Episode #246 ... The Myth of the Self-Made Person - Alasdair Macintyre

Episode #248 ... What philosophers say about lying.

May 31, 202636 minSummary

In this episode of Philosize This!, Stephen West explores the multifaceted nature of lying, challenging the common assumption that truth is always morally superior to falsehood. The episode begins by questioning whether truth is universally beneficial, drawing on Friedrich Nietzsche’s perspective that humanity often relies on "useful fictions" to organize life and maintain sanity. While acknowledging that most philosophers condemn lying as a corrosive force that damages both the self and social trust, the discussion expands to include more nuanced viewpoints. West examines perspectives from thinkers like St. Augustine, who highlights the internal "double nature" created by lying, and Immanuel Kant, who emphasizes how dishonesty robs individuals of their agency. The episode also addresses Hannah Arendt’s concerns regarding the political implications of widespread deception and the erosion of a shared reality. Conversely, the discussion introduces thinkers like Plato, who explores the "noble lie" as a tool for social cohesion, and Max Stirner, whose egoist philosophy suggests that truth is not a sacred obligation but a tool to be used at one’s discretion. Ultimately, the episode encourages listeners to look beyond simple definitions and consider how lies function within complex human relationships and societal structures.

Episode #247 ... The Failure of the Modern University - Alasdair MacIntyre

May 10, 202628 minSummary

In this episode of Philosophize This!, the host explores Alasdair MacIntyre’s critique of the modern university and the fragmented nature of contemporary intellectual life. Drawing from MacIntyre’s work, the discussion centers on the distinction between philosophy as a technical professional skill and philosophy as a vital, lived practice rooted in human experience. The episode highlights how modern institutions, particularly universities, often encourage a hyper-specialized approach that isolates experts within their own disciplines. While these individuals may be highly competent in technical procedures, they often lack the practical wisdom—or phronesis—required to understand the broader moral and ethical foundations of their work. MacIntyre argues that this specialization prevents thinkers from seeing how their actions impact the larger human community. By treating philosophy as an optional, secondary pursuit rather than an essential framework for judgment, modern education fails to prepare individuals to think critically about the consequences of their actions. Ultimately, the episode serves as a compelling call for a more unified intellectual tradition that encourages accountability, depth of judgment, and a reconnection of academic inquiry with the fundamental questions of human existence.

Episode #245 ... The Rival Moral Approaches of the Modern World - Alasdair Macintyre

Apr 12, 202632 minSummary

In this episode, the host explores the influential work of Alasdair MacIntyre, specifically focusing on his analysis of the competing moral frameworks that shape modern society. MacIntyre argues that there is no such thing as a "view from nowhere" in moral discourse; every moral claim is inherently grounded in a set of inherited assumptions, language, and historical traditions. The episode breaks down the three "rival versions of moral inquiry" identified by MacIntyre: the encyclopedic, the genealogical, and the tradition-based viewpoints. The encyclopedic approach, common in modern institutions, attempts to treat morality as a scientific, value-neutral endeavor that can be solved through rational consensus. In contrast, the genealogical approach, rooted in the work of thinkers like Nietzsche, critiques these frameworks by exposing the power dynamics and historical contingency behind them. Finally, the tradition-based view posits that morality is inseparable from a specific way of life and shared communal practices. The host highlights how modern moral debates often fail to reach resolution because participants are arguing from these deeply incompatible foundational assumptions rather than the surface-level issues themselves.