course, because there is alcohol involved.
Moving forward, I hope to continue to grow the podcast. My intention is to branch out beyond my local community, and start to have conversations with academics and artists from all over the world. This may require, among other things, recording some of my conversations on Skype as opposed to in-person. My ultimate goal is to someday launch a podcast network. As indicated by the logo depicted in my cover art, the network will be called ‘Shelter from the Storm’. Each of the shows on the network will have a different host, and will be named in accordance with the ‘Shelter from the Storm’ theme. This is the idea at least. The actual implementation of said idea is a long ways off. It is important, I think, to not get too far ahead of myself. Getting too far ahead of oneself is one of the surest ways to fall behind–and falling behind is one of the surest ways to not get ahead.
Cody Turner
Cody Turner (@slinkyboy22) is a PhD student at The University of Connecticut focusing on the philosophy of consciousness and the philosophy of artificial intelligence.
In today’s pragmatic and progressive and fast-paced world of new tech and new billionaires, nobody has time for “philosophy”. I’ve had people tell me to my face that it is “fluff”, and that one can’t make a living doing philosophy. I wish it weren’t true, but I’m not (yet) in the position to argue with these people (since I don’t have a job doing philosophy, yet…).
Here’s some reasons why lay people don’t do “philosophy” (regardless of whether they should or shouldn’t):
(1) When “lay people” do philosophy outside of academia, it becomes a bit of a mess. For example, people aren’t very precise about using terms in a certain way. So it just becomes a disorganized jumble of a sound having 200 different meanings. Being in a room full of lay people trying to do philosophy is like being in a kindergarten classroom minus the crayons.
||
(2) Without a purpose, it’s a waste of time for lay people to do philosophy. People’s opinions are… well, just opinions. Opinions don’t become knowledge unless one is an academic and is in a position to gain widespread support for one’s opinions. So, it’s a fruitless activity, in some sense. It would be akin to low-level employees in a workplace deliberating about whether the company should merge with another or not. There’s really no point in low-level employees deliberating about something that they have no power over.
||
(3) The only branch of philosophy that “lay people” have any kind of real influence in is “ethics” — and even more specifically, the only question that they’re considered qualified to answer is: “How should I live?” And even this much authority is ceded to the “lay people” only because we live in a democracy that values freedom (or, at least, the illusion of it), and because people just move better if they’re autonomous agents (or so we think, anyways). In any case, this is a question that can only be answered privately, in some sense. There’s no need for a “discussion” about it. A discussion doesn’t settle anything. An action does. But not all actions are motivated by philosophical knowledge; some actions are motivated by emotion, such as love.
||
(4) “Lay people” are driven by practical concerns. Unless there’s a high-paying job to be had and socio-political power/status to be won, for most people, it’s not considered as being pragmatically advantageous to spend any serious amount of time doing philosophy. In other words, philosophy outside of academia just isn’t taken seriously by most lay people. If I start talking to people about what so-and-so said and what they think about it, people start getting all glassy-eyed and conversation just kind of dies… When I tell people that I spend all day studying and don’t do other “work” and I add that I’m not officially in a grad program yet, people just think that I basically don’t do anything at all. What I do just isn’t considered “work” unless there’s money and status tied to what I do.
||
(5) Socrates is lauded and praised and he is famous. But note how he ended up. He was basically given over as a ‘sacrificial peace offering’ by the aristoi to the masses, since the masses were out for blood-justice at that time and the aristoi weren’t willing to sacrifice one of their own. Socrates’ death was seen as a necessary means to an end (ie, to resolve the city’s civil strife). To idealistic philosophers, and perhaps to Plato, Socrates might be a personal hero. But to lay people, Socrates is a tragic figure and nobody wants to “be” or “be like” Socrates — at least in terms of how his life went. So who wants to end up like Socrates? “Ordinary”, moderate, and prudent people (ie, the real life modern Socrateses) would rather be changing out their well filters (somebody’s got to do it!) than going around trying to challenge the status quo by asking unsolicited or unscripted questions to powerful people. (Besides, philosophy departments nowadays welcome that sort of behavior just as much as the aristoi of Socrates’ time did. It’s a sure-fire way to make powerful enemies really quickly!)