NoodleCast #238: Rapid Fire Extravaganza

 Posted by on 26 August 2013 at 8:00 am  NoodleCast
Aug 262013
 

On Thursday’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered questions on all sorts of topics from the Rapid Fire Queue with Greg Perkins. The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading. You’ll find it on the episode’s archive page, as well as below.

Remember, you can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:

Podcast: Rapid Fire Extravaganza

Listen or Download:

Remember, with every episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, we show how rational philosophy can help you find joy in your work, model virtue for your kids, pursue your goals effectively, communicate with respect, and advocate for a free society. We can’t do that without your support, so please remember to tip your philosopher!

You can download or listen to individual questions from this episode below.

Introduction (0:00)

Rapid Fire Questions (3:05)

In this segment, I answered questions impromptu. The questions were:

  • Why are wrong things so grating to listen to? Instead of bells in my head going “WRONG!” shouldn’t I just take it as “This person is convinced of this other thing”?
  • Is there anything wrong with finding violence – really serious, bloody, gory violence, given a certain state of “suspension of disbelief” – to be genuinely funny?
  • My daughter has a different last name than me, from her absentee father. She refuses to believe that her last name is not mine, what should I do?
  • Is it okay to fart and blame it on someone else?
  • If it was proper to justify the subjugation of the Native Americans because they were “savages,” does that imply a far superior alien race could claim the same right over humanity?
  • Should Wikipedia sell ad space on their pages? They’re always asking for donations, but with their traffic, with ads they’d make billions of dollars.
  • What would be the morality of uplifting a species or otherwise creating rational beings through science? Would there be the danger of someone mass producing indoctrinated voters?
  • What’s the value (if any) of protesting outside? Wouldn’t things like the tea parties make more progress by giving out copies of things like “Economy in one Lesson” And Bastiat’s “The Law”?
  • Is there a kind of people (aside from age category) who are more likely to like Objectivism? Do you think that most of it being only in writing tilts the scale? Is there hope for non-bookworms?
  • Given that you regularly interview people (on your Wednesday radio show), would you call yourself a journalist as well (rather than just a philosopher)?
  • Would it be wrong for parents to have a lot of children because doing so would limit the amount of attention that can be given to each child? For example, is having 8 or more kids at home too many?
  • If I know without a doubt that I will be financially well enough off in about a year, is it then okay to conceive a child now, or should I wait until I am financially well-off?
  • I have the opportunity to create art for an anti-fur fashion design scholarship. While it makes me want to go shoot a bear and make myself a coat, I also need the money greatly. Would it be wrong to enter?
  • Instead of one big passion, could I have several passions that I plan to pursue successively in different stages in my life?
  • How does an Objectivist deal with romantic rejection? You know the person wasn’t right for you, but it still stings.
  • How does an Objectivist deal with romantic rejection? You know the person wasn’t right for you, but it still stings.
  • Is online dating a good way to meet your future mate or an obscene waste of time and energy?

Listen or Download:

To comment on these questions or my answers, visit its comment thread.

Conclusion (1:04:07)

Be sure to check out my blog NoodleFood and to submit and vote on questions for upcoming episodes.

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Remember, with every episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, we show how rational philosophy can help you find joy in your work, model virtue for your kids, pursue your goals effectively, communicate with respect, and advocate for a free society. We can’t do that without your support, so please remember to tip your philosopher!

Philosophy in Action's NewsletterPhilosophy in Action's Facebook PagePhilosophy in Action's Twitter StreamPhilosophy in Action's RSS FeedsPhilosophy in Action's Calendar

  • William H. Stoddard

    I don’t usually see uplift being proposed to be aimed at household pets.

    The more common version looks at animals that are already highly intelligent, such as apes or dolphins (elephants, parrots, or ravens could be other candidates), and proposes bringing them to the human level. I think the envisioned payoff there is to have another species on the conceptual level to interact with, one that would give us a second perspective on reality.

    A different version most often looks at dogs—but with the aim of making them, not sycophants, but working partners in fields such as hunting, herding, or law enforcement. That does create ethical issues, since, as you say, they would be “slaves by nature” in Aristotle’s sense: intelligent enough to understand and carry out orders, but not enough to fully direct their own lives. But it’s not driven by sentimentality or by a desire for pseudo-self-esteem; it at least has aspects of the desire for a better tool.

    There are still ethical issues about creating either type of uplifted species, of course.

   
Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha