Thursday, March 30, 2017
Monday, March 27, 2017
They told you that philosophy majors don’t get jobs. They told you that you should practice asking “do you want fries with that?” They told you philosophy wasn’t about real-world skills. They were wrong.
Explore the incredible employment- and salary-statistics of philosophy degree holders at PhilosophyIsAGreatMajor.com. Share a site designed to persuade everyone that philosophy is a great, employable, and lucrative major. Submit your own story to help show the world that philosophy is not frivolous, but is a useful tool for whatever profession its students choose.
Sunday, February 12, 2017
|Ms. first appeared in 1971 as an insert in New York magazine.|
This is the monologue for the 100th episode of Why? Radio: "Feminism as Philosophy, Politics, and Friendship" with guests Gloria Steinem and Suzanne Braun Levine. Click here to listen to the episode.
I can think of few guests more suitable for the hundredth episode of Why? Radio than Gloria Steinem and Suzanne Braun Levine. They and their feminists cohorts emphasized that everyday sexism was built on ideology as much as habit, creating a space for philosophy in the public consciousness. Gloria and Suzanne’s creation, Ms. Magazine, prepared the ground for the blogs, college courses, and television shows we have today. It was critical thinking; it was public philosophy.
Ms. offered a counterpoint to the notion that women were only interested in, well, notions. Its title alone was transgressive. It recognized that the most personal designation—that term by which we are acknowledged by others—announced our limitations. Women called Miss were deemed perpetually immature and those referred to as Mrs. were relegated to the background of a couple. Those called Ms, however, were protected by ambiguity. Freed from the conviction that without a husband, they were nothing, they could pursue the life of their choice—in theory, anyway.
Thursday, January 26, 2017
|Visit us at www.whyradioshow.org|
Dear Why? Radio listeners,
As many of you know, the next episode is our 100th. To celebrate, we are lucky enough to have two incredible guests, best friends Gloria Steinem and Suzanne Braun Levine. The topic of the show is “Feminism as philosophy, politics, and friendship.”
We are prerecording the show, but we need your questions. So, please think about what you would ask Gloria and Suzanne if you got to talk to them personally, and pass the questions along to us. We’ll do our best to ask them during the show.
The deadline for questions is January 31st at 5pm, but feel free to send them sooner. And don’t forget to include your first name and your city/state, so we can give you credit for the question on the air.
Send them via email at :email@example.com
Tweet them at: @whyradiohsow
Or call us and leave a message at (888) 755-6377
Thank you all for your loyalty to the show. We look forward to sharing this milestone with you and hope the next 100 episodes are even better.
Jack Russell Weinstein
Wednesday, January 18, 2017
|Published by the University of North Dakota Digital Press|
Announcing an exciting new FREE book for you to download, including an essay by PQED author/ Why? Radio host Jack Russell Weinstein. Click on the link below to get your copy!
Picking the President: Understanding the Electoral College
The 2016 presidential election has sparked an unprecedented interest in the Electoral College. To expand the conversation, Picking the President: Understanding the Electoral College offers brief essays that examine the Electoral College from different disciplinary perspectives, including philosophy, mathematics, political science, history, and pedagogy. Along the way, the essays address a variety of questions about the Electoral College: Why was it created? How has it changed over time? Who benefits from it? Is it just? How will future demographic patterns affect it? Should we alter or abolish the Electoral College, and if so, what should replace it? In exploring these matters, Picking the President enhances our understanding of one of America’s most high-profile, momentous issues.
Thursday, January 12, 2017
|Pictured here is St. Jerome, the patron saint of translators, librarians and encyclopedists.|
This is the monologue for the most recent episode of Why? Radio: "Thinking Philosophically About the Black Church" with guest J. Kameron Carter. Click here to listen to the episode.
I am so glad December is over; I hate the holiday season. I grow weary of the alienation my Jewish family feels whenever we leave our house and I’m horrified at the stressful consumer orgy forced upon my friends. I am also really tired of reminding others that even for an atheist, Christmas is a Christian holiday.
Yes, the commemoration of the birth of Christ is and must be Christian, even for those who don’t talk about Jesus. And yes, the celebration of the second coming excludes those who are still waiting for their own messiah, even if they enjoy a cup of eggnog or display their friends’ Christmas cards on the mantle while they wait.
Friday, January 6, 2017
Why? Radio is live Sunday.
Send us your comments now or during the show.
Send us your comments now or during the show.
"Thinking Philosophically About the Black Church"
Guest: J. Kameron Carter
Sunday, January 8 at 5 p.m. central.
Listen live from anywhere in the world at http://www.whyradioshow.org/ and in North Dakota at 89.3 (Grand Forks), 91.9 (Fargo), 90.5 (Bismarck), and on Prairie Public radio stations across the state.
Send your questions now or during the show to firstname.lastname@example.org
Remember, if you miss this or any episode, you can access them all for free at our archive: http://www.whyradioshow.org/Why/Previous.aspx
Sunday, December 11, 2016
Disability is embarrassing to address because we don’t like to call attention to people’s impairments or conditions. We are uncomfortable highlighting someone’s difference unless we perceive it as positive or worth celebrating. But, of course whether someone with a disability is to be considered different at all is a philosophical question, and it is unclear whether pathologizing disability is even useful. I’ve already used the terms “impairment” and “condition” in my introduction and I don’t quite know what new information this brings to the table. Also, I’ve already implied that my audience is looking at disability from afar, not experiencing it. I’ve actually reaffirmed the invisibility of the disabled while attempting to call attention to them.
Monday, November 28, 2016
If the Electoral College can contradict the popular vote sometimes, why would it be wrong for them to do it every single time? [Ask a Philosopher]
Today we have a question that makes me think of the current attempt to get electors to abandon Donald Trump and vote for Hillary Clinton.
A reader writes:
Long before the election, my class was discussing the Electoral College, and one student opined that it should be kept because the popular vote doesn't accord with the electoral vote only some of the time. This got me thinking, "Would we find it acceptable if the popular vote never matched the electoral vote?" It would seem that whatever makes it acceptable to have the popular vote not match the electoral vote in some instances, would also make such an outcome acceptable in every instance. Or, conversely, whatever makes it unacceptable to have the popular vote not match the electoral vote in every instance, would also make such an outcome unacceptable in each instance. But perhaps I'm missing something, so I thought I'd see what you have to say in regard to the argumentation.
This is a good, interesting, and relevant question. Let me put it another way: if it is okay for the Electoral College to contradict the popular vote once in a while, why isn’t it okay for it to do so all the time? How can opposing the popular vote be right only some of the time?
I think there are two possible options, depending on what we regard the purpose of the Electoral College to be. Is its purpose insurance or to be a representative body?
Sunday, November 27, 2016
Today, the Grand Forks Herald, published an article about my inclusion in The Professor Watch List. It is a thoughtful piece. You can read it here.
Buried in the 18th paragraph is a mention about the antisemitic letter I received last week, the one I wrote the blog entry about. It was in no way, the subject of the article. It was just an aside emphasizing how these sorts of attacks make people feel vulnerable.
Within a few hours, the journalist herself got her own antisemitic rant. It read:
you do know you cannot have antisemitism without semitism right ??
I'm sure you are a college grad and do know the jews have been kicked out of 89 countries 109 times right ? You do know that.....? Right ?.
If this guy has his way you will not be able to have a gun in this country.........
I know about the letter because the journalist sent it to me. She didn’t understand one of the references and sought to know more. I have nothing but respect for this. As a Jew and a teacher, I can think of nothing nobler than asking to learn more, especially about a paniful and complex topic like antisemitism. I wish more journalists were as conscientious as she is.
I wrote her a detailed line-by-line historical explanation of the email; I won’t repost it here. But just in case others have a difficult time deciphering the sentence fragments, I will reprint my plain-English summary.
No, students who sought counseling after the recent presidential election are not "precious snowflakes."
|This picture was used here to ridicule the crying student.|
I believe her emotional reaction to losing is a badge of honor.
Over the last couple of weeks, pundits have publicly attacked university students for being whiny, coddled crybabies in the face of the presidential election. Following others (see here, here, and here), Rob Port a local Republican blogger attacked a neighboring university, North Dakota State University, for sending out an email informing its students that counseling services were available to anyone who was having trouble dealing with the results. This student weakness was so horrifying to a a local letter writer, that she felt the need to both describe her own time as a college student as strong and noble, and then to tell students who need someone to talk to to “get a grip” and "find God."
Even if only a small numbers of students actually sought counseling, these attacks are dangerous and ignorant. They are based on the outdated premise that asking for psychological help is a form of weakness. It is not. Asking for help requires great strength and it is noble for anyone to act to improve his or her own well-being. Part of what makes human beings special is our desire and ability to improve ourselves. Part of what makes us fragile is that our idea of what improvement is, is often distorted by, at best, imperfect, and at worst, destructive experiences. A good therapist can help people overcome a difficult childhood, trauma, poor judgment and self-centered blinders. Personal improvement is hard that takes much more than personal reflection. Shouldn't we encourage people to work on themselves?
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
The author of this blog has just been put on a watch list for having “anti-American values.” Here is how you can help.
It has been a heck of a week here at PQED and Why? Radio.
We had to cancel our planned guest on Why? Radio and reran our interview with Daniel Goldhagen called “How to Think About Antisemitism.”
Two days later, our host, Jack Russell Weinstein received an antisemitic screed via email. He responded on this blog in, in the words of one religion scholar, an “amazing calm” and “powerful” way.
It took a lot out of him.
Then yesterday, the world found out that Jack is the only North Dakotan listed on Professor Watch List, a website dedicated to surveilling professors who, they say, “promote anti-American values:”
We feel a little exposed right now. We are looking over our shoulders a lot.
But we will not be intimidated. We will not be silenced.
Monday, November 21, 2016
Molli Bernstein died of a drug overdose this weekend; I didn’t really know her. She was one of the hundreds of Facebook friends I have acquired because of my radio show and blog. I was first connected to her via a mutual acquaintance—a young photographer—when they both started complaining about Facebook censoring their pictures.
Molli was a fashion model and she had posed for some test nudes, helping an inexperienced photographer-friend as they both learned their trade. She posted them on a blog, shared them on Facebook, someone complained about the nudity, Facebook took the link down, and eventually, I wrote a post exploring the tension between the idea of “art” and the pragmatic practice of labelling images Not Safe for Work. It was a totally unnecessary chain of events.
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
This past weekend we broadcasted a Why? Radio rerun, an interview with Danial Jonah Goldhagen called “How to think about antisemitism.” I had my reservations about running it again because the first time we did, we lost a bunch of listeners. People who regularly wrote to the show sent emails in advance, asking why Israel was evil and other questions that were, at minimum, phrased problematically. The guest and I discussed them, addressing, in particular, the accusation that Jews all think that criticizing Israel is itself anti-Semitic. (Goldhagen’s answer was, first, that most Jews do not think this and second, that criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic. What is, he argued, is holding Israel to a different standard than anyone else. We’ll come back to that at the end of this discussion.)
During the show I mentions that as a host, I was scared because although I wanted to address listeners’ questions, some of the replies were going to be critical and I didn’t want to alienate a loyal audience. This turned out to be prescient. I never heard from some of them again.
But, politics being what it is, I thought it was an important episode to rebroadcast. Plus, I think it’s a really good episode, one of our best, most compelling, and most sophisticated ones. So I reran it and, predictably, today (11/16/2016) at 7:12 pm, I got the following message via my personal website.
Sunday, November 13, 2016
Telling people to just chill-out about Trump and love one another, is bad advice and philosophically incoherent
|This photo is courtesy of the LA Times.|
Post-election discussion on social media has reached the phase in which large numbers of people are telling others to calm down. Demands for people to “chill out,” “love one another,” and “agree to disagree” are all over the place, as are testimonies that the poster will never unfriend someone because they voted differently. In some cases, the last kind of remark is a direct rebuke to my previous post declaring that I could never stay friends with someone who voted for Donald Trump.
The idea behind these love-promoting messages is that angry political debate should always be contained, and that people will be better off if they just find common ground and push the conflict aside. There may be times when this is a suitable response. Now is not one of them.
The election of Donald Trump has terrified and angered an impressive amount of people. It strikes at the core of people’s most cherished beliefs, of their vision of what America is and ought to be, and, in many cases, of their own identities. Many LGBTQ people, for example, were just starting to feel secure as a result of the legalization of gay marriage. Now the rug is being pulled out from under them. They and their loved ones have every reason to be furious.
Monday, November 7, 2016
I would like to post a very personal reflection on tomorrow's election and a message to Donald Trump supporters. Because of its partisan nature and how intimate this particular essay is, I am including it as an embed rather than as a post. Once again, I need to make the distinction between Jack the person and philosopher, and Jack the Director of IPPL.
Please read this and consider sharing it on FB or anywhere else.
Follow the author on Twitter: @jackrweinstein
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
Anytime someone responds to an internet post by yelling, insulting someone, or being a complete jackass, send them a link to this post and save yourself some time.
A few days ago, I posted a partisan essay about the recent election. It was strong, but it was a proper argument with evidence and elaboration. I did not expect everyone to accept it, but I wasn’t quite expecting the volume of obscene, sexist, anti-Semitic, and completely ineffective responses on the thread. Part of me wanted to answer all of them personally, but I knew that it would be both aggravating and a waste of time. It would also probably have escalated the insults. Instead, I offer this generic response. I hope others will find this useful.
1. Yelling is not an argument; it is a form of violence. Socrates made this point in the very beginning of Plato’s Apology when he urged his audience not to shout him down while he spoke. It is a form of force and violence because its goal is to make someone else submit against their will. It is an attempt to drown them out and shield everyone from what they want to say. While it is true that some people are perfectly fine with using force in the face of argument—some people, such as internet Trolls, enjoy it—yelling at someone has never made anyone change their mind. In fact, it usually only confirms their suspicion that the person yelling doesn’t know what he or she is talking about.
Ultimately, yelling in response to arguments is a sign of weakness. It has no staying power and only stops discussion while the yelling takes place. Force is only effective while the force exists. It has no lasting impact.
Sunday, October 30, 2016
With all eyes turned towards Trump’s horrendous treatment of women, a central aspect of his character is being ignored. Donald Trump is a kleptocrat. His first goal is to put public money into his own pockets.
Monday, October 10, 2016
|This is the monologue for the most recent episode of Why? Radio: "An Argument for Moral Relativism" with guest David B. Wong|
Click here to listen to the episode.
There’s a long-standing philosophical debate as to whether ethical claims are the same type of statements as others kinds or claims—whether or not, for example, “thou shalt not kill” is the same kind of thing as “2+2=4.” Some philosophers argue that they are the same—that they both report a fundamental truth—but their opponents argue that “thou shalt not kill” is really just “I don’t like killing” or “I believe killing is wrong” in fancied-up language.
On the surface, this may seem dry. But, in fact, it is an incredibly important controversy with massive consequences for our day-to-day life. When the president appoints a new Supreme Court justice, for example, Congress grills the candidate on his or her position on this very debate. There they call it natural law: the idea that rights are written into nature in just the same way math is. If the candidate believes in natural law, he or she thinks that rights don’t come from the constitution but from God, nature, or logic. These rights then, should never ever be taken away, even if we change the constitution. Maybe there is a right to work, or a right to freedom of worship, but the point is, anytime the US does something against these rights, it’s wrong to do so, no matter what.