More at www.philosophytalk.org/shows/sartre.

Jean-Paul Sartre was one of the first global public intellectuals, famous for his popular existentialist philosophy, his works of fiction, and his rivalry with Albert Camus. His existentialism was also adopted by Simone de Beauvoir, who used it as a foundation for modern theoretical feminism. So what exactly is existentialism? How is man condemned to be free, as Sartre claimed? And what’s so hellish about other people? John and Ken speak in good faith with Thomas Flynn from Emory University, author of "Sartre: A Philosophical Biography."

More at www.philosophytalk.org/shows/conscious-machines.

Computers have already surpassed us in their ability to perform certain cognitive tasks. Perhaps it won’t be long till every household has a super intelligent robot who can outperform us in almost every domain. While future AI might be excellent at appearing conscious, could AI ever actually become conscious? Would forcing conscious robots to work for us be akin to slavery? And could we design AI that specifically lacks consciousness, or is consciousness an emergent property of intelligence? Josh and Ken welcome Susan Schneider, Director of the AI, Mind and Society Group at the University of Connecticut and author of "Artificial You: A.I. and the Future of Your Mind."

More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/scandalous-truth-about-memoir.

A memoir is a personal narrative written about a pivotal time in the author’s life. While the story is told from a particular perspective, the events recounted are supposed to be fact, not fiction. But what exactly counts as truth in memoir? Is the distinction between “literal truth” and “emotional truth” just a way of shirking responsibility for fabricating falsehoods? What other ethical responsibilities does the memoirist have—for example, when it comes to exposing other people’s secrets? And why should anyone read—or write—memoirs in the first place? Josh and Ray take a trip down memory lane with Helena de Bres from Wellesley College, author of "Artful Truths: The Philosophy of Memoir."

More at www.philosophytalk.org/shows/allure-authoritarianism.

In George Orwell’s 1984, the party’s “final, most essential command” was “to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.” Authoritarian regimes call on us to accept as fact whatever they tell us; or worse, as Hannah Arendt says, they get us to a point where we no longer know—or care about—the difference between fiction and reality. So why are so many so willing to reject the evidence of their senses and deny basic, confirmable truths? Is there something about human psychology that makes us susceptible to totalitarian propaganda? And as the appeal of authoritarian leaders grows around the world, how do we guard against such radical thought manipulation? Josh and Ken lure Michael Lynch from the University of Connecticut, author of "Know-It-All Society: Truth and Arrogance in Political Culture."

More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/mill-and-good-life.

John Stuart Mill was one of the most important British philosophers of the 19th century. As a liberal, he thought that individuals are generally the best judges of their own welfare. But Mill was also a utilitarian who thought that there were objectively lower and higher pleasures and that the good life was one which maximized higher pleasures. So is there a way to reconcile Mill’s liberal project with his utilitarianism? Is the good life for Mill one in which individuals determine their own paths? Or should those who know better still try to nudge others to live better lives? John and Ken fulfill their potential with David Brink from UC San Diego, author of Mill's Progressive Principles.

More at www.philosophytalk.org/shows/sanctuary-cities.

In the U.S. there are over 500 sanctuary cities—municipalities that limit their cooperation with the federal government’s immigration law enforcement. Although opponents portray sanctuary cities as besieged by crime, empirical data does not bear out such claims. But what actually justifies sanctuary policies in the first place? Do appeals to public health or safety warrant these measures? Or should lack of cooperation be seen as an act of resistance against unjust federal policies? And how should local municipalities respond to claims that they lack the authority to impede federal immigration enforcement? Josh and Ken find sanctuary with Shelley Wilcox from SF State University, author of “How Can Sanctuary Policies be Justified?”

More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/explanation-its-best.

In both everyday life and science, we often feel the pull of simpler, more elegant, or more beautiful explanations. For example, you notice the street is wet and infer the best explanation is that it rained earlier. But are we justified in assuming these tidy explanations are most likely to be true? What makes an explanation “simple” or “elegant” in the first place? And can the “loveliness” of an explanation ever be a good guide to its “likeliness”? Josh and Ken try to explain things with Princeton University psychologist Tania Lombrozo, co-editor of "Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy."

More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/doomsday-doctrine.

The doctrine of mutually assured destruction is supposed to deter both sides in a war from launching the first nuclear strike. However, the strategy of the US, NATO, and other super powers has been to plan the destruction of nearly all life on Earth. If near total annihilation would be monstrous, ethically speaking, then what should we say about preparing for and planning it? Can there be any moral justification for plausibly threatening a nuclear holocaust? And now that we’ve gotten ourselves in this situation, is there any realistic and ethical way out? John and Ken avoid going nuclear with writer, activist, former defense analyst and whistleblower, Daniel Ellsberg, author of "The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner."

More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/reading-troubled-past.

Nigerian writer Chinua Achebe lambasted Joseph Conrad’s novel Heart of Darkness as a deeply racist work that should be removed from the Western canon. Defenders of Conrad say the novel is simply an expression of its time and not an endorsement of the racist attitudes it represents. So how do we judge the moral legitimacy of older works of literature and philosophy? Should we shun writers for holding racist or sexist views? Or is it important to read—and censure—them? Is it fair to judge authors of the past by today’s politically conscious standards? Josh and Ken have no trouble reading with Julie Napolin from The New School, author of "The Fact of Resonance: Modernist Acoustics and Narrative Form" (forthcoming).

More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/postmodernism-really-blame.

Postmodernism is often characterized by its rejection of concepts championed by the Enlightenment, like meaning, truth, reason, and knowledge. Some philosophers blame postmodernism for making cynicism about truth and facts now respectable in political debate. So is postmodernism responsible for “fake news” and “alternative facts”? Or does it simply provide the tools to describe popular distrust of traditional authorities, like science and the media? Must we reject postmodernism in order to rescue truth? Josh and Ken find truth in Thomas de Zengotita, author of "Postmodern Theory and Progressive Politics: Toward a New Humanism."