Personal News: Forthcoming Divorce

 Posted by on 22 June 2015 at 10:00 am  Personal
Jun 222015
 

As many of you already know, Paul and I separated in April after 16 years of marriage.

Last week, we decided that we should let friends know that we are definitely on a path to divorce. We’ve started seeing other people (or at least that’s in the works), so we wanted some greater public clarity about the state of our marriage.

Happily, our relationship is very amicable. We meet for a friendly meal about once a week, and we’ve been talking very openly and honestly about our marriage. We’ve also been doing (and will continue to do) divorce counseling together, as well as individual therapy. The legal process of divorce is not yet underway for logistical reasons, but that’ll start sometime in the next few months.

I know that some of you will be surprised by this announcement, but please be assured that Paul and I are doing okay, and that we appreciate the support of our friends as we move forward with our lives. This is a major and difficult life-change for both of us, and I think we’ll be better off at the end of it.

Also… I plan to change back to my maiden name — meaning that I’ll be Diana Mertz Brickell again. To ease the transition, I’m going to start using that socially now and professionally soon. Legally though, that’ll only change with the divorce.

 

On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I answered questions on respect without agreement, political correctness, responsibility for stolen firearms, and more. The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading.

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


Whole Podcast: 21 June 2015

Listen or Download:

Remember the Tip Jar!

The mission of Philosophy in Action is to spread rational principles for real life… far and wide. That’s why the vast majority of my work is available to anyone, free of charge. I love doing the radio show, but each episode requires an investment of time, effort, and money to produce. So if you enjoy and value that work of mine, please contribute to the tip jar. I suggest $5 per episode or $20 per month, but any amount is appreciated. In return, contributors can request that I answer questions from the queue pronto, and regular contributors enjoy free access to premium content and other goodies.


Podcast Segments: 21 June 2015

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

Introduction

My News of the Week: I’ve been busy with work and krav maga!

Question 1: Respect without Agreement

Question: How can I help my father understand that I respect him, even when I disagree with him? I generally value experience for its ability to provide helpful insights, but I am suspicious of people who fall back on appeals to authority in an attempt to win arguments. My father often does that during our debates on various subjects, as we do not see eye-to-eye on many important issues. When I reject his appeals on the grounds that they are logically fallacious, he takes personal offense and accuses me of disrespecting him. I respect my father, and I try to convey my appreciation for his experience in other ways. But I want to have civil discourse with him that doesn’t dead-end in this uncomfortable way someday. My father and I have been estranged for the last five years, in large part due to his tendency toward communicating in this and other manipulative ways, and my current attempt at reconciliation is failing again because of these communication issues. This is a shame because I truly feel that the makings of a good father-daughter relationship are in place, but my father cannot seem to stop predicating our ability to love and respect each other on my willingness to constantly agree with him simply because he is my father. What advice can you give on how best to halt this unhealthy pattern, so that I can save my relationship with my dad?

My Answer, In Brief: You cannot reasonably expect to change your father, but you can decide what you will do – perhaps compartmentalizing the relationship.

Listen or Download:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Question 2: Political Correctness

Question: What is the value of “political correctness”? I used to be a fairly typical right-winger who would regularly cry out “political correctness has gone mad!” While I still come across politically correct ideas that I find ridiculous (e.g. the ban bossy campaign), I’m finding myself more sympathetic to these ideas as I become more informed on them. So I’m now in favor of using the right pronouns for transgender people, avoiding words that can be perceived as derogatory (e.g. fag), and even changing school event names like “parent day” or “Christmas party” to something that doesn’t exclude those it doesn’t apply to. Where should the line be drawn between “political correctness” and making valuable change in our language or practices to be more accommodating and inclusive of people outside the mainstream? Are there legitimate concerns about language becoming more politically correct?

My Answer, In Brief: The whole concept of “political correctness” is meaningless junk that deserves to be scrapped. Language is badly abused in our cultural and political debates, but that needs to be addressed in non-partisan ways.

Listen or Download:

Links:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Question 3: Responsibility for Stolen Firearms

Question: Should a person injured by a stolen gun be permitted to sue the original owner thereof for damages? Imagine that a person’s firearm is stolen, then used in a crime to injure an innocent person. Can the crime victim sue the owner of the gun for damages? Would it matter if the gun was left in plain sight or not locked away? Would it matter if the gun was stolen months or years before the crime? Also, what if the gun owner lent his gun to another person who he reasonably thought was honest and law-abiding? If the gun owner is not legally liable, might he be morally culpable?

My Answer, In Brief: A gun owner might be liable for harms inflicted on innocent parties by his weapon if he was negligent with that weapon in some fashion – just as he would be with other kinds of dangerous property.

Listen or Download:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Rapid Fire Questions

Questions:

  • Was Rachel Dolezal wrong for lying about her race in order to fight against racism for the NAACP?
  • Given our declining freedoms in the USA, have you ever thought about moving out of the country? Would you be willing to leave if greater freedoms existed elsewhere?In the current climate of police distrust and rampant abuses of power, would you advise against filming a police encounter that appeared to be suspicious or violent?When I read postmodern philosophy, it seems like philosophy is starting to “melt” into the social sciences. What do you think of this observation?
  • What are some of the moral concerns with commissioning art?
  • Sometimes, I hear people talk about the importance of “feeling like a part of your community.” Is this just collectivist nonsense? I have never felt like part of a community.

Listen or Download:

  • Start Time: 41:07
  • Duration: 20:36
  • Download: MP3 Segment

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

Conclusion

Be sure to check out the topics scheduled for upcoming episodes! Don’t forget to submit and vote on questions for future episodes too!

  • Start Time: 1:01:43


About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio focuses on the application of rational principles to the challenges of real life. It broadcasts live on most Sunday mornings and many Thursday evenings over the internet. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

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

Link-O-Rama

 Posted by on 19 June 2015 at 1:00 pm  Link-O-Rama
Jun 192015
 

Myers-Briggs Typing

 Posted by on 18 June 2015 at 10:00 am  Personal, Personality, Psychology
Jun 182015
 

For some time now, I’ve gone back and forth about whether I’m INFJ or INFP on Myers-Briggs. Over the past few months, I’ve seen some aspects of my personality change and sharpen: I feel more in control of my life, more confident, and more driven. As part of that, I’m engaged in lots more J-ish behaviors. (If only I’d let you see my spreadsheets!!)

And… the INFJ on this myth-busting page really resonated with me:

Stereotype #2: INFJs are the natural counselors of the world, who want nothing more than to care for and nurture you.

Reality: Though they certainly do care for others, INFJs can often come across as cold if you don’t know them well. They lead with introverted intuition, which makes them infinitely more interested in analyzing big-picture problems than helping you sort out your relationship issues – they are empathetic to a fault but they’d usually rather be analyzing than empathizing.

Reading through the descriptions of INFJ and INFP again, I’m struck by how well INFJ suits. For example:

Consequently, most INFJs are protective of their inner selves, sharing only what they choose to share when they choose to share it. They are deep, complex individuals, who are quite private and typically difficult to understand. INFJs hold back part of themselves, and can be secretive.

I’m only starting to understand just how really, really true this is of me. But no, I’m not going to give you any details, random people of Earth. SO THERE.

P.S. For what it’s worth, I don’t recommend trying to type yourself using a test. The test sucks.

 

On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on respect without agreement, political correctness, responsibility for stolen firearms, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 21 June 2015, in our live studio. If you can’t listen live, you’ll find the podcast on the episode’s archive page.

This week’s questions are:

  • Question 1: Respect without Agreement: How can I help my father understand that I respect him, even when I disagree with him? I generally value experience for its ability to provide helpful insights, but I am suspicious of people who fall back on appeals to authority in an attempt to win arguments. My father often does that during our debates on various subjects, as we do not see eye-to-eye on many important issues. When I reject his appeals on the grounds that they are logically fallacious, he takes personal offense and accuses me of disrespecting him. I respect my father, and I try to convey my appreciation for his experience in other ways. But I want to have civil discourse with him that doesn’t dead-end in this uncomfortable way someday. My father and I have been estranged for the last five years, in large part due to his tendency toward communicating in this and other manipulative ways, and my current attempt at reconciliation is failing again because of these communication issues. This is a shame because I truly feel that the makings of a good father-daughter relationship are in place, but my father cannot seem to stop predicating our ability to love and respect each other on my willingness to constantly agree with him simply because he is my father. What advice can you give on how best to halt this unhealthy pattern, so that I can save my relationship with my dad?
  • Question 2: Political Correctness: What is the value of “political correctness”? I used to be a fairly typical right-winger who would regularly cry out “political correctness has gone mad!” While I still come across politically correct ideas that I find ridiculous (e.g. the ban bossy campaign), I’m finding myself more sympathetic to these ideas as I become more informed on them. So I’m now in favor of using the right pronouns for transgender people, avoiding words that can be perceived as derogatory (e.g. fag), and even changing school event names like “parent day” or “Christmas party” to something that doesn’t exclude those it doesn’t apply to. Where should the line be drawn between “political correctness” and making valuable change in our language or practices to be more accommodating and inclusive of people outside the mainstream? Are there legitimate concerns about language becoming more politically correct?
  • Question 3: Responsibility for Stolen Firearms: Should a person injured by a stolen gun be permitted to sue the original owner thereof for damages? Imagine that a person’s firearm is stolen, then used in a crime to injure an innocent person. Can the crime victim sue the owner of the gun for damages? Would it matter if the gun was left in plain sight or not locked away? Would it matter if the gun was stolen months or years before the crime? Also, what if the gun owner lent his gun to another person who he reasonably thought was honest and law-abiding? If the gun owner is not legally liable, might he be morally culpable?

After that, we’ll tackle some impromptu “Rapid Fire Questions.”

To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action’s Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat.

The podcast of this episode will be available shortly after the live broadcast here: Radio Archive: Q&A: Respect without Agreement, Political Correctness, Stolen Firearms, and More. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:

I hope you join us for the live show or enjoy the podcast later. Also, please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics!

Philosophy in Action Radio focuses on the application of rational principles to the challenges of real life. It broadcasts live on most Sunday mornings and many Thursday evenings over the internet. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

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

 

On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I answered questions on responsibility for a child, career without aptitude, and more. The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading.

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


Whole Podcast: 14 June 2015

Listen or Download:

Remember the Tip Jar!

The mission of Philosophy in Action is to spread rational principles for real life… far and wide. That’s why the vast majority of my work is available to anyone, free of charge. I love doing the radio show, but each episode requires an investment of time, effort, and money to produce. So if you enjoy and value that work of mine, please contribute to the tip jar. I suggest $5 per episode or $20 per month, but any amount is appreciated. In return, contributors can request that I answer questions from the queue pronto, and regular contributors enjoy free access to premium content and other goodies.


Podcast Segments: 14 June 2015

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

Introduction

My News of the Week: I’ve been working on personal projects, and I had my first krav maga class this week!

Question 1: Responsibility for a Child

Question: When is a person responsible for an unexpected and unwanted child? Sex sometimes results in an unexpected and perhaps unwanted pregnancy. What are the moral responsibilities of each party in this situation? Do a person’s obligations depend on prior agreements about what would be done in such a case? Do they depend on whether contraception was used or not? If the man said that he didn’t want children and used contraception, yet a pregnancy occurs, does he have any moral or legal obligation to pay for an abortion, support the child, or act as a father? Does the answer change if the woman agreed to have an abortion in advance, then changes her mind? Should couples talk explicitly about these matters before sex?

My Answer, In Brief: Morally and legally, the fundamental principle is that neither men nor women should be compelled to become parents against their will.

Listen or Download:

Links:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Question 2: Career without Aptitude

Question: Should I pursue a career that interests me even if I don’t have much aptitude for it? I have a strong interest in the field of bioengineering for what it can potentially accomplish. However, in my own estimation, I have little aptitude for hard science and seriously doubt whether I can succeed academically in the areas necessary to enter the field. This self-assessment is based on my academic history, life accomplishments, and aptitude test results. Should I try to pursue this career against the odds anyway, or should I accept that I don’t have the intellectual capability to do so?

My Answer, In Brief: Your interest in bioengineering sounds like an interest in what it produces, not in the day-to-day process of creating that. To make a career in something, you need to love the process. So seek a career where you love the work itself.

Listen or Download:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Rapid Fire Questions

Questions:

  • If an infant is born with an incurable disease that will kill it after weeks of suffering, should it be permissible to simply euthanise the infant?
  • How is weed legalization going in Colorado from your observations? Do you notice people casually smoking in public? Does the public there have an overall positive or negative view of it so far?
  • Scanning the internet is shortening my attention span considerably. I feel impatient urges to move on whenever I start reading anything. Any advice for how to lessen the urges and retrain focus?
  • How does a person stop himself from obsessing about a difficult conversation they are planning to have with someone? What are some signs that he has moved beyond reasonable planning to obsessing?
  • A while ago I asked you about the moral considerations involved in having to revive my landlord, who didn’t take care of her type-1 diabetes properly and had me and other people calling an ambulance for her regularly, nearly a dozen times within a year. (She ate irregularly, or skipped meals altogether, causing her to pass out, get very weak, or lose most of her cognitive ability.) My concern was whether it was ethical to just leave her in a catatonic state, and you stated that there’s “duty to rescue” laws, where, given my relationship with my landlord, I was legally obligated to tend to her emergencies, regardless if they were honest or not. However, couldn’t it be said that the landlord was literally forcing me to take care of her, violating my rights, since her diabetic emergencies were due to her irresponsibility? Shouldn’t there be a limit to how many times or in what ways a duty to rescue law can apply? Shouldn’t I be able to press charges, sue, or be relieved of obligations, such as being able to move out without illegally breaking the renter’s contract?
  • Isn’t it true that, if the universe has always existed then that, in and of itself, is the strongest argument against design by God? In other words, for argument’s sake, doesn’t just the possibility of the universe being the metaphysical given render design arguments moot?
  • Did Ayn Rand have a sense of humor? Is there room for humor in Objectivism?
  • Could you give a brief overview of Stoicism and its good versus bad points?
  • Was Oskar Schindler an altruist?
  • Would you agree that musical theatre is the only art form that has always remained romantic? I have never heard or a realist musical or a stream of consciousness musical.
  • Why do people describe John Rawls as an ‘individualist’ when his ideas seem to underly all of modern statism?
  • Do you prefer the original Star Trek or The Next Generation?

Listen or Download:

  • Start Time: 25:36
  • Duration: 37:13
  • Download: MP3 Segment

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

Conclusion

Be sure to check out the topics scheduled for upcoming episodes! Don’t forget to submit and vote on questions for future episodes too!

  • Start Time: 1:02:49


About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio focuses on the application of rational principles to the challenges of real life. It broadcasts live on most Sunday mornings and many Thursday evenings over the internet. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

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

 

I’ve been meaning to read this post on the “motte and bailey doctrine” for ages, and I only just did so, after I realized just how short it is. (In other words, if you’ve not read it, get to it!)

Obviously, “motte and bailey” and “weak-manning” are standard strategies in intellectual discourse in America today. It’s easy to point fingers at others… but some better questions might be:

Do I fall back on these strategies sometimes? What are the effects of that? How would my intellectual life be different if I didn’t rely on these strategies? What would happen if they were deliberately rejected in my intellectual community? How can I help make that happen?

Alas, many Objectivists (including professional intellectuals) rely on “motte and bailey” and “weak-manning” heavily, particularly the latter. Unfortunately, being fair to opponents isn’t always strongly valued in Objectivist circles, and sometimes doing so is even seen as compromising with evil, blah blah blah. And acknowledging the downsides or inadequacies of some standard Objectivist view isn’t compatible with the cheerleading role (“only Objectivism can save the culture!”) that many have adopted.

Of course, I’m guilty of these strategies myself at times, and I’ve got work to do in that regard.

So I wonder: What would an intellectual community look like if the people involved in it sincerely and deliberately attempted to be rigorously fair in presenting their own ideas, as well as those of the opposing sides? I don’t know — although I can see that approach among some of my friends. As a result, we’ve learned a ton from new ideas and each other, and we’ve developed friendships of deep respect, despite some major disagreements. But how good could it get? I don’t know… but still so much better, I think.

 

On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on responsibility for a child, career without aptitude, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 14 June 2015, in our live studio. If you can’t listen live, you’ll find the podcast on the episode’s archive page.

This week’s questions are:

  • Question 1: Responsibility for a Child: When is a person responsible for an unexpected and unwanted child? Sex sometimes results in an unexpected and perhaps unwanted pregnancy. What are the moral responsibilities of each party in this situation? Do a person’s obligation depend on prior agreements about what would be done in such a case? Do they depend on whether contraception was used or not? If the man said that he didn’t want children and used contraception, yet a pregnancy occurs, does he have any moral or legal obligation to pay for an abortion, support the child, or act as a father? Does the answer change if the woman agreed to have an abortion in advance, then changes her mind? Should couples talk explicitly about these matters before sex?
  • Question 2: Career without Aptitude: Should I pursue a career that interests me even if I don’t have much aptitude for it? I have a strong interest in the field of bioengineering for what it can potentially accomplish. However, in my own estimation, I have little aptitude for hard science and seriously doubt whether I can succeed academically in the areas necessary to enter the field. This self-assessment is based on my academic history, life accomplishments, and aptitude test results. Should I try to pursue this career against the odds anyway, or should I accept that I don’t have the intellectual capability to do so?

After that, we’ll tackle some impromptu “Rapid Fire Questions.”

To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action’s Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat.

The podcast of this episode will be available shortly after the live broadcast here: Radio Archive: Q&A: Responsibility for a Child, Career without Aptitude, and More. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:

I hope you join us for the live show or enjoy the podcast later. Also, please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics!

Philosophy in Action Radio focuses on the application of rational principles to the challenges of real life. It broadcasts live on most Sunday mornings and many Thursday evenings over the internet. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

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

A Radiologist’s Day

 Posted by on 10 June 2015 at 2:00 pm  Funny, Medicine, Technology
Jun 102015
 

As a radiologist, I really appreciated this comic “A Radiologist’s Day“.  You can click on the image below to see the full-sized version.

(And I bought the shirt at CafePress.)

 

On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I answered questions on needs versus wants, medical care for the poor, and more. The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading.

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


Whole Podcast: 7 June 2015

Listen or Download:

Remember the Tip Jar!

The mission of Philosophy in Action is to spread rational principles for real life… far and wide. That’s why the vast majority of my work is available to anyone, free of charge. I love doing the radio show, but each episode requires an investment of time, effort, and money to produce. So if you enjoy and value that work of mine, please contribute to the tip jar. I suggest $5 per episode or $20 per month, but any amount is appreciated. In return, contributors can request that I answer questions from the queue pronto, and regular contributors enjoy free access to premium content and other goodies.


Podcast Segments: 7 June 2015

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

Introduction

My News of the Week: I’ve been busy with personal projects.

Question 1: Needs Versus Wants

Question: Is the distinction between needs and wants valid? Anti-capitalist philosophers such as Giles Deleuze accuse the capitalist system of depending on blurring the distinction between needs and wants and tyrannizing over us by implanting artificial needs into our minds. In contrast, George Reisman justifies capitalist extravagance on the basis that human needs are technically infinite and that our needs expand as we become more affluent. Who is right? Is the distinction between needs and wants valid or not? Is it useful in thinking about ethics or politics?

My Answer, In Brief: Needs are the universal requirements for sustaining human life — what every person requires to survive and flourish. Wants, I suggest, are the particular ways that a person desires to satisfy his needs based on his own context, preferences, and resources. Needs and wants do not merely differ in importance, and a person’s rational wants should not be regarded as unimportant.

Listen or Download:

Links:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Question 2: Medical Care for the Poor

Question: How would the poor obtain medical care in a free society? In your May 12th, 2013 show, you discussed how EMTALA – the law that obliges emergency rooms and doctors to treat patients, regardless of ability to pay – violates the rights of doctors and results in worse care for the poor. But what is the alternative? How would the poor and indigent get medical care – if at all – in a society without government welfare programs? What if charity wasn’t sufficient?

My Answer, In Brief: The health care system in America is largely a creature of byzantine government regulations and controls. A robust system of charity would be possible with a genuine free market.

Listen or Download:

Links:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Rapid Fire Questions

Questions:

  • How can you maintain a close friendship with someone if you don’t like their spouse? Is it possible?
  • What’s the proper reaction of a girl who is being oogled and whistled at by guys in public? Is it a sign of lack of self-esteem if she enjoys it? Should the guys’ behavior always be frowned upon?
  • In light of the evolving understand of healthy eating from a paleo perspective, do you have a position on potatoes? Do you eat them?
  • In answer to a chat-room question during a recent podcast, you said that there’s no necessary connection between altruism and the concept of karma, because one will simply infuse karma with whatever basic ethical theory one holds. Isn’t there more to it than that? Isn’t karma an essential prop for altruism? In egoism, there’s a clear bond between cause and effect: you enact certain virtues precisely because they lead to certain values. But in altruism you are expected to act regardless of whether or not the results of your actions are a value to you. It seems to me that karma comes in to fill-in the blank in order to answer all those pesky “why” questions. Why should I sacrifice my life by refusing to terminate a fetus with Down Syndrome? Because karma will reward me for doing so. On all levels, from life-altering choices down to giving a dollar to the panhandler, the concept of karma seems like a way of subverting careful, rational calculations of value. It’s a thumb on the scale to tip any calculations in favor of whichever action would benefit others and away from whichever action would benefit myself.
  • In a free society, would government bonds be a good way of funding the state, or would that infringe on the separation of state and economy?

Listen or Download:

  • Start Time: 40:15
  • Duration: 19:46
  • Download: MP3 Segment

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

Conclusion

Be sure to check out the topics scheduled for upcoming episodes! Don’t forget to submit and vote on questions for future episodes too!

  • Start Time: 1:00:02


About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio focuses on the application of rational principles to the challenges of real life. It broadcasts live on most Sunday mornings and many Thursday evenings over the internet. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

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

Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha