To set the stage for part two of our series, “Race: Is That a Thing?", we take a deep look at a recurring metaphor that has permeated our entire series.
One last look back at Season One Episode Two: Party and Science and Bullshit, before we start setting its principles to the test in part two of our series, "Race: Is That a Thing?" next week.
While we continue feverishly with the production of part two of our series, "Race: Is That a Thing," we offer you a look back at an episode from season one that we find particularly salient to the part of our current series that you are soon to enjoy: namely "Season One - Episode Two: Party and Science and Bullshit." You'll hear Aaron's reflections on one section this week and Ben's reflections on another section next week.
Once again, this is a set of material that we couldn’t fit into Episode Seven: “Categorical Declarative” proper. Consider the contents of the appendix the audio footnote podcasts—or “footcasts”—to that episode. We will be releasing Episode Eight: “The Holy Family in a Pane of Frosted Glass” on Monday, March 18.
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, he “is the central figure in modern philosophy. He synthesized early modern rationalism and empiricism, set the terms for much of nineteenth and twentieth century philosophy, and continues to exercise a significant influence today in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, aesthetics, and other fields.”
But did Immanuel Kant create the spurious concept of scientific race? We ask Boston College Professor of Philosophy Susan Shell, author of Kant and the Limits of Autonomy and The Embodiment of Reason: Kant on Spirit, Generation and Community.
When people talk about things as social constructs, should we understand that as derision or dismissal? Do socially constructed human kinds, like races, get realer over time, the more those who supposedly fit a construct begin to behave as if they naturally fit it?
We ask Professor of Philosophy and Philosophy-Neuroscience-Psychology Ron Mallon of Washington University in St. Louis these questions and more.
Can there be a plurality of concepts of race floating in the social air? If so, are we okay with that? Are there pragmatic uses for one or more of those concepts in the areas of medicine or public policy? In this episode we speak with Robin O. Andreasen, philosopher and Associate Professor of Linguistics and Cognitive Science at the University of Delaware.
If race has no essence, then is it an irrational social contrivance? Or is it somewhere in-between? We speak with Michael Hardimon, Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, San Diego, and author of Rethinking Race: The Case for Deflationary Realism, who argues we must come to terms with the limited ways in which race really does exist.