Philippe-Antoine Hoyeck has been a Contract Instructor at 杏吧原创 University since 2019. He teaches a variety of classes, including Philosophy and Popular Culture, Philosophy of Love and Sex, and Philosophy of Religion. Outside the classroom, he likes to bring philosophical discussions into the digital realm. On Substack and on X (formerly known as Twitter), he engages with an online community of philosophers, students, and curious thinkers.

We sat down with Phil to talk about social media as a space for public dialogue and his thoughts on the future of public philosophy through digital means.

What drew you to bringing philosophy discussion online? Was there a particular experience that made you realize social media could be a serious space for exchanging philosophical ideas?

Hoyeck: At first, the decision was completely pragmatic. I didn’t start using X with the intention of using it for public philosophy! To explain, here鈥檚 some background. My intellectual and academic journeys really haven’t been conventional; honestly, they’ve been a little bit all over the place. I’ve never felt that much at home in academia: the world of conferences, of peer-reviewed papers, of trying to get that extra line on your CV. I love reading, learning, and teaching, of course, but academia itself was never really for me. I’ve always been more interested in doing public philosophy and in teaching than in doing the whole academic thing.

I’d been meaning to write a public-facing book on science fiction and philosophy for a while and kept being told that you just can鈥檛 get published anymore unless you have an active social media presence. That鈥檚 why, around December of last year, I thought, 鈥淥kay, I need to start using X in earnest; otherwise, I鈥檒l never get published.鈥� But what I soon discovered is that X and other social media platforms like Substack are themselves pretty great for doing public philosophy! Soon, the whole thing started taking on a life of its own. I found that it was a good way to meet people in the discipline, to talk to them about things that interest me, and just in general to share my thoughts. I slowly started doing more on there; these days, I鈥檓 making memes, posting videos, sharing quotes from books I鈥檓 reading, writing Substack articles鈥� and, of course, having a lot of philosophical discussions!

I would have never expected that a publisher would tell you that you must use social media so heavily!

Hoyeck: Yeah, multiple sources have told me that it鈥檚 very challenging to publish anything, especially more public-facing work, if you don鈥檛 have a strong presence on social media. Actually, at first, it was really discouraging. Around March or so, I saw a post from this author who鈥檇 said that she鈥檇 had a manuscript rejected by a publisher because she just didn’t have enough of a presence on social media鈥攁nd she had over 10,000 followers! At this point, I only had 1,000 followers or so myself, so having the kind of presence required seemed impossible remote. I thought, “Oh, I can’t do this, I can鈥檛 publish.鈥� It was a lot of pressure! But, since then, my account has grown way more than I鈥檇 thought possible at the time. And like I said, it鈥檚 really taken on a life of its own. At this point, what I鈥檓 doing on social media has basically become divorced from the goal of publishing anything. I鈥檓 still working on a couple of books, though!

You are teaching Philosophy of Religion this term, do your online discussions ever connect with what you teach in the classroom? Have your interactions on, for example, X, influenced your teaching or vice versa?

Hoyeck: Yeah, definitely. Actually, the genesis of the philosophy of religion course basically took place on X. I鈥檝e made so many connections on X with people who work in philosophy of religion, who teach it, or are otherwise interested in it, so the first thing I did when I was offered the class was to post on X asking, “What would you want to include on a course outline?” The response was unbelievable. I had dozens of people help out, including some prominent philosophers of religion! weighed in, as did , , and Ben Watkins. These are all people who have published on religion or, in Ben鈥檚 case, who run a pretty prominent podcast! , who鈥檚 also a scholar of religion, even met with me on Zoom to talk about how to approach teaching the course, since he鈥檚 taught similar courses several times. So it鈥檚 not just that there鈥檚 a connection between what I鈥檓 doing on X and this class 鈥� it鈥檚 that what I鈥檓 doing on X is basically the reason the class came together the way it did!

What do you find the most rewarding and most challenging about engaging in philosophical debate on X?

Hoyeck: A lot of it is very rewarding, honestly. I’ve made connections with so many intelligent people: professional philosophers and philosophy students, of course, but also non-philosophers who are just interested in philosophical questions. It鈥檚 nice to be able to talk to experts who know more than I do about certain topics, and it鈥檚 also nice to be able to help non-experts grapple with ideas I know a lot about. Getting positive feedback on my Substack pieces is also very rewarding. Honestly, just the fact that people are bothering to read and discuss what I write is pretty great, whether their feedback is positive or negative! That鈥檚 a big difference between writing on Substack and publishing in academic journals. I think the statistic is that the average academic paper is read by a single person, whereas my Substack pieces are regularly read by upwards of 100 people. That鈥檚 amazing!

As for the challenges: if you鈥檙e active on social media, there鈥檚 always a vocal minority of people who are very angry at you! It鈥檚 just inevitable. Every couple weeks or so, a bunch of people will unexpectedly get very upset at me for something apparently innocuous I said. I post a lot of jokes and memes, and no matter how obvious it is I鈥檓 joking, at least a few people will take things way, way, too seriously! I also often post quotes from books or papers I’m reading for my class on philosophy of religion, and some people will just take that as me uncritically endorsing the position of the book or paper in question. I mean, sometimes I do endorse the position, sometimes I don鈥檛; more often than not, I just think it鈥檚 interesting or worth considering. But if they disagree with the position they think I鈥檓 advocating, well, they can get pretty angry! That kind of stuff can be a challenge. Most of the time, I manage to take it in stride, but sometimes it really does get to me. I鈥檝e definitely lost sleep over social media storms I鈥檝e unintentionally set off!

 Do you see social platforms as the future of sharing scholarly work and ideas? What advice would you give to students on intellectual and thoughtful use of social media?

Hoyeck: I guess it depends on what you’re looking to get out of it. I don’t really do anything on YouTube myself, but I’m very impressed by the role it鈥檚 playing in disseminating knowledge and facilitating academic and philosophical conversations. I listen to a lot of long-form philosophical, theological, and historical discussions and debates on there, and I’m constantly amazed by their quality. There are channels I follow that touch on philosophy of religion and history of religion that do absolutely excellent work: Majesty of Reason really sticks out here, as do Paulogia and Religion for Breakfast. They do a good job of making scholarly discussions accessible to the public, which is, of course, exactly what I kind of want to do with the public-facing books I鈥檓 writing! I think that social media can potentially  bridge the gap between academia and the general public. YouTube is great for that, and I think Substack can be too. A lot of people use Substack for slightly more specialized work, but everything I do on there is public-facing.

As for advice: I really don鈥檛 have much! The only thing I guess I鈥檒l say relates to the attitude you should have and the kind of behaviour you should engage in 鈥� or not engage in! 鈥� online. We all know there鈥檚 a lot of bad behaviour on the internet, but it鈥檚 always a bit of a shock when I see philosophy accounts 鈥� small, student-run ones, but sometimes also really big ones 鈥� behave badly: being petty, mean, uncharitable, and just not very open-minded. So I guess my only advice is to embody the moral and intellectual virtues even when you鈥檙e online! When doing philosophy, interpretive charity and intellectual modesty go a long way. You might not have all the answers, your favourite philosopher might be wrong, and somebody who disagrees with you might still have a point! After all, philosophy starts with the recognition that we don鈥檛 know!

Thank you, Phil, for answering our questions! You can find out more about Instructor Hoyeck and his research on his research page on our website, and you can find him on , , and .

Stay connected with the latest from 杏吧原创鈥檚 Philosophy community by signing up for our newsletter. Look out for our next Spotlight in Winter 2026!

The post Exploring Social Media and Philosophy with Instructor Phil Hoyeck appeared first on Philosophy.

What is it Like to write an MA Thesis at 杏吧原创?

Meet Saleha Anwer, a graduate of 杏吧原创鈥檚 MA program in Philosophy (2023).

We sat down with Saleha to discuss her journey through the MA program, her timely thesis on Hegel and cancel culture, and how she approached the challenge of writing her thesis while also being a new parent.

What brought you to study philosophy and pursue an MA in philosophy at 杏吧原创?

Anwer: Before I chose to pursue an undergraduate degree in Philosophy, I was going through a personal loss and reading books on dealing with loss. I wanted someone to explain some of the more complex ideas I was trying to understand, and I realized there was only so much that I could get out of reading on my own. I found inspiration in a suggestion Victor Frankl makes in his book Man鈥檚 Search for Meaning that rather than trying to find answers, you should try and find the right direction for your thought and studying philosophy was the direction I decided to go in.

Having completed my BA at 杏吧原创 in Philosophy, I was very blessed to engage with Professor Koggel and Professor Lariv茅e who encouraged me to continue to head down a direction for learning. I came to the BA program for my own personal learning, and I thought, 鈥淚 have this amazing opportunity in a master鈥檚 program to learn about a topic that can be personalized to my needs.鈥� In trying to find reading material on cancel culture, I was never satisfied by what I read, and this ultimately led me to the MA program at 杏吧原创.

You developed your thesis topic first in the context of Professor Koggel鈥檚 MA research seminar and then with your thesis supervisor Professor Bruff. Could you describe the process of developing your ideas in collaboration with your peers and with the guidance of these two professors?

Anwer: With Professor Bruff, I started by doing an expansive reading of Hegel on everything that was relevant. With Professor Koggel, I spent time consuming the relevant literature we found on cancel culture.  Both of them did incredible work helping me stay organized, write and research concisely, and work towards a plan. Professor Bruff also gave me the incredibly helpful advice to, 鈥淲rite badly鈥�. This helped me get out of the paralyzing writer鈥檚 block/research pit that can be easy to fall down.

You chose to write your thesis on “Can We Still Read Heidegger?: A Hegelian Response to ‘Cancel Culture,'” a topic which is quite original and timely. Why focus a philosophy thesis on cancel culture? And what led to you to choose a Hegelian lens to tackle this issue?

Anwer: Honestly, I was just interested in the topic itself.  I noticed that when people did similarly problematic acts, there was inconsistency in how I would sometimes give one person a 鈥減ass鈥� and feel that the other person deserved 鈥渃ancellation鈥�.  Noticing my own moral inconsistency led me to explore the philosophical notion of cancellation. I picked Hegel because he seemed, from my initial research, to be a critical philosopher discussing dialectics in a detailed way.

One of the advantages of 杏吧原创鈥檚 MA in philosophy is that it allows students to take individual tutorials on topics of special interest. You did an MA tutorial on Hegel鈥檚 dialectics鈥攁 notoriously difficult topic! Was the tutorial format helpful to prepare for your thesis? Could you describe one or two memories that stand out from the tutorial?

Anwer: Designing my own tutorial was my favourite part of the MA. I was very nervous when I found out I would be the only one in the tutorial, but now I really appreciate how I was able to get one-on-one attention and we were able to focus the whole tutorial on the Hegel part of my thesis.

One of the memories that stands out for me is meeting with Professor Bruff at the Starbucks in Byward market and coming to her with most of the reading she assigned me underlined and highlighted with large question marks around them. I loved when Professor Bruff pulled out her own battered and highlighted copies of the readings. We would sit and I would read parts and explain to her what I thought it meant and then she would patiently explain what each and every line meant. One other memory that stands out for me is trying to read about the civil society in Hegel while writing my final paper for the tutorial and literally crying because I had pregnancy nausea and I also caught covid. I vividly remember wondering what possessed my past self for voluntarily deciding to work on this material.

Several top philosophers have been publicly shamed for abusive behaviour and 鈥榗ancelled鈥� in recent years (e.g., Searle, Pogge, McGinn, even Foucault). You chose Heidegger as a case study. This philosopher鈥檚 turn towards Nazism has generated a lot of heated discussion amongst philosophers in the past decades. What specific problems does the cancellation of philosophers pose in your view?

Anwer: It is important to engage with philosophers鈥�, ideas in order to disagree with them, rather than try to cancel them, because ideas can always resurface. If there is not a coherent methodology on how to approach dangerous ideas, then it could have adverse effects on the whole of society. Emil Fackenheim did a good job of engaging with Heidegger鈥檚 ideas, rather than simply dismissing them. He argued in a very methodical and philosophical way that Heidegger鈥檚 Theory of Being could fall prey to extremist ideologies, long before the discovery of the Black Notebooks. And this critique I feel is far more powerful than trying to remove Heidegger from philosophy syllabi.

My thesis focuses on developing a methodological approach, informed by Hegel鈥檚 dialectics, to approaching philosophers like Heidegger. Whether their ultimate cancellation is justified or not is not the focus of my research. My thesis is also not meant to encourage unlimited free speech on topics like these, or anyone in general. I attempt to construct the philosophical underpinnings of how opposing philosophical perspectives 鈥� including sometimes disturbing perspectives 鈥� interact. Following a Hegelian methodology, our role as philosophers involves engaging with the content of Heidegger’s works, as the philosopher鈥檚 task is to challenge paradoxes and conceptions rather than dismiss or exclude them.

Although your thesis deals primarily with the cancellation of philosophers, has your research influenced how you view issues of 鈥榗ancellation鈥� in broader society? For instance, is there one insight that you think could be applied to the cancellation of social media 鈥榠nfluencers鈥� or celebrities?

Anwer: In examining the possible cancellation of philosophers, I dealt primarily with thinkers who have passed away. This allows me to focus on and engage with the ideas perpetuated by these philosophers. It is important to know that the dialectical method I propose can be problematic if it were to be applied to the work of people in the now. For example, there are some ideologies 鈥� or people – that genuinely cause a significant amount of harm to other people and abuse their power. The methodology is easier to apply to long-dead philosophers when the harm is not actively ongoing by the concrete person in the here and now. In other words, it is easier to engage with Aristotle and his discussion of slavery today, in relation to his complete corpus and historical context, than it would be to engage in a Hegelian dialogue with those involved in genocide in 2024.

What type of mistakes should never be forgiven? Is there room for people in the public eye to make a mistake, especially in their youth, and learn from it and move on?

Anwer: I think that there is always room for people to grow and improve and become better. None of us are the same people we were 10 years ago, and nobody is perfect.

But, when children are involved, there is no amount of reasoning that can justify hurting children. No dialectical reasoning needs to be engaged in. The safety of children is not up for discussion.

Some readers may not know that your daughter was born during your MA studies at 杏吧原创. She was on campus to celebrate your thesis defence last fall. Thank you so much for sharing pictures of her with us! The whole 杏吧原创 philosophy community is in awe at how masterfully you balanced being a parent and finishing your MA at the same time. Could you tell us a little bit about this experience? How did you do it!?

Anwer: My daughter was teething in the last weeks of my thesis writing and she would only want me at night. It was very challenging, and I thought about giving up so many times, but I kept telling myself I鈥檝e spent all this time with Hegel and I can鈥檛 let that go to waste.

I initially had my doubts, too, but it was helpful that I was reading Hegel since he says to just dive in the water rather than attempt to study the theory of swimming. He argues to dive in, then come out, reflect, and then dive back in. I followed his suggestion by taking lots of breaks when I got overwhelmed and going for lots of long walks with my daughter.

The post What it’s like to write an MA Thesis at 杏吧原创, with Saleha Anwer appeared first on Philosophy.

Contrary to common belief, summer can be an especially busy time for academics. Most travel to attend conferences and attempt to complete research work before the start of the new academic year. This also applies to retired professors like Andrew Brook, who made the trip to England last summer to attend a major Rhodes scholar reunion in Oxford. Professor Brook was a Rhodes Scholar during his doctoral studies and helped 杏吧原创 students receive the award in the past.

Valued at more than $100,000, the Rhodes Scholarship is one of the most prestigious in the world, covering the cost of postgraduate studies at the University of Oxford. 杏吧原创 has had several Rhodes Scholars in the past, including most recently Maeve Collins-Tobin, who was one of only 11 students from across Canada selected to receive the award in 2022.

We thought this was a great opportunity to ask Professor Brook about the program, its history, the reunion, and how to apply for a Rhodes Scholarship.

Could you tell us a bit about what the Rhodes Scholarship is, and how you came to earn one?

Professor Brook: When I became a Rhodes scholar, the University of Alberta had a scholarship every year. It being the only university in Alberta and Alberta having a scholarship all to itself, being selected made a bit of a splash but in a pretty small puddle. (Neither has been true for many decades).

What about the origins of the Rhodes Scholarship, we hear it has a troubling past.

Prof. Brook: The origin of the Rhodes scholarship is problematic. Cecil Rhodes used much of his wealth to create a scholarship programme to bring young men from ‘the colonies’ (plus former colonies, the US, and, interestingly, Germany) to Oxford for an education. 杏吧原创 $500 million in contemporary value. The first scholarships were awarded in 1903 –hence the 120th anniversary and occasion for the reunion. Woman were not eligible until 1977(!) but, most unusually for the time, all races and all religions were. The US even elected a black scholar in 1905 –and then not again for 50 years! Because Rhodes made his money on the backs of Black people in South Africa and what is now Zimbabwe, the source of the funds has always been a major issue. In the past couple of decades, large donations, including one from a Canadian, John McCall McBain, have diluted the importance of Rhodes’ original bequest and thirty years ago, the Mandela/Rhodes Scholarship was created for precisely the African people that Rhodes exploited. But the issue of how the original money was made remains significant. 杏吧原创 10,000 scholars have been elected in the past 120 years and about half of them are still alive.

The Rhodes Scholar reunion was quite large this year. In fact, it was the largest meeting Rhodes has ever organized! What was it like to see the vastness of the Rhodes community, and to be a part of it? Did you feel especially like a member in a living Rhodes Scholar community?

Prof. Brook: Yes, more than 1/4 of all living scholars were present either in person or on Zoom, including Bob Rae and Bill Clinton. I felt more a part of something special during this event than at any previous time. When I was elected in 1966 it was a fairly sleepy time for the Rhodes Scholarship and I had relatively little to do with the programme or people, being completely immersed in finishing a D. Phil. This time I felt a part of the community.

To be a Rhodes Scholar is a huge honour. Since becoming one when you were a student, what benefits or privileges did it afford you?

Prof. Brook: The Rhodes community had little influence on me while I was in Oxford, though I made some good friends. That was generally true of those of us doing doctorates at the time. Our focus was our academic unit.

What was the topic of your doctoral dissertation and who was your supervisor at Oxford? Did any mentor(s) make a difference for you?

Prof. Brook: Self-Reference and Self-Awareness. The official advisor was (now Sir) Anthony Kenny but I learned the most from (Sir) Peter Strawson (Galen Strawson’s father and the most influential British philosopher of his time). I ended up not agreeing with Strawson about many things to do with Kant but I learned how to do philosophy from his example.

You鈥檝e helped some previous 杏吧原创 students become Rhodes Scholars, even helping the University President write letters of support for applicants. What would you say to aspiring Rhodes Scholars to help them prepare their applications, or to encourage them to apply?

Prof. Brook: 杏吧原创 has done well in the Rhodes competition for such a young university. Good students! Six 杏吧原创 students have been winners, including one this year (Maeve Collins-Tobin). They have been elected from B.C., the Prairies, Quebec, and Newfoundland, as well as Ontario of course. (One can apply where one grew up as well as where one went to school.) My advice to someone thinking of applying? Pay close attention to the guidelines on the Rhodes and the Canadian Rhodes pages, including the criteria by which applications are assessed鈥攖he Rhodes programme takes its goal of making the world a better place extremely seriously. Then come and talk to me.

Thanks, Professor Brook, or answering our questions! You can find more about Prof. Brook and his research on his page on our website, and you can find him on . You can find out more about the Rhodes Scholar program on . Check out our next Spotlight in November 2023!

The post Meet Dr. Andrew Brook, Chancellor’s Professor of Philosophy and Cognitive Science Emeritus appeared first on Philosophy.

This semester, our department sent a delegation of volunteer judges to officiate the Ontario High School Ethics Bowl! These volunteers included Professors Melissa Frankel and Kyla Bruff, as well as Dr. Matthew Scarfone and EPAF PhD student Ann Cronin-Cossette. Our delegation contributed to public philosophical education and had a great time doing so. Check out info about the event below, and watch the interviews with our delegates in our first ever video Spotlight below! 

杏吧原创 University’s Department of Philosophy is now an official partner of the ! We are thrilled to have joined up with this great initiative, and so glad to be bringing philosophical education to the public in a festive way!

The Ontario Ethics Bowl invites high school ethics teams from all over the province to deliberate on important ethical issues in the context of a friendly competition. Winning teams get to go on to the national competition, where they compete for the top spot at the  

This year, questions included:

• Is doing ‘good’ the same as being ‘good’?听
• Ought we to be friends with bad people?听
• What does living justly on unceded territory demand?听
• How do assessment methods like grades or deadlines affect the fairness of student evaluations? 听
• Does accepting a donation signify that the recipient endorses the donor and their activities? 听

Our four 杏吧原创 delegates had the pleasure of judging discussions on these questions, and some of our judges鈥攁s well as student participants!鈥攔eflected on their experience in the video below: 

We also had the pleasure of hosting the Canterbury High School Ethics Bowl Team at 杏吧原创 in the Fall semester and had a blast talking philosophy with them! The students attended one of Dr. Matthew Scarfone鈥檚 undergraduate classes and had the opportunity to ask questions. You can see some news about that visit here, and keep an eye out for some familiar faces from the OEB video!  

If you are a high school teacher interested in making a similar visit at 杏吧原创, we wholeheartedly linvite you and your students to our department. Please reach out to us using the contact information listed here.

Thanks again to all our delegates. This is the last Spotlight post until Fall 2023, so we wish all of you a lovely summer, and we invite you to check out the series again in the Fall. To see our past spotlights, click here.  

The post What is it Like to be Attending an Ethics Bowl? A Video Spotlight with our Ontario Ethics Bowl Delegation. appeared first on Philosophy.

Meet Philosophy 惭补蝉迟别谤鈥檚 students Paul Chellew, Rhea Chopra, Gavin Foster, Claire French, and Aydin Karasapan! Recently, these five students participated in our department鈥檚 annual Research Day event, where MA students volunteer to present their current research to the whole department. 

Research Day has been one of the department鈥檚 most cherished traditions for two decades. We asked our students, and Professor Christine Koggel, Graduate Supervisor and coordinator of this event, questions about their Research Day experience. Take a look! 

Professor Koggel, could you briefly explain Research Day and what its goals are?

Professor Christine Koggel: Research Day is a great opportunity for MA students to present their research projects and for faculty members and prospective students to learn about what our MA students are working on. It is usually organized into two panels each with 2 or 3 students presenting their research. Each panel is followed by a 15-20 minute Q&A session. Both the presenting and the answering of questions helps students make sure their projects are accessible and it gives them a line on their CVs! 

This was our first year hosting an official, in-person Research Day event since the pandemic began. Was this return a success? Did returning pose any new or unforeseen challenges? 

CK: The return of the in-person Research Day was an unqualified success. I was so proud of our MA students! Each of the five did a wonderful job presenting their projects in just 5 minutes! I was also very pleased that a good number of faculty members and other students attended and that the Q&A parts were lively, engaging, and spot on in the questions the audience members asked the presenters.  

Paul, you work on a complex project on rationality and intuition. Tell us what was it like to be surrounded by your fellow cohort and past professors as you presented your project? Was it invigorating to have them, as well as your advisor, Professor Matheson, in the room as you shared some of your research? 

Paul Chellew: After I took a moment to breathe and put all my catastrophic worries aside, the event was very enjoyable. I initially felt as if there was an audience of philosophically equipped people in front of me, prepared to dismantle every aspect of what I was working on. Of course, that was a function of my anxiety. What I actually experienced was a room full of support from classmates and faculty offering thoughtful questions and their genuine interest.  Professor Matheson has been tremendously supportive since the beginning of this project, and even before its beginning, as he helped me conceive it.  His presence helped me to get over the initial jitters. It was also nice to give a well–received presentation that I can only hope was as affirmational for his efforts as it was for mine. 

Rhea and Aydin, you are both doing unique projects. Rhea, you are exploring how Hindu philosophy can provide novel approaches to issues of biocentrism, and Aydin, you are working on ways that a more digital age may demand philosophically informed pedagogy. Five minutes is quite short to present innovative projects like yours! How was it to share your research with the department? Did you see value in the exercise and were there any specific challenges? 

Rhea Chopra: It was definitely challenging to keep my presentation down to 5 minutes. Since my research focuses on one specific sub-school in Hindu philosophy, i.e., 痴艣颈蝉丑迟腻诲惫补颈迟补 痴别诲腻苍迟补, with which the audience is largely unfamiliar, I had to decide what background of key concepts, terms, and significant philosophers was necessary for making the presentation intelligible. Having to explain this necessary background concisely while still having time to explain how 痴艣颈蝉丑迟腻诲惫补颈迟补 痴别诲腻苍迟补 can contribute to conversations surrounding theories of biocentrism was definitely a valuable exercise!

Aydin Karasapan: Condensing my research into a five-minute presentation was definitely challenging. It forced me to distill my research down to its core, and to make it accessible to people who are unfamiliar with my work. It was difficult to avoid compromising between doing justice to the project as a whole with being clear and brief. In the end I think it worked out and I was able to distill my ideas into an effective presentation. Overall, I think narrowing down and condensing such a large project is always going to be tricky but can also be rewarding.

Gavin, you have now presented twice to the broader 杏吧原创 philosophy community, even though it is only your first year in the MA program! This is very impressive. How has the feedback from your professors and peers, which you received during Research Day and the EPAF conference, helped you to move forward with your project?

Gavin Foster: It was wonderful to present at Research Day and share the ideas that I have been investigating and grappling with for a long time. I am fortunate that the 杏吧原创 philosophy department is so diverse and that the feedback not only helped me refine my own thoughts, but provided me the opportunity to reconsider the philosophical issues I am interested in from a variety of methodological backgrounds. Further, listening to the other panelists鈥� research made me realize how much overlap already exists! Even the process of preparing for the Research Day was itself a rewarding experience, forcing me to think hard about how to encapsulate my research on the emergence of mind over the past few months. I have now narrowed down my research to deal exclusively with mentalizing capacities in chimpanzees and other non-human primates鈥攖hat is, the capacity for these animals to ascribe mental states to other agents.

Claire, do you think Research Day was an important event in the course of your MA program? Was it a helpful experience in building confidence to start presenting at conferences? What was the most interesting or helpful question you received? 

Claire French: I鈥檓 a relatively experienced public speaker, but I鈥檝e never had the chance to speak before a group of academics about my personal research. So in that regard, it was helpful insofar as it gave me an opportunity to build confidence in my ability to speak clearly and concisely about my work. The most interesting question I received was about the right to be forgotten. Since my research is largely about which things should be remembered but aren鈥檛, I hadn鈥檛 really considered the positive value of forgetting things.

You are supervising Claire鈥檚 project, Professor Koggel. How did it feel for you, as a supervisor and as the department鈥檚 Graduate Supervisor to see Claire and other MA students share their research publicly? 

CK: To say I was proud of Claire and the other MA students is an understatement. Claire came across as confident and well-versed in the literature she is exploring for her complex project that examines an account of memory as relational to better understand the harms of epistemic injustice and how to address these. The Q&A sessions revealed that the audience connected with Claire鈥檚 project and the other MA projects as well. To me, this was a good indication of how well the students did on Research Day and how well they are doing in the MA program.

Thanks again to all of you for speaking with us! We know those who attended enjoyed hearing about your work, To close, can you tell us what you think was the biggest benefit of Research Day for you?  

PC: Philosophy can be a solitary endeavor. It certainly has been for me, as I am in the final stages of a thesis project.  Research Day was a wonderful reminder of all of the support we students have from within the department and a great opportunity to share my research with people that seem genuinely interested in what I was working on.  I know this is starting to sound like a testimonial on an advertisement, but Research Day was a great experience.

RC: Sharing my research with other members of the department and listening to their questions and comments was a great opportunity! Since our department has such a wide range of research interests, it was nice to hear different perspectives and consider questions that I hadn鈥檛 before. I also really enjoyed listening to my peers鈥� presentations and hearing about all of their interesting projects!

AK: One of the biggest benefits of Research Day for me was the opportunity to practice and improve my presentation skills. However, I was pleasantly surprised to find that condensing my research into a clear and accessible format helped me clarify my own thinking about my work. By narrowing down my project I was able to better organize and structure my research. Overall, it was an incredibly valuable experience that I would recommend to others.

GF: It is always wonderful when the entire department is present to help exchange and stimulate new ideas. Research day allowed me to situate myself relative to other areas of philosophy. The diversity of thought and background has assisted me in looking at a variety of issues related to animals from different perspectives, which only improves my own understanding of the problems. 

CF: Writing a thesis can be a pretty isolating activity, so I found that having a chance to engage in meaningful dialogue with more experienced academics in person allowed me the opportunity look at my project through fresh eyes.

Thanks to our students for answering our questions. You can find more about our MA students by checking out the student profiles section of our website here. Stay tuned for our next Spotlight article in April 2023! 

The post What is it Like to Present at Research Day? An Interview with our MA Students appeared first on Philosophy.

Meet Professor Gabriele Contessa, a longtime faculty member in 杏吧原创 University鈥檚 Department of Philosophy. 

In the context of the global pandemic, Professor Contessa’s research in the philosophy of science and social epistemology is more relevant than ever. We had a chat with him to hear about his current research work on trust in science, and about his new course ‘Truth and Propaganda,鈥� among other things. It was also a great opportunity to learn a bit more about him and his unique journey in philosophy.

Thank you for chatting with us, Professor Contessa. You got your philosophical start far away from here, at the Sapienza in Rome. Could you tell us a bit about what it was like to start off studying philosophy in Italy? Was the culture surrounding undergraduate study much different than it is here? 

Professor Gabriele Contessa: My impression is that studying philosophy in Rome is very different from studying it at 杏吧原创. For one thing, in Rome, it was very much sink or swim. We didn鈥檛 use any introductory textbooks or anthologies. We just read primary sources pretty much from cover to cover. This means that, in my early days as a philosopher in training, I read an awful lot of classics of Western philosophy. I only came across analytic philosophy in my second year there, when I took a logic course (which I now realize was incredibly hard compared to the standard introductions to logic) and a philosophy of language course, in which we read both Wittgenstein鈥檚 Tractatus and his Philosophical Investigations. I was hooked. I was willingly going to 8am classes on a Saturday morning! 

For your Doctorate, you decided to go to the UK to study at the LSE. What were you interested in at the time, and why did you choose that institution?  

GC: While I was writing my undergraduate thesis (which ended up being in philosophy of science), I stumbled across a book by Nancy Cartwright entitled Why the Laws of Physics Lie and I fell in love with it. Everything about it, from the title to the argumentation style, was so brilliant and unique. At the time, Nancy was still teaching at the LSE, so that seemed to be the perfect place for me to work on the stuff I was interested in at the time, which was mostly why some scientific models are so good at representing aspects or portions of the world in spite of their being so highly idealized. Plus, the LSE is in London, which, to be honest, sounded much more appealing than any of the other potential candidates I was considering. The LSE ended up being the only grad school I applied to (which in retrospect was kind of foolish of me) but, in the end, I was lucky (but don鈥檛 try this at home!). 

You have lived and worked in North America for almost two decades. Is there any particular reason you chose to pursue a career in philosophy in North America, or Canada more specifically? What would you say is the biggest difference between European and North American philosophical culture?  Are there things you miss about Europe? 

GC: I met my wife in London but she is Canadian and, in fact, she did her undergraduate at 杏吧原创! When I saw a job at 杏吧原创 in my area of specialization, it seemed like fate鈥攁nd, indeed, it was! I love Canada and 杏吧原创 is such a great place to work and teach. One of the things I miss about Europe is that everything seems so close. When I was in London, I could pop on a bus and go to Oxford for a talk or take a cheap short flight to attend a conference in Amsterdam or Lisbon. This might also be the biggest difference between North American and European philosophical cultures. I feel that in the UK the philosophical community is much more close-knit than it is here in Canada, and this is partly because our philosophical community is so much more geographically dispersed. 

You have published many papers on hardcore metaphysical topics in the past, but your current work seems to be focused in different areas of philosophy, including social epistemology, philosophy of economics and political philosophy, among others. How would you describe the major currents of your research? What was it like to transition to new research areas? 

GC: Much of my research over the last few years has focused on a dilemma that arises from the role that experts should play in a democratic society. On the one hand, we want our policies to be informed by our best empirical theories. Otherwise, our policies might not achieve their intended goals, or they might even have unintended and sometimes harmful effects. On the other hand, a democracy that gives experts too much influence over the policy-making process risks turning into a technocracy. This tension is particularly apparent whenever liberal democracies face challenges, such as the financial crisis, or the COVID-19 pandemic. Unless we figure out how to resolve this tension, we might not be able to address serious threats (such as climate change) or to do so while staying true to the ideals of democracy, which is only likely to increase the sense of mistrust and disillusionment that is already common among some of our fellow citizens. 

Transitioning to a new research area is a bit like moving to a new place. There is so much to explore, there are new people to meet, etc. Some people like to live in the same place their whole life, while others prefer moving around and seeing new places. There seems to be a similar divide in professional philosophy. Some people work on a certain topic for their whole career, while others prefer to go wherever their interests take them. I definitely belong to this second group and, while I can鈥檛 deny that working in a new area has its challenges, it is also very exciting and refreshing. 

Congratulations on your recent SSHRC Insight Development Grant to complete your book on public trust in science! Can you tell us briefly what is the objective and main argument of the book? 

GC: Thanks! In my book, I argue that the standard, individualistic approach to public trust in science is inadequate and that we should adopt a social approach in its stead. According to the individualistic approach, it is primarily individuals who trust (or distrust) science. On this view, in order to restore trust in science, we need to persuade people to trust science more. I don鈥檛 think that, on closer scrutiny, either of these ideas makes much sense and I think that this is a good reason to take a completely different tack. According to the social approach, it is primarily societies (and social groups within them) that trust (or distrust) science. In fact, a society that trusts science is not even necessarily one whose members have a positive psychological attitude towards science. Rather, it is a society that collectively defers to science on scientific issues. However, while, in theory, complete epistemic deference to science might enable a perfectly efficient division of epistemic labour, there seem to be limits to the extent to which, in practice, absolute trust in science is either attainable or desirable. In the book, I claim that the most effective way to improve public trust in science is not to persuade individuals to trust science more, but to improve what I have called our socio-epistemic infrastructure (i.e., the system of institutions, norms, and practices that facilitates the reliable production, transmission, reception, and uptake of information and prevents the spread of misinformation). For those who are interested in a more detailed summary of the book, I have sketched the overall argument in and, even more briefly, in a couple of . 

This winter, you are taking over the course created by retired Professor Randal Marlin, Truth and Propaganda (PHIL2901). This course seems more relevant than ever! What are your hopes for this course and what would you reply to critics who accuse universities of brainwashing students with 鈥榳oke鈥� propaganda?

GC: Those are big shoes to fill! By all accounts, Professor Marlin was a great teacher, and Truth and Propaganda has been a fixture at 杏吧原创 for so long (my wife took it when she was here!). As you mention, the sorts of topics discussed in this course seem to be more relevant than ever today. Beside truth and propaganda, we will be talking about bullshit (in the philosophical sense!), conspiracy theories, echo chambers, epistemic oppression, fake news, post-truth, etc. There is so much interesting work being done in the emerging subfield of political epistemology at the moment and it鈥檚 great to have the opportunity to introduce the students to it. I hope that some will find the material as fascinating and exciting as I do. 

I feel that, like many of the labels that get thrown around in public discourse, 鈥渨oke鈥� is a term used to dismiss the views of those we disagree with without engaging with their arguments. Also, given that so many academics seem to share these worries about 鈥渨okeness,鈥� I find it funny that anyone would think that universities are places of 鈥渨oke鈥� indoctrination (whatever that is supposed to mean). In fact, it seems to me that this is a textbook case of propaganda鈥攊t鈥檚 an attempt to spread a moral panic about a largely non-existent phenomenon to advance certain political goals, such as that of undermining public education and limiting academic freedom. Having said that, I do feel that universities (like many other institutions and organizations) give fodder to that sort of propaganda. It is often easier to make symbolic gestures that come across as hollow and self-serving (such as land acknowledgments) instead of engaging in more meaningful (but often more costly) actions to rectify past and present injustices.  

What do you enjoy doing when you are not working?  

GC: I enjoy spending time with my kids. With my youngest one, we play all sorts of games together (video games, board games, soccer, basketball). I listen to a ton of music. I鈥檓 a bit of musical omnivore, but I tend to go through phases in which I listen to only one album or genre for a few weeks and then move on. To give you an idea, at the moment I am listening to a lot of melodic death metal, but my older daughter and I are also planning a trip to see Frank Ocean at Coachella (we are both huge fans). I also enjoy outdoor activities such as running, cycling, and skiing. My younger daughter and I have recently taken up snowboarding, which is lots of fun!  

Thank you, Professor Contessa, for having this chat with us. We wish you continuing success in your teaching and research at 杏吧原创!  To close, what is one piece of advice you would pass on to new students as they start their journey into philosophy? 

GC: I don鈥檛 think I have any particularly useful advice except maybe 鈥渘ever lose the sense of fun and curiosity that first got you interested in philosophy!鈥� 

Thanks Professor Contessa for answering our questions. You can find more about Prof. Contessa and his research on his page on our website, and you can find him on and . Keep an eye out for our next Spotlight in March 2023!鈥� 

The post What is it Like to be a Philosophical Omnivore and Expertise Expert? An Interview with Professor Gabriele Contessa appeared first on Philosophy.

Meet Marina Nekrasova and Jeremy Garbe, two undergraduate students in our department and winners of I-CUREUS awards. 

The I-CUREUS program provides undergraduate students with opportunities to work closely with established scholars on a topic they care about and to be paid for that research work. We chatted with Marina and Jeremy to learn about their experience.   

Thank you both for joining us. We are so pleased that you鈥檝e pursued the opportunity to conduct research, and, in fact, to be paid for it! Why did you decide to apply?

Marina Nekrasova: While I was conducting research over the past summer for the CUROP Internship, I started to take note of further implications and possible projects that extended beyond a merely theoretical approach to the topic I was addressing. I grew very passionate about my work and wanted to find any means possible to continue my line of research while taking courses. I really enjoyed working under the supervision of Dr. Brook and Dr. Redstone, who provided me with a graduate-school level of guidance. The project I proposed is experimental and highly interdisciplinary. It adopts an approach that I would not be able to pursue in my classes. So when I was notified that the I-CUREUS program was running again during the school year, I took the opportunity to apply.鈥� 

Jeremy Garbe: I decided to apply for I-CUREUS because I wanted to learn more about the research and writing process at a higher academic level. While I have done plenty of research for my own assignments and projects, I thought it would be fascinating to take more of a supporting role and watch an expert at work while supporting their project in whatever way I could. 

The I-CUREUS program is equally funded by Teaching and Learning Services (50%) and the faculty supervisor (50%). What factors contributed to you feeling comfortable enough to approach your respective supervisors about this program? Was it mostly about their research being of interest to you?

JG: I have taken a few of Dr. Bruff鈥檚 classes and she has always been extremely helpful and approachable whenever I have any pressing questions. She also has not shied away from asking about her student鈥檚 interests and passionately sharing hers. This made me realize that her interests are quite appealing to me and so I decided to approach her to be my supervisor for I-CUREUS, to better understand the academic side of my interests.   

How did you collaborate with your supervisor in writing the I-CUREUS application?  

MN: I wrote most of the application myself, which was then reviewed by Dr. Brook before being sent off. 

JG: Once I emailed Dr. Bruff stating my interest, she suggested that we meet during her office hours to hammer out the details. She then presented me with her current research opportunities and asked if any of them interested me. I would have been happy to collaborate on any of the projects, but it was wonderful to feel included in the decision-making process. Dr. Bruff then wrote a brief proposal of the topic, and we discussed what my roles would be, edited the proposal together, and finally we submitted it.鈥� 

What has been the most interesting part about the experience of collaborating with a faculty member to contribute to a larger project?

MN: I was fortunate enough to have Dr. Brook agree to supervise my own line of research. The experience, although not always easy, is engaging and highly rewarding. It certainly feels different from conducting research for assignments in class because I am consistently focusing on one study in-depth for a much longer period of time. The most interesting part about working with an expert 鈥� or in my case, two 鈥� is getting to discuss my findings and ideas with them on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, and feeling their support and interest in my research; thank you Dr. Brook and Dr. Redstone! 

JG:  I find it extremely fulfilling to know that my research is contributing to a larger collaborative project. It is a little different to be researching with other people鈥檚 schedules in mind. I have to make sure that I am managing my time to get my tasks done when Dr. Bruff needs them. The responsibility can be a little daunting at times. I would say that the most interesting aspect of the research is diving into a topic that I may not have much experience in and discovering how fascinating it is. Taking my newfound understanding of it and then meeting with my supervisor and hearing her interpretation of my research pushes me to think of it on a much deeper level than I may have on my own. 

What are each of you researching as part of this program and what tasks are you expected to perform? 

MN: The purpose of my CUROP study was to provide a theoretical account of why we strive to create conscious, artificial superintelligent systems that exceed the capacities of human intellect. I argued that we possess a drive to have superintelligent beings present in our world, which expresses itself through artefacts that function as something I identify as 鈥渟ymbolic external presentations. This drive has two routes: the aspiration for superintelligent beings in general 鈥� whether religious or artificially intelligent 鈥� and the aspiration for mechanistic minds of our own invention. These two routes come together to produce our motive to create advanced artificial intelligent systems. This is not to say that religion is inherently pathological, or exclusively a function of our needs, but rather to claim that some presentations of human artifacts like A.I. are perceived as having quasi-religious functions: regardless of whether A.I. ought to be equivalent in esteem as religious beings, they are certainly viewed this way in certain media and New Religious Movements.

Continuing this line of research, my current I-CUREUS research is titled Unconscious Motivations Behind and Reactions to Artificial General Intelligence as Revealed by Psycho-Physiological Reactivity: A Pilot Study Using Experimental Philosophy. In it, I draw on experimental philosophy and experimental psychology to solidify my theory about our motive to create advanced artificial intelligent systems with empirical evidence.

Could you tell us a little more about your method for carrying out this research?

MN: The experimental component of the project will involve conducting research using volunteers by measuring their psycho-physiological reactivity to artifices that are perceived by us as superintelligent beings as depicted by religious works of art in various forms, religiously based language, and anthropomorphic A.I. The data from these measurements based on conscious states will be garnered by the in vivo use of heart rate variability (HRV), a form of biofeedback which accesses the peripheral nervous system using a non-invasive infrared probe. The data will be correlated with information gathered from responses to sets of surveys designed to detect subconscious inclinations and biases towards the same subject matter.

How about your research tasks, Jeremy?

JG: I have had a few tasks throughout the program that span multiple disciplines. I have researched Jewish critical theorist Max Horkheimer鈥檚 interpretations of Jesus Christ and Christianity, comparing this with the views of the Christian theologian 闯眉谤驳别苍 Moltmann. I have also researched Horkheimer鈥檚 critique of Hegel and objective reason, and looked into Marc Chagall鈥檚 paintings depicting the crucifixion of Jesus Christ as well as the similarities between the representations of suffering in Horkheimer, Moltmann, and Chagall. My main tasks are to read and synthesize primary and secondary sources that inform the project as a whole and to attempt to link all these topics with each other, with each task building upon the last. I then present my findings to Dr. Bruff and we discuss the relevance of my findings to the project as a whole. Dr. Bruff hopes to analyze the relationship between the perspectives of Horkheimer and Moltmann on suffering by looking at their interpretations of Jesus Christ mediated through Marc Chagall鈥檚 crucifixion paintings. 

How does this research topic link to previous coursework you both have done or any general philosophical interests you have?

MN: The topic I am working on is directly linked to my primary philosophical interests. I am fascinated in how we perceive artificial intelligence, both actual and hypothetical (i.e., artificial intelligence portrayed in literature, media, and popular culture) and in exploring relationships between A.I. and religious studies. To be more specific, I am interested in how artificial objects of our own creation (especially objects that aim to resemble us) and our paired perceptions of those objects reveal important philosophical and psychological aspects of our nature. 

Previously, I have only taken one course related to A.I., which was Dr. Redstone鈥檚 First Year Seminar called 鈥淢inds and Machines.鈥� The inspiration I felt toward the content taught fostered my conviction that this is the field I want to pursue throughout and beyond my undergraduate degree. I first began to develop my research ideas in that class in a term paper called 鈥淭he Apotheosis of Strong Artificial Intelligence,鈥� which served as an early blueprint for the research I would then undertake in my CUROP internship. Since my interests also lie in the portrayal of A.I. in the media, I find that I am able to keep thinking about the implications of my research even while partaking in leisurely activities, such as reading and watching science fiction 鈥� an absolute goldmine of philosophical issues.鈥� 

JG: I have taken a course on 19th century philosophy with Dr. Bruff where we spent a substantial amount of time on Hegel so that has helped unravel his language. I will also be taking her seminar in the winter on Dialectic of Enlightenment by Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno and this research on Horkheimer has piqued my interest in the full breadth of his thought. I have also been able to make extensive use of my experience with art history and religion that I have gained through the Humanities program. It has been fascinating to have the opportunity to blend all of these disciplines together and use some of the skills I have developed in my previous courses to get the most out of my research. 

What is an obstacle you have encountered in conducting this research and how did you overcome it?

MN: While there is a decent number of studies discussing similarities between our perception of A.I. and of monotheistic western deities, most don鈥檛 take the approach I am looking for. It has taken me longer than expected to find sources directly related to my topic. This involved reading in different fields outside of philosophy such as psychology, cognitive science, art history, religion, and anthropology. Looking to neurotheology, for example, a field that studies the relationship between religious experiences and neural states, helps a lot in understanding how to approach my project in a multifaceted manner.鈥� 

JG: One obstacle that I always have to tackle is time management. It can feel difficult to find time for research especially when you are already researching for essays and exams. At a certain point everything starts to blend together. I think this experience has made me much better at organizing my goals and carving time out of my schedule to satisfy all of my obligations and I have learned how to combine aspects of my studies with my research enough for me to feel like I am improving on both fronts

Do you think the I-CUREUS experience will help you in carrying out research in the future and possibly with your future coursework, including writing papers?

MN: Definitely. I find myself not only advancing my research and writing abilities with every draft of work I hand in, but enhancing transferable skills such as time management. In comparison to conducting a larger and more demanding project that requires great attention to detail, class assignments seem relatively less intimidating than in my first and second year of university.鈥� 

JG: The fact that the work is for a supervisor raises the stakes and ensures that my output is as best as I can make it. This will certainly have an impact on my independent studies. 

How do you see this research experience as helping you further graduate school prospects or careers? 

MN: I am very interested in pursuing graduate studies in the field of Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence. Since my degree type (Humanities and Philosophy, combined honours) does not provide me with the opportunity to conduct experimental research, my participation in I-CUREUS gives me the opportunity to strengthen my candidacy for graduate programs I am interested in through an experimental research experience.  

JG: This research is giving me the opportunity to hone my research and writing skills to a higher standard under the constant and informative supervision of a professor. This kind of experience will translate into everything I do in the future, whether it be writing grant proposals, papers, or researching any number of topics. I feel confident that if I am met with a topic that I do not know much about, I will be able to study it on my own and gain a confident understanding of it. These soft skills will continue to be valuable no matter what I do in the future. 

Thank you both again for talking to us! To close, what would you say to other undergraduates who are considering applying for this program or other similar paid research opportunities? 

MN: I would definitely encourage other students interested in research to apply for this program or other programs similar to it. We are very lucky to have such opportunities available to undergraduates at 杏吧原创.鈥� 

JG: I would say that if you are thinking of applying, go for it! The experience of applying alone is valuable and it will help you to build relationships with your professors that can make you feel more confident reaching out for help with any number of things down the line. 

Thanks to both students for answering our questions! You can find more about the I-CUREUS program on its page on 杏吧原创鈥檚 website. 杏吧原创鈥檚 Bachelor of Humanities program has also written a short piece on Marina Nekrasova, which you can see here. Keep an eye out for our next Spotlight coming February 2022!鈥� 鈥� 

Have something to share with the 杏吧原创 Philosophy community? Fill out our news submission form.

The post What is it Like to be an Undergraduate Researcher? An Interview With Students Marina Nekrasova and Jeremy Garbe appeared first on Philosophy.

Meet Professor Vida Panitch, a faculty member in our Department and Director of the Ethics and Public Affairs (EPAF) PhD Program here at 杏吧原创 University. 鈥� 

Professor Panitch researches markets, universal basic income, exploitation, commodification, inequality, and other adjacent topics. Last winter, she took over as Director of EPAF, an affiliate program of the Department of Philosophy, so we thought this would be a great moment to chat with her about her research, EPAF, and its future directions.     

Thank you for taking the time to talk with us, Professor Panitch! You鈥檝e contributed significantly to our philosophical community at 杏吧原创 over the years. You鈥檝e recently taken over as Director of 杏吧原创鈥檚 EPAF program, a role previously held by program founder Professor Jay Drydyk. We understand that this program aims to unite the tools of philosophy with policy issues. How do you see the relationship between the two? How can philosophy, and philosophers, inform public decision-making? 

Prof. Vida Panitch: Thank you so much for inviting me to be a part of this terrific spotlight initiative. I am delighted to be answering these questions in my new capacity as the Director of the PhD Program in Ethics and Public Affairs here at 杏吧原创. The program is unique in offering students the opportunity to apply their skills in ethical reasoning to practical problems of public concern, under the co-supervision of both a philosopher and a social scientist. There are many complex social issues that confound legislators and policy-makers; arguments come at them from all sides, sometimes badly made, sometimes grounded in private interests, and often all in conflict to such a degree that solutions seem intractable. The EPAF program encourages our students to engage in public reason analysis to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of both theoretical and empirical arguments for and against specific policies, so that they might propose a new way forward on a complex social issue.  

In addition to your teaching and impressive track record of scholarly publications, you鈥檝e done podcast interviews about your work, you regularly give interviews and write in newspapers, just to scratch the surface of your involvement in public philosophy. Could you tell us a bit about what motivates you to share your work so broadly?  

VP: When our research project touches on issues of public concern it seems to me that we would only be completing half the task of that project if we were to keep our findings to ourselves, or to share them solely with other academics. When the problems that seem most live to us as ethicists and political philosophers are ones that deeply affect the lives of citizens and pertain to the legitimacy of the institutions through which citizens interact with one another and the state, then bringing our proposals to the public forum is as important a task as that of producing novel and compelling arguments for others in our field. And public knowledge transfer should be undertaken in accessible and intelligible ways and through various mediums, if the hope is to engage with and even contribute to meaningful social change. Also, it鈥檚 fun!! I love talking about the ethical issues that motivate me with anyone and everyone who shares these interests. And as much as we may have to contribute to public debates as ethicists and political philosophers we have even more to learn from the empirical findings and lived experiences of others.  

The origins of EPAF are fairly recent, having celebrated its first graduating Ph.D. class last year. What are some of the topics your students have chosen to work on? Where are some of your graduates now? 

VP: Our students have worked on some fascinating and important topics. One of our recent graduates looked at the extent to which conditional cash transfer programs in the developing world contribute to (rather than disrupt) patterns of gender exploitation. Another graduate鈥檚 work examined privacy issues pertaining to genetic information, specifically as it applies to medical insurance. And yet another looked at Canada鈥檚 truth and reconciliation process from the perspective of relational justice. Our graduates now hold positions in the federal government, Canadian academia, and the private sector.  

The role of Director of EPAF seems perfectly suited to your background and expertise. Are there any links between your research and the EPAF program, specifically its initiatives and its future, that you would like to tell us about? 

VP: I do believe that the philosopher who is moved by questions of ethics and justice should seek to engage with as many stakeholders as possible in the production of their research findings, and to make sure these findings contribute to public discourse. So yes, I think that the work I do, and the mandate of the EPAF program, are strongly aligned. I am excited by the breadth and impact of the research being done by our many affiliated faculty members from across many fields at 杏吧原创 and beyond, and by each new class of incoming students. I see this community growing each year and growing stronger and more impactful together.  

And given these links, what is the main research project you are particularly excited about at the moment? 

VP: My main area of study is political philosophy, distributive justice, and the boundaries of markets. I am particularly interested in markets in public goods, including health care and education, and physical goods, including body parts and intimate services, and the extent to which theories of exploitation, commodification, and inequality can help us determine their permissible regulation.鈥� I am perplexed by the question of whether some markets are problematic because certain goods are fundamentally wrong to buy and sell (and which ones), or whether they are wrong because vulnerability produces market transactions that wouldn鈥檛 otherwise occur, in which case we should be focused on the redistribution of wealth rather than outright bans on the sale of specific goods.  I am currently co-editing the Routledge Handbook of Commodification, which draws together original, wide-ranging, and interdisciplinary research around this very question for the first time, and in so doing seeks to establish commodification studies as a multi-disciplinary field of research unto itself. 

Last year you were awarded a competitive SSHRC Explore Research Development Grant to support a project on 鈥淏asic Income, Philosophy, and Public Policy.鈥� Congratulations! Could you please describe some of the goals you have for this project? 

VP: What fascinates me about the idea of a basic income, from both a philosophical and policy perspective, is how many different arguments exist in its favour, and its disfavour. Not to mention what unlikely allies, and enemies, the idea has garnered. I am convinced by the progressiveness of a policy move towards unconditional cash benefits on which a life can firmly rest, and I am certain that many of the markets we currently have reason to worry about due to their exploitative potential would become less troubling against the backdrop of a decent and consistent social minimum. But I am skeptical that the grant would be high enough to achieve these laudable aims and I worry that it might come to replace rather than round out many of the in-kind social services on which so many of us rely.  

My current SSHRC project explores health-based arguments for basic income, which have yet to find voice in public discourse despite the mounting evidence of positive health outcomes (and decreased health care costs) associated with a basic income. This grant has enabled me, with two international collaborators, to propose and successfully be awarded a fellowship from the Brocher Foundation to host an international workshop called The workshop will take place at the foundation鈥檚 home on Lake Geneva in spring 2023. I also hope to start a research hub based in EPAF for students and researchers engaged in projects that explore the potential risks and rewards of a basic income in Canada. 

Interesting. Let鈥檚 go back in time a bit. Before ultimately deciding to enroll in the PhD program in philosophy at the University of Toronto, you likely considered applying to a variety of potential schools and programs. What aspects of 杏吧原创鈥檚 EPAF program would have been attractive to you as a prospective PhD student? 

VP: What a great question! I knew I was passionate about the topic of inequality, as a concrete social ill, and as a complex philosophical concept.  But when I was considering PhD programs, I was mostly doing so with the impression that a PhD would offer a clear and untroubled path to an academic job while giving me the chance to engage with the philosophical materials and puzzles that excited me. It didn鈥檛 really occur to me at the time that I could connect my drive for intellectual puzzle solving to the social change I wanted to see in the world. If I鈥檇 known about a program that would have allowed me to look at questions of inequality both as an intellectual puzzle and as a problem of social injustice with respect to which I could offer concrete solutions, I would absolutely have applied. I also would have been very excited by the EPAF practicum (doing philosophy in the real world, for credit, sign me up!). And I would have been even more keen on the program鈥檚 objective to prepare students simultaneously for a career in academia and the public sector.  

Thank you for answering our questions, Professor Panitch. We have certainly learned a lot about you and the EPAF program. As we close this interview, do you have any final thoughts to add? Or anything further you wish to say about your work or EPAF? 

VP: I just want to add how incredibly impressed I am by the work of our past and current students. The EPAF program is so fortunate to have drawn such creative, driven, engaged and engaging scholars who are passionate about justice and an absolute delight to work with. It is an honour as Director to be part of their intellectual and professional journeys.  

Thanks Professor Panitch for answering our questions. You can find more about Prof. Vida Panitch and her research at her page on our website, her , and her . You can find out more about the EPAF program at the program鈥檚 website, its , and its . Keep an eye out for our next Spotlight coming December 2022!鈥�鈥� 

Have something to share with the 杏吧原创 Philosophy community? Fill out our news submission form.

The post What is it Like to be Directing EPAF? An Interview with Prof. Vida Panitch appeared first on Philosophy.

Meet Philosopher Dr. Bryan Mukandi, a faculty member at the University of Queensland in Australia who will be a visiting scholar in 杏吧原创鈥檚 Institute of African Studies this coming academic year.  

Dr. Mukandi carries out exciting work on medicine, public health, marginalization, and more, using the work of continental European philosophers, Africana philosophers, and Black thought broadly speaking. Dr. Mukandi will also be providing one of the Philosophy department鈥檚 regular Colloquium talks in October. We thought we鈥檇 take the chance to get to know him and his work more closely before meeting him in person!  

Thank you for chatting with us, Dr. Mukandi. You鈥檙e fairly new to the 杏吧原创 community, and we are so pleased to have you! To start, what is it that brought you to 杏吧原创? Is it something especially interesting about our programs, the Canadian context, and/or the city of Ottawa?  

Dr. Bryan Mukandi: Thanks very much. As with most things in my life, I鈥檝e ended up at 杏吧原创 by virtue of relationships 鈥� in this case, two good friends. The first, scholar and author of Dread Poetry and Freedom as well as Fear of a Black Nation, David Austin, I met three years ago when I was visiting Montreal. Thanks to David, I met Adrian Harewood of 杏吧原创鈥檚 School of Journalism and Communications, and formerly the CBC, who kindly put me in touch with the Philosophy Department, and here we are.

Which of your diverse and exciting research areas do you plan to focus on while here in Ottawa? Could you tell us a bit about what you are working on at the moment? 

BM: I鈥檒l be working on two projects: a book on Ng农g末 wa Thiong’o, and an Australian Research Council funded project titled 鈥楽eeing the Black Child鈥�. The former is an attempt to weave together a political philosophy from Ng农g末鈥檚 oeuvre, which is made up of novels, plays and critical texts. Besides contemporary African philosophy, I have also specialised in continental European philosophy, and the task I鈥檝e given myself with respect to Ng农g末 is similar to some of the work that philosophers have undertaken with Derrida or Kierkegaard, to cite two other thinkers I鈥檝e worked on in the past. Ng农g末 is mostly known today for his critical work, Decolonising the Mind, or his novels, A Grain of Wheat, Petals of Blood, and The Wizard of the Crow being some of his best-known works. But in the same way that a familiarity with Derrida that doesn鈥檛 extend beyond an association with 鈥榙econstruction鈥�, or a Kierkegaard reduced to Fear and Trembling misses out on a wealth of philosophical riches, the relative inattention of figures like Ng农g末 by contemporary philosophers in Western academic institutions impoverishes all of us in those institutions. 

鈥楽eeing the Black Child鈥� is a work of social epistemology. I鈥檓 interested in processes of meaning making and I want to think about what goes into judgements around and then interactions with actual Black children, Indigenous children, and children belonging to other marginalised groups. Part of my approach is to talk with scholars across a variety of disciplines, and to try to draw from empirical work deeper insights into what happens when a practitioner or policy maker sets out to serve a Black child. 

Now, you鈥檝e worked and studied in a lot of contexts and places, from working in healthcare in sub-Saharan Africa, to studying in Zimbabwe, Ireland, and Australia. How has living and working in such a variety of cultures impacted your approach to research? And what interests you in particular about conducting research in Canada? 

BM: Absolutely. I take dialectical materialism seriously. Or maybe less provocatively (for some), as the US-based Kenyan philosopher, Omedi Ochieng, puts it in his wonderful book, The Intellectual Imagination, thought emerges in and from particular contexts. I think too often we take a marketing brochure approach to diversity, where it鈥檚 just 鈥榥ice鈥� to see difference. I鈥檓 much more interested in the ways in which different contexts allow for different kinds of insights, as well as the cognitive and creative possibilities that dialogue affords. Zimbabwe, Ireland and Australia all offered me different resources and opportunities to think and make sense of the world and my place in it. All offered me, for example, very different insights into colonialism and its aftermath. Canada offers something different from all three, and that鈥檚 enriching. 

Thank you for that. You鈥檝e talked and written about the phenomenological experience of Black scholars in academia in different cultural contexts (and also about the way that philosophy in lands with colonial histories should treat Indigenous peoples and philosophies of the lands in which it is practiced, e.g., in your fantastic 2021 paper in Theoria). Is there anything to which you would like to draw our attention regarding the experience of being a Black scholar in the Canadian cultural context? Or anything with regards to relevant directions philosophy as a profession in Canada could take? 

BM: My knowledge and understanding of the Canadian academic context is limited, so I would refer readers to the edited collection Nuances of Blackness in the Canadian Academy. I especially recommend Tamari Kitossa鈥檚 鈥楥ertain Uncertainty: Phenomenology of an African Canadian Professor鈥�. That said, in 2019, I spent three months in Montreal as Visiting Professor in a philosophy department, and to be honest, my experience there was similar to that in Australia, which informs the paper you kindly cited. It boils down to this: generally, work that falls outside the established Western philosophical canon and the conventional ways of engaging that canon is treated at best as valued ornamentation (to borrow from Australian scholar, Cai Fong) or it is politely ignored. In my medical practice, I saw how people responded to life preserving medication. Some serious philosophers have a similar disposition towards the figures and subjects they study, but I have very rarely seen white philosophers, in Australia or in Canada, approach black and brown thinkers that way. That鈥檚 not to say that by virtue of being Black, I necessarily bring something worthwhile in each talk or publication. However, there is a world of difference between waiting to see if this particular Black philosopher has a valuable contribution to make, especially if that contribution is cast in different terms or draws on different literature, and the assumption that what falls beyond the realm of the familiar is necessarily inferior, uninteresting, or unrelated to 鈥榩hilosophy proper鈥�.

While I imagine that most philosophers in academic philosophy departments pride themselves in their openness and curiosity, the fact that I am only aware of two Black philosophers in Canadian philosophy departments suggests to me that institutional philosophy in this country, as in Australia, has yet to adequately address the Eurocentrism and racism at the discipline鈥檚 core. The response of Black (potential) faculty is therefore unsurprising. In Black Skin, White Masks, Frantz Fanon says that it ought not be the case that the Black is confronted with the dilemma: 鈥榯urn white or disappear鈥�. That means that there is great opportunity here. As academic philosophy departments turn outwards, and take seriously the prospects of finding insights, solutions and better questions from traditions other than their own, those departments are more likely to attract a wider array of philosophers, similarly invested in finding common cause. Relinquishing an imagined superiority for greater participation in and deeper belonging to the world seems a bargain to me. 

You have published in a wide array of forums and are truly a public philosopher. What does it mean for you to carry out philosophy in public? How do you think we can work to break down the barriers for the public to access and benefit from university research? 

BM: Cornel West has said that the idea of a public philosopher is an oxymoron, and I agree. Most scholars are employed in public institutions, which means that the working poor subsidize our incomes. I think it鈥檚 up to each of us to determine what obligations arise from that fact, but I鈥檓 sure most of us will agree that one obligation we share is to ensure that our work is of benefit to a wider audience than the students who can afford to sit in our classes or those with the means to obtain our written publications. That said, I remember reading MacIntyre鈥檚 After Virtue years ago, and being struck by the figures he thought were emblematic of the Western world in the 1980s 鈥� the therapist, the manager鈥� and I forget the third. Anyway, I think we have now established the figure of the 鈥榩ublic intellectual鈥�, and honestly, I鈥檓 ambivalent about it and its emergence. In an era of Netflix and HBO and so many streaming services, I鈥檓 not sure that the public intellectual isn鈥檛 鈥榗onsumed鈥� as entertainment rather than regarded as an opportunity to stop and think. In Plato鈥檚 allegory of the cave, the person who attempts to get others to shift their gaze from shadows on the wall to the actual world is killed by the crowd, not applauded, 鈥榣iked鈥� or 鈥榝ollowed鈥�. So I don鈥檛 know. I think we have an obligation to engage the community seriously, to be in dialogue with the community and to serve it. If that鈥檚 what you mean by public philosopher, that鈥檚 what I aspire to and would like to become. I鈥檓 fortunate to have friends who are that, and I learn from them. But I鈥檓 also conscious of the fact that it didn鈥檛 end well for Plato鈥檚 Socrates. 

In your writing on the pandemic, you discussed the roles played by privilege and the status quo in the righteous positions taken by some groups towards vaccination on both sides of the spectrum. Unlike last year, vaccination is no longer a requirement to be on campus here at 杏吧原创. How do you think injustice in society relates to the shifting attitudes towards covid-19 and vaccination today? 

BM: I think injustice lulls us into satisfying ourselves with the fact that those who would have been on campus prior to the pandemic will now be able to return, without thinking about those who, had COVID-19 never emerged, would have still been unable to access the university. My overarching point around the vaccine debates is that they make us miss the person dancing around in a gorilla suit by focusing our attention on a relatively 鈥榤inor鈥� detail. Don鈥檛 get me wrong, pharmacological factors are important, as are questions of distributive justice. Yet prior to the question of who gets access to vaccines, and what degrees of compulsion are justifiable in the name of the public good, are questions of the structure and organization of society. COVID-19 is not primarily a medical emergency but a social and philosophical one. That鈥檚 my view as someone who saw the devastating impacts of HIV/AIDS on a population that for the most part did not have access to antiretroviral medication. I worry that today, as then, preoccupation with the pharmacological is an evasion of consideration of the social, economic, cultural and political. 

Could you perhaps tell us a bit about the colloquium talk you鈥檒l be doing for the 杏吧原创 Philosophy Department in October? What is its main thesis? 

BM: It basically boils down to the claim that philosophy really does matter, followed by the question of what philosophizing looks like, or what philosophy entails. My investment in conceptual clarity around the activity of philosophy is motivated by the desire to ensure that no one is unjustly excluded from participation, and that鈥檚 because I think philosophy matters so much. 

If students or faculty wanted to talk to you further about your research, is there somewhere they could come have a friendly chat with you? We鈥檇 love to get to know you better as a member of the 杏吧原创 community! 

BM: I don鈥檛 have regular office hours set up, but I鈥檇 love to talk and just hang out with anyone who wants to. I鈥檓 available via email, and if you can make it to the talk, please come up and say hello. We might even be able to organize a time to meet. 

Wonderful, thank you Dr. Mukandi! To close, is there anything you鈥檙e especially looking forward to doing or participating in here at 杏吧原创, including any interesting classes you鈥檙e teaching or events you鈥檇 like to attend? 

BM: I鈥檓 really looking forward to thinking with you all, and to being a part of this community. I鈥檓 looking forward to learning from you and walking alongside you. Thank you for your warm welcome. 

Thanks Dr. Mukandi for answering our questions. You can find more about Dr. Mukandi and his research on his on his , his , and on his Keep an eye out for our next Spotlight in November 2022!鈥� 鈥� 

Have something to share with the 杏吧原创 Philosophy community? Fill out our news submission form.

The post What is it Like to be a (Public) Philosopher? An Interview with Dr. Bryan Mukandi appeared first on Philosophy.

Meet Dr. Josh Redstone, a Contract Instructor in Philosophy and Cog Sci here at 杏吧原创! 

For the past three summers, Dr. Redstone has been teaching a course that may seem a bit strange, but that has been extremely popular with students: Philosophy of the Paranormal (). We wanted to take this opportunity to highlight Dr. Redstone, the various things he gets up to, and the exciting, unique courses he teaches. 

Thank you for taking the time to engage with us! You have certainly been around at 杏吧原创 for a good long time, in both student and instructor capacities. Before teaching here, you received both your M.A. (in Philosophy) and your PhD (in Cognitive Science) from 杏吧原创, and you now continue to offer very unique courses for the Philosophy Department. What is special about 杏吧原创 for you? 

Dr. Josh Redstone: One thing about 杏吧原创 that stood out to me during graduate school was the opportunity to do such interdisciplinary research throughout my MA and PhD. I had the opportunity to work with some great faculty members, graduate, and undergraduate students in the Philosophy and Cognitive Science departments. I also got the chance to teach some of my first classes in the Department of Cognitive Science around this time. After graduation, I was welcomed as an instructor in the Department of Philosophy, and I鈥檝e been lucky enough to continue teaching here over the past few years. So, I鈥檇 say that what stands out to me now is the chance to put together so many interesting courses for my students. 

What topics are you generally interested in researching? As someone with formal training in both philosophy and the sciences, do you see yourself as working at their intersections? 

JR: Absolutely 鈥� I think that the research I do, as well as many of the classes I teach, are very interdisciplinary. Most of my interests fall at the intersection of philosophy and the cognitive sciences. For example, I鈥檓 very interested in understanding how people interact with artificial agents like social robots or virtual characters, and in what we can learn about the mind by using artificial agents as experimental vehicles. So, I guess you could say most of my research is situated the intersection of philosophy and cognitive science, specifically where robotics and A.I. are concerned. My other research and teaching interests include the emotions, consciousness, and the philosophy of technology. 

You are the first instructor in our department鈥檚 history to teach the new 鈥淧hilosophy of Emotions鈥� course (). Often, people think of reason as the realm of philosophy, and as being divided from the emotions, so this course might surprise some students! What do you hope this new course brings?  

JR: One lesson I hope students take from this class is that reason and emotions are not at odds with one another. I think a lot of my students are surprised to learn this. The idea that emotions 鈥� or the passions, if you like 鈥� are detrimental to reason is arguably due to Plato, and in over two millennia of philosophy this idea hasn鈥檛 really gone away. One alternative idea that I introduce my students to is that the emotions have evolved in order to tell us what鈥檚 important, and to direct our attention toward it: what we value, what might harm us or be good for us, and so on. In this respect, reason and emotion are not divided; rather, emotions help us to reason about the world, about our values and morality, and about our relationships with others. 

Let鈥檚 move now to the main course in question for this interview: You are teaching 鈥淧hilosophy of the Paranormal,鈥� one of our more unique offerings and a course which has had not been offered in over a decade before you started teaching it, back in 2020. What exactly is this course about? Do you view this course as an opportunity to investigate unusual beings? Or is it more about the way that pseudoscience and pernicious tricks of reasoning can impact how we see the world? I suspect the course is not about 鈥渟pooky metaphysics鈥�! 

JR: I see this class as an opportunity to explore all sorts of areas of philosophy, especially epistemology, metaphysics, critical thinking, philosophy of science, and philosophy of mind. We investigate unusual beings, e.g., cryptids, aliens, etc., as well as unusual phenomena, e.g., claims of ESP, telekinesis, mediumship, etc. By critically examining claims related to paranormal beings and phenomena, the students have the opportunity to learn how to distinguish science from pseudoscience, to learn about how scientific knowledge is obtained, the importance of skepticism, and so on.  

Which paranormal entity or phenomenon in this course is the most fun to talk with students about? Are there discussions of some paranormal phenomena which require special tact? I am thinking here about things which people often feel they have experienced first-hand, like ghosts or spirits, and whether students feel especially attached to their beliefs concerning such phenomena?  

JR: Where do I begin?! I suppose my favourite topics are parapsychology, and aliens and UFOs. Parapsychology is interesting to me because it began as a good faith attempt to ascertain whether so-called 鈥減si鈥� phenomena exist scientifically, but it inevitably devolved into pseudoscience. It鈥檚 a great opportunity for me to show my students the difference between science and pseudoscience. Aliens and UFOs are fun to discuss because, out of all the paranormal phenomena we discuss, alien life is the most likely to exist. Then again, that doesn鈥檛 mean little green men are visiting us in flying saucers鈥� 

A fascinating subject matter! As mentioned, this course has been offered in the past, though a very long time ago. How are you updating the course to make it interesting for students today? What do students have the opportunity to investigate in their assignments?  

JR: The last time this course was offered was long before I arrived at 杏吧原创, so I can only imagine how it was previously taught. But when I teach this class, I try to include examples of paranormal claims, ranging from those made by members of the spiritualist movement of the 19th century to claims made by T.V. psychics and social media personalities today. Sometimes, students even bring interesting claims and topics to my attention, such as the Mandela Effect, and 鈥渞eality shifting鈥� trends on social media platforms like TikTok. Therefore, I give the students the opportunity to investigate whatever strange, spooky phenomena they wish in their assignments, so long as it falls under the category of 鈥減aranormal.鈥� 

What are your own views concerning the paranormal? Are there any legitimate arguments in favour of the existence of the paranormal? Besides p-zombies or ghosts-in-the-machine, of course! 

JR: Well, I鈥檇 say that I鈥檓 very skeptical of paranormal claims, and I don鈥檛 think that there are any legitimate arguments in favour of the paranormal. Parapsychology, for example, tries to explain paranormal phenomena in ways that violate the principles of naturalism, which serve as the foundations of the natural sciences. When we try and explain these phenomena naturally, however, a few things can happen. One is we find that they鈥檙e 鈥渘on-phenomena,鈥� i.e., there鈥檚 nothing going on. Another is that we are able to provide a naturalistic explanation of something that was previously believed to be supernatural or paranormal. In that case, once it鈥檚 been explained, it鈥檚 not really paranormal anymore. 

Will students who take this course leave with a new respect for how superstition may play a bigger role in our day to day reasonings than we may think? Or does that not come into play? 

JR: Yes, that鈥檚 one of my hopes for this class. After all, people often remain unaware of the extent to which superstition 鈥� and related things like false beliefs or cognitive biases 鈥� play a role in their understanding of the world. I hope that one of the things students take away from my class is an appreciation of how the mind can play such tricks on us. 

Recently, you have also been the first instructor to teach our new course on the 鈥淧hilosophy of Technology鈥� (). What type of knowledge and skills do students acquire through this course?  

JR: Students learn about different ways of understanding technology that fall within two broad categories: technology is neutral, like a tool, and is under our control; and technology is not under human control. We also learn about the role of philosophy of science in technology studies, technocracy, technology and feminism, and technology鈥檚 impact on the environment. It鈥檚 a very comprehensive course which spans both the analytic and continental traditions. I hope that I have the opportunity to teach it again! 

First Year Seminars (FYSM) offer students at 杏吧原创 opportunities to work closely with their instructors. I know you run some of these, and your seminars are highly appreciated by our students! Do you have any plans for your next FYSM? 

JR: I do have plans for a new first year seminar. In fact, I鈥檒l be teaching on the philosophy of music in the winter semester. 

With that exciting FYSM in the works, we simply must ask: What kind of music do you like? Would students have an opportunity to hear you play guitar in the FSYM? 

JR: My musical tastes are pretty eclectic, but there are some genres I tend to gravitate towards more than others. I love heavy metal, especially the progressive, symphonic, and experimental stuff. I also enjoy the blues, jazz, classic rock, and classical music. Whenever I get the chance, I鈥檒l go see the Ottawa Symphony Orchestra, or check out a live metal show. Since I鈥檝e been playing music longer than I鈥檝e been doing philosophy, if my students are lucky I may bring my guitar along for a demonstration or two, but it will depend on how much time I have to practice of course! 

Thank you for your time Dr. Redstone! Before we let you go, is there any exciting news you鈥檇 like to share about either yourself and your research, any students of yours, or any other matters?  

JR: Just that I plan on continuing to design and teach interesting courses like the ones you鈥檝e asked me about today, and that I hope my students will continue to find them fun and interesting! 

Thanks Dr. Redstone for answering our questions! You can find more about Dr. Redstone and his research on his page on our website, and you can find him on , , and . Keep an eye out for our next Spotlight in August 2022!鈥� 

Have something to share with the 杏吧原创 Philosophy community? Fill out our news submission form.

The post What is it Like to be Teaching a Weird Course? An Interview with Dr. Josh Redstone appeared first on Philosophy.