Podcast appearances and mentions of robert zaretsky

Já je nebezpečné; my nebezpečnější, říká Simone Weilová, teoložka, která byla po dobu svého života vnímána především jako levicová novinářka. Přesto cítila značný odpor vůči kolektivním emocím, vůči institucím, tomu, co označuje jako my. Sama říká, že je příliš ovlivnitelná na to, aby mohla být součástí skupiny. Na pozadí druhé světové války a faktu, že se sama narodila do židovské rodiny, zaráží slova z Očekávání Boha: „Přirozenou dispozicí jsem extrémně, přehnaně ovlivnitelná, především čímkoli kolektivním. Vím, že kdybych před sebou v tuto chvíli měla dvacet mladých Němců pějících sborem nacistické písně, část mojí duše by se okamžitě stala nacistkou.“ Sklonem k družnosti vysvětluje svou neochotu vstoupit do církve a nechat se pokřtít. Ale stát se já, být individualitou také není žádoucí. Vše, co Simone Weilovou kdy zajímalo, stojí na redukci sebe sama. Matematiku, kterou vystudovala a učila, obdivuje, protože zde není prostor pro vlastní já: kdo počítá podle sebe, počítá špatně. Ve filosofii taky nejde o vlastní nápady a stejně málo jde o nápaditost v umění. Osobitost a originalitu má Simone Weilová za nepozoruhodné nevýkony. Pozoruhodné je to, co sama označuje jako odjáštění. Zde se odkazuje na křesťanství: Bůh je na straně matematiků i umělců. Že krása individualitu překračuje, zní sice mysticky, ale autorka podcastu Tereza Matějčková v představení knihy Očekávaní Boha, která vychází v nakladatelství Kalich, ukazuje, že v případě odjáštění nejde o sebezničení, ale o filosofickou schopnost své já uzávorkovat: jde o to myslet své myšlení, tedy nepodléhat tomu, co si zrovna myslíme, ale spíše ve svém přemítání zároveň myslet vlastní perspektivu, a tím od ní získávat odstup. Simone Weilová tento v zásadě tradiční filosofický postoj vyjadřuje v duchovním jazyce: je třeba své já „odstvořit“, což znamená upřít mu přirozený sklon stavit se do středu. Nakonec se zde dotýká bodu, který sdílejí dávné myslitelské i duchovní tradice, v nichž byla tato mimořádně všestranná osoba doma. Přirozeně věděla, že „myšlení myšlení“ je nejvyšší – přímo božský – stav i pro Aristotela; dosažení netečnosti vůči vlastnímu já je zas vlastní východním tradicím. Ale křesťanský postoj odmítá aristotelské střední cesty i východní snahy setrvat v meditativní netečnosti. Když hovoří Weilová o tom, že já je třeba zničit, děje se tak skrze nadbytek, skrze lásku ke světu. Je to vlastně složité vyjádření něčeho prostého: člověka netřeba definovat jen tím, že myslí, ale také tím, že je schopen oběti. Kdo daruje, dostává se k prahu sebe sama, mimo já i mimo my – v této, a jedině v této pozici, se začnou dít věci. Životní osud Simone Weilové to možná dosvědčuje. Kapitola I. Neřesti jsou pokusy jíst krásu. [úvod až 18.20] II. Když je život básní [18:20–27.30] III. Království za pozornost! [27:30–44:40] IV. Slepice se vrhají klovat raněnou slepici. [44:40–58:30] V. V číslech není žádné já, leda jako příčina omylu. [58:30 až konec] Bibliografie Tereza Matějčková, „Arogance mystičky. K Simone Weilové“, in: táž, Kdo tu mluvil o vítězství? Osm cvičení ve filosofické rezignaci, Praha: Karolinum, 2022, str. 220–245, zdarma ke stažení zde: https://www.kosmas.cz/knihy/521148/kdo-tu-mluvil-o-vitezstvi/ Susan Sontag, Simone Weil, in: Against Intrepretation and Other Essays, London: Penguin, 2009. Simone Weil, Expérience de la vie d'usine, in: Œuvres, Paris 1999. Simone Weilová, Dobro, mez a rovnováha, Praha: Mladá Fronta, 1996. Simone Weil, L'Iliade où le poème de la force, in: táž, Œuvres, Paris 1999. Simone Weilová, Očekávání Boha, přel. Martin Pokorný, Praha: Kalich, 2024. Simone Weilová, Tíže a milost, přel. Alain Beguivin, Praha: Kalich, 2009. Robert Zaretsky, Zneklidňující Simone Weilová, přel. Martin Pokorný, Praha: Kalich, 2023.

On today's episode, Jonathan and Sy are talking all about conspiracy theories with Matt Lumpkin, a former minister and software developer. They discuss:-        Asking what it is that conspiracy theories accomplish for the people who believe them-        Why White Evangelicals are so susceptible to conspiracy theories right now-        The importance of churches helping people develop critical thinking, rather than outsourcing belief systems to authority figures-        How we can help people let go of conspiracy theories-        And after the interview, a fascinating conversation about despair in the face of violence like that in Palestine, prioritizing the vulnerable, and Albert CamusMentioned in the Episode-            Our anthology, Keeping the Faith-            Matt's website, Mattlumpkin.com-            Matt's Instagram-            The podcast episode on Palestine and CamusCredits-            Follow KTF Press on Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. Subscribe to get our bonus episodes and other benefits at KTFPress.com.-        Follow host Jonathan Walton on Facebook Instagram, and Threads.-        Follow host Sy Hoekstra on Mastodon.-        Our theme song is “Citizens” by Jon Guerra – listen to the whole song on Spotify.-        Our podcast art is by Robyn Burgess – follow her and see her other work on Instagram.-        Editing by Multitude Productions-        Transcripts by Joyce Ambale and Sy Hoekstra.-        Production by Sy Hoekstra and our incredible subscribersTranscriptIntroduction[An acoustic guitar softly plays six notes, the first three ascending and the last three descending – F#, B#, E, D#, B – with a keyboard pad playing the note B in the background. Both fade out as Jonathan Walton says “This is a KTF Press podcast.”]Matt Lumpkin: You notice almost all of these conspiracy theories provide a way to stay in the old way of thinking and being. They want to make America great again. They want to go back to a time when things made sense, when White people were powerful, and no one questioned their gender. They want to go back, right? [laughs] And if you look at the prophets, the biblical prophets, yes, they're interested in what happened before, but they're more interested in saying, how do we move forward from this? As I try to sift through and make sense of who are the voices that are worth listening to, one of the litmus tests I use is, does it ask anything from me? If the story only makes me feel good, if it only affirms my existing Identity, then that's a red flag for me.[The song “Citizens” by Jon Guerra fades in. Lyrics: “I need to know there is justice/ That it will roll in abundance/ And that you're building a city/ Where we arrive as immigrants/ And you call us citizens/ And you welcome us as children home.” The song fades out.]Sy Hoekstra: Welcome to Shake the Dust, seeking Jesus, confronting injustice. I'm Sy Hoekstra.Jonathan Walton: And I'm Jonathan Walton. Get ready for an incredible interview from our series where we're bringing on authors from the anthology we published in 2020, Keeping the Faith: Reflection on Politics & Christianity in the Era of Trump & Beyond. Today, we're talking all about the world of right-wing conspiracy theories with Matt Lumpkin [laughs]. But don't worry, it's nowhere near as depressing as it sounds [Sy laughs]. Matt is really interested in figuring out how people make meaning out of their lives and circumstances, so we focus on what the benefits of believing in conspiracy theories are for the people who subscribe to them, why Conservative White Christians are so susceptible to conspiracy theories in this historical moment, and what we are learning from comparing conspiracy theories with biblical prophets and a whole lot more.Sy Hoekstra: It's a really good conversation. Matt actually does a pretty good job of taking us through his bio in the conversation, so I won't do that now, except to say he's a Fuller Seminary grad who worked as a hospital chaplain for a while and then actually made his way into the world of software development. So that is what he does now. His essay in our anthology was called “What Job Is a Conspiracy Theory Doing?” And you can find the anthology at www.keepingthefaithbook.com. After the interview with Matt, hear our thoughts on the interview, plus our segment Which Tab Is Still Open, diving a little bit deeper into one of the recommendations from our free weekly newsletter. Today, we're talking about a really interesting podcast episode comparing the French Algerian War to the violence in Palestine right now, all through the lens of the Algerian philosopher Albert Camus. You don't want to miss that one, it'll be a fascinating conversation.Before we dive in, like we've been saying, we need your support, and we need it now. If you like what you hear and read from KTF Press and you want it to continue beyond this election season, please become a paid subscriber at KTFPress.com that's our Substack, and share our work with anyone you think might be interested. If you're already a paying subscriber, consider upgrading to our founding member tier.And if the price to subscribe is too high and you want a discount, just write to us at info@ktfpress.com. We'll give you whatever discount you want, no questions asked. Every little bit helps. Subscribers get all the bonus episodes of this show, monthly Zoom discussions with the two of us and a lot more. So please go sign up at KTFPress.com and become a paid subscriber and join us in seeking Jesus and confronting injustice. Thank you so much.Jonathan Walton: All right, let's get into our interview with Matt Lumpkin.[the intro piano music from “Citizens” by Jon Guerra plays briefly and then fades out.]Sy Hoekstra: Matt Lumpkin, thank you so much for being with us on Shake the Dust today.Matt Lumpkin: I'm so glad to be here. It's great to meet both of you. I've been a fan of y'all's work since I learned about you and started following the publishing, but also some of Jonathan's work on Instagram. I learn things from almost every post, so really appreciate that.Jonathan Walton: I appreciate that. Thanks so much.Sy Hoekstra: It's very nice to talk to you not in emails and document comments on your essays or whatever [laughter].Matt Lumpkin: Yeah. Well, it was a lovely process working with you all on the book chapter, and I love asynchronous first working patterns, so that makes me very happy. But it's great to actually be chatting and get to learn a little bit more about you guys and talk a little bit more about some of the stuff that you want to get into.How Matt Started Thinking about the Ways People Make Meaning in Their LivesMatt Lumpkin: Just a bit about me up front. So raised very Evangelical, very fundamentalist, frankly Baptist, with a [laughs] very Pentecostal grandmother. So right out the gate, you have two frameworks [laughs] who don't agree on what's true, but are both family [laughter]. So that's my religious upbringing. And then I spent early years in my career working as a hospital chaplain. I also spent some time living outside the country, taught English in Indonesia and traveled around Southeast Asia and all of those things. When I actually did end up in grad school at Fuller Theological Seminary, I had a lot of questions [laughs]. I had a lot of big questions around, how does a religion work? How do people make meaning? How do people put their meaning-making frameworks together and this language of what job is this doing? These are questions I've been asking for a long time in the course of my time at Fuller. I was there for about a decade studying part time and then working, doing a lot of online course design, and a lot of building and experimenting with online spaces, building mobile apps to test out different psychological principles, and all the way into building products.There's a product now called Fuller Equip that's still alive and kicking that I designed and built with several colleagues. So in my early career, I brought all those questions to Fuller, which is a very Evangelical space, but also a pretty… Fuller is like a bridge.Sy Hoekstra: Yeah.Matt Lumpkin: It's a bridge from where you start to, usually somewhere different. And then a lot of people walk across that bridge, and they look back and they're like, “Man, why is this place so like still connected to that place I came from?” And it's like, because it's a bridge [laughter] and it needs to still be there so that other people can walk across. But so much goodness came from my time there, and just in terms of really expanding my understanding. I had a very narrow idea of what calling meant, a very narrow idea of what I meant to be faithful to God. And that in my mind [laughs], by the time I was 14 years old, that meant I need to be a pastor, preacher in a small church like the kind I grew up in.And it was at Fuller where I really… and my work in, all different kinds of work in early life, especially as a chaplain, was about finding a space to be faithful to that calling and that identity, while also being the person that I am who's endlessly curious about people, endlessly curious about how do things work, and what's really going on versus what people say is going on, and just how do people think about things in their own way. So in the course of doing that work, I found my way into designing software. All kinds of software, from websites and mobile apps to now in the last five or six years, I've been working on diabetes software and supporting people who live with type 1 as well as type 2 diabetes.And all those same skills I bring to bear of getting into the mindset of other people, really deeply trying to enter their world and understand what does it look like. What are the problems, what are the pain points, and then what might actually move the needle to change it? But this background in studying religion formally, studying psychology, studying cultural anthropology, these lenses are all things that I use in my work as a designer, but also [laughs] in my attempts to make meaning of this rapidly evolving landscape we live in.Jonathan Walton: Amen.Asking What Job a Conspiracy Theory Does for its BelieversSy Hoekstra: Yeah. Speaking of how things operate in people's minds versus how they say things are operating [laughter], let's jump right into your essay, which is all about conspiracy theories. And your kind of framework for understanding conspiracy theories is right there in the title, it's what job is a conspiracy theory doing? So I just want to start with, when you hear Trump talking about having the election stolen, or you hear someone talking about QAnon or whatever, why is the question, “What job is this theory doing?” the basis for how you understand what's going on with that person?Moving to Empathy and Curiosity Instead of AngerMatt Lumpkin: Yeah. So there's a few reasons. One is to move me to a space of empathy, because I don't know about you all, but I get real mad [laughs] at times about some of the just really hurtful and harmful ideas that get spread around that have no basis in fact very often, and actively harm people. It's one thing to make up a story that makes you feel good if that doesn't hurt anybody else, but a lot of these stories really create a lot of harm. So this is a step for, it's a pragmatic step for me to step out of anger, frustration, let me just push you away to get curious of what is going on here? Because so many of the stories, I think I talk about the lizard people [laughter].Jonathan Walton: Yes.Matt Lumpkin: That one takes me back to V. Did you guys watch V in the 80s? There was this lizard people, body snatchers, terrible, I don't recommend it. These people unzipping like masks and there are lizards underneath.Jonathan Walton: Yes! I do remember that. Yes [laughter].Matt Lumpkin: It terrified me as a kid. I walked in the living room one time and saw it. That's always where my mind goes when I hear those stories and I think, “Wow, how could you believe this?” So the question of, “What job is this doing?” is a way to get me out of my judgmental reactive and into getting curious about this person and what is it doing. It also connects to my work as a designer. There's a framework that we use in design called “jobs to be done” and thinking about digital products. And basically, you ask yourself, “If this piece of software were going to get hired to do this job, what would it need to do? What are the jobs to be done? And what would it get fired over?” Like if you don't do this thing, are you going to lose the job?So kind of a way of moving out of the emotional space and into the curiosity space. But also when I say the way that they say something is different from the way that they think it, we all do this. We all have cognitive biases we're unaware of, and it's not like anybody's a particular failure for having a bias that they don't see. So when I talk to people about the software that I've designed, I'm not just going to ask them, “Do you like it?” People will always tell you, “Yeah, yeah, I like it.” I have lots of strategies that I use to get behind that and understand on a more deeper level like, is this doing the job for you?What Do Conspiracy Theories Accomplish for People Who Believe Them?Matt Lumpkin: So when I came to these conspiracy theories and was just hearing these things I just couldn't fathom why or how someone come to that conclusion, what was the context? It was the pandemic. We were in the midst of the pandemic and a lot of this was happening. All the rules and the maps that people had to make sense of their world were not working anymore. And as a person who's lived outside the US and experienced culture shock directly, when your maps don't work, it is profoundly disorienting.Sy Hoekstra: Yeah.Matt Lumpkin: You feel like a child again.Jonathan Walton: Yeah.Matt Lumpkin: You feel really vulnerable because you don't know how to act in a way that makes sense. I believe that that sense of disorientation, cultural disorientation, social disorientation, religious disorientation, that is the driver. That's what makes people reach out and grab onto these ideas. And frankly, I think it's what makes con men and people who are aware of this dynamic pop up. These periods of time are ripe for cons because people are looking for a way to get their feet under them again, so to speak, in a world that feels confusing and uncertain. So that's a number of different things. It's empathy, it's about moving to curiosity and away from anger, and it's also just pragmatically, what's going on here?Sy Hoekstra: Yeah [laughs].Matt Lumpkin: What's the real value? What's the real driver here? Because it's doing something for you, whether you're conscious of it or not. People don't change their minds easily until the pain of changing your mind is more than the pain of holding on to the original ideas. So I think a lot of these conspiracy theories or strategies are ways of hanging on to old ideas that are unraveling, and they're ways of saying, we can discount this proof for this evidence here because the conspiracy supplies this idea of, “Well, the conspiracy is designed to hide things from here. It's designed not have evidence so it's okay if we don't have evidence.” Has all these logic loopholes that get people out of the normal social contract that we have when we talk in public [laughter] saying things that are true.Jonathan Walton: Yeah.Matt Lumpkin: Or saying things that can be checked or are credible. And I think the broader challenge that we're in is… You know, I got into working in technology after studying church history and understanding that the printing press is really a catalyst of the complete social and political upheaval of Europe.Jonathan Walton: Right.Matt Lumpkin: It's that moment that breaks the way people put meaning together, because it suddenly increases literacy and increases the speed in transmission of ideas. And I woke up and realized we are in the middle of a Gutenberg moment here. We are 25, 30 years into the internet, and we're just beginning to see the epistemic crisis, the crisis of how we know what we know really come to fruition.Jonathan Walton: Yeah.Matt Lumpkin: So I think that's the broader context of wanting to get curious about this, because that's the broad context. The narrow context is pandemic, the narrow context is like… there's lots of other things that push people to this feeling of disorientation.Jonathan Walton: Right.Just Providing Correct Facts Won't Change MindsMatt Lumpkin: And so I'm looking for, how is the thing that you believe that is obviously wrong or factually disprovable to me, what does it do for you? Because just pounding on people with facts has been scientifically shown to not change people's minds.Jonathan Walton: [laughs] Right. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That makes sense.Matt Lumpkin: It will not work.Jonathan Walton: Yeah. What you just said makes sense, yet we love to do it.Sy Hoekstra: Yeah.Jonathan Walton: Right? [laughs] We love to just pelt people with answers.Matt Lumpkin: Some of us do, some of us have minds that are more… and I'm guilty. I have this deep internal need that's probably related to ways in which my brain may not be 100 percent standard equipment[Sy laughs]. This internal need to make things consistent. Like if I encounter a new piece of information that doesn't match my map of the world, I've got to figure out how the information is wrong, or I've got to change my map. And I can't really rest until I've done it. But that's not most people. And there are parts of my life and thinking where I don't do that as rigorously, but there's a lot public space safety questions, questions of [laughs] science and medicine, those are ones in which I do need my model to be accurate, because those models have literally saved the lives of people that I love. Like the practice of science, the scientific methods saved my daughter's life when she was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes.We knew before the doctors did, because we gathered data, we gathered evidence, and then we were able to show that evidence. So it satisfied our way of knowing, like we measured it. It's not just family worries. It's not just parents being nervous. It's grounded in real observation that we can then hand you. But there's a lot of domains where people aren't used to doing that kind of rigor.Why Are White Evangelicals So Susceptible to Conspiracy Theories Right Now?Mat Lumpkin: As we think about the Evangelical context, one of the things I explore in the essay is why are Evangelicals particularly, do they seem to be particularly vulnerable to these kinds of erroneous claims or conspiratorial claims? I feel that that's true, and I started to pay more attention to it when I noticed other non-Christian journalists were noticing.Sy Hoekstra: Yeah.Matt Lumpkin: Like, “Hmm, the Evangelicals are really buying this QAnon to our surprise. Outside it doesn't seem it would match,” same with a lot of Trumpism.Jonathan Walton: Yeah.Matt Lumpkin: A lot of Trump's ideology and way of being in the world seems very antithetical to what popular conceptualization of Jesus followers would be, and yet, it's working. So why? What job is it doing?Jonathan Walton: I'd love for you to dive deeply into that. Why do you think White Evangelicals are particularly susceptible right now?Matt Lumpkin: Thank you for that correction as well. Because I do think that it is a specific challenge to White Evangelicals, and I don't see it spreading and being shared in the same way among Evangelicals that I know that are not White.Discouraging Critical Thinking about What Authority Figures SayMatt Lumpkin: So a couple of things. One, just a general lack of rigor in how you know what you know. And why would Evangelicals have a lack of rigor and how they know it? Why would they? It's a tradition that literally emerged from people, the deep Protestant move to want to read the Bible for yourself and, but what does that do? That centers the self and the individual in the private prayer time, in the quiet time, as the source of authority.If you want to go deeper into that space, and I say this as somebody who has many Pentecostal folks in my family who was raised in no small part by my Pentecostal grandmother, and my mom, her faith is deeply shaped by Pentecostalism. But that tradition really centers the individual experience of the deity and of their experience of God as a source of truth and authority. Well, you hang around with more than one Pentecostal and you're going to find you get differing accounts of what God might be saying in any given time.Jonathan Walton: Yes [laughs].Matt Lumpkin: So that kind of flexibility and fuzziness, and in folks that move in these spaces, they're really clever at saying, “Well, that didn't mean this, it meant this now, now that I know this other thing”Sy Hoekstra: Yeah [laughs].Matt Lumpkin: So it's very changeable in a way that's very coherent with the way that you see a lot of QAnon folks or a lot of other conspiracy theorists say, “Well, we got this piece of evidence, and so now what we said last week doesn't work anymore, but don't worry, I've got a new way to read Revelation that actually accounts for it” [Jonathan laughs]. And so that practice and that move being modeled by leaders and authority figures in these churches creates this receptivity to a kind of very, I want to use the word lazy, but that's maybe a bit harsh, but it's a lack of rigor in questioning, “What did you tell me last week [laughs], and what did you tell me this week, and why is it not the same?”Authoritarian Methods of Learning TruthMatt Lumpkin: And all of that stems from what I would say in many churches is an authoritarian epistemology.Sy Hoekstra: I was going to say it's kind of a lack of accountability, which goes along with authoritarianism.Matt Lumpkin: Yeah. I think I touched on this briefly in the essay that, when your foundation of what you know is because an authority told you, who that authority is claiming that it comes straight from God or it comes straight from the source who's deeply embedded in the deep state, those are both parallel claims. Like, “I've got a direct line, so you can trust me.” But that is a very brittle way of building a model of reality, because you're not doing it yourself. You've outsourced it to the authority, in spite of any claims you might be making to doing your own research. It's a way of saying, “Well, I can't read the text in its original Greek or Hebrew, so I'm just going to outsource that to somebody who can.” “Well, I can't understand necessarily these theological concepts, so I'm just going to trust my pastor to do that.”Well, once you get in the habit of outsourcing all these things that are at the root of your most deeply held beliefs about reality and truth, then that's a move that you're accustomed to making. And it's a dangerous move, because without a practice of critical thinking and of questioning for yourself, critical thinking is the immune system for your mind. If you don't have it, you won't notice that it's getting colonized or infected with bad ideas.Jonathan Walton: A thousand percent [laughter].Matt Lumpkin: And you won't be able to spot those infections as they make you sick and as they make your communities sick. I think what we're seeing right now is a time in which a lot of these ideas and these ways of… it's not just ideas, it's ways of thinking and ways of knowing that are very, very changeable and very flexible and fluid. They lack a certain rigor. That's happening because, why? Because people are reaching out for a way to hang on to the old map. You notice almost all of these conspiracy theories provide a way to stay in the old way of thinking and being. They want to make America great again. They want to go back to a time when things made sense, when White people were powerful and no one questioned their gender.They want to go back [laughs]. And if you look at the prophets, which is in the chapter that we're discussing here, the biblical prophets, yes, they're interested in what happened before, but they're more interested in saying, “How do we move forward from this?” As I try to sift through and make sense of who are the voices that are worth listening to, the people that are interested in trying to understand how we got where we are today, so that we can understand how we can get out of this mess, what actions we can take. Those are the voices that I think are more… One of the litmus tests I use is, does it ask anything from me? If the story only makes me feel good, if it only affirms my existing identity, then that's a red flag for me, because it's only flattering me.Now, on the flip side, if you read the book of Revelation, that book is written to a community that it's trying to encourage that community that's being marginalized, it's suffering. And it does ask some things of that community, but it's also trying to celebrate. So there aren't really easy and clean [laughs] answers on which voices you can trust, you have to do the work of doing your own critical thinking. But I think Evangelicals in general have been discouraged in many churches from doing any critical thinking at all, because it undermines the authority of the lead pastor or the leadership team or whomever…Sy Hoekstra: The denomination or whoever.Jonathan Walton: …that they've outsourced all of this work to.Matt Lumpkin: Yeah. And that might seem… I've been to seminary, I have a Master's of Divinity degree. I get frustrated when people don't listen to my authority [laughter]. You work in any number of church settings and you realize you don't want them to. What you really want is you want to teach people how to build their own faith and their own meaning using these tools, and do it in community, so that we can check each other's work.Sy Hoekstra: Yeah.Matt Lumpkin: In my early work as a hospital chaplain, I spent a year doing spirituality support groups with the folks that were in the lockdown unit in the psych ward.Sy Hoekstra: Oh wow.Matt Lumpkin: So we're talking about doing spirituality groups with people that have schizophrenia, that have bipolar disorder, that sometimes in their mind hear the voice of God telling them to do things. Now, how do you help a person like that connect with their faith, now that their very way of knowing or having that connection is now called into question? It's a hard problem, but that's really where I started to wake up to this reality of the problematic nature of, “God talks to me, and then I go do a thing.” There are lots of stories in the Bible where that happens, and some of them are terrifying, but it is always an interpretive choice that we make to say that, “I had an experience, and I believe it was God speaking to me,” best done in community with people that you trust.I kind of wish Abraham had talked to some of his community of faith before taking Isaac up on the hill. That's a terrifying story of somebody not raising questions about what they thought they heard from God.Conspiracy Theorists vs. Biblical Prophets; Blaming “Them” vs. Inviting IntrospectionSy Hoekstra: The community point is very well taken, and also you've said it, but I want to just highlight it for the audience, because I think that the point about profits versus conspiracy theorists being the people who require something of you versus the people who require nothing of you is so important. And you are right, it is so within the culture of Evangelicalism, definitely within the culture that I grew up in, to say that everything that is wrong with the world is because of those people out there, and has nothing to do with us, and we do not need to reflect, we do not need to change, they need to become like us. And that is that colonial type of faith that you were just talking about. Everyone else needs to become like me, and then the world would be fine.Matt Lumpkin: That's a litmus test.Sy Hoekstra: It's a litmus test, but I also want to highlight the prophets being the people who against what everybody else, not what everybody else, but what in many cases everybody else in their society wanted them to do, we're suggesting the problem here might actually be us [laughter], and we need to take some time and think about how it might be us, and have some real reflection as a community. And that is actually what God wants us to do. So having a faith that is oriented around that versus a faith that is oriented around blaming the world for everything, those are faiths that go in polar opposite directions. And I want that to be everyone's red flag [laughs] is what I'm saying, and I really appreciated when you made that point your essay.Matt Lumpkin: As a designer, we use “how might we” questions when we don't know the answer [laughs]. How might we encourage faith communities to develop a healthy critical thinking and awareness of religious abuse and manipulation? I mean, religion is powerful. It's how many, many of us, most humans, make sense of their reality and situate themselves in the cosmic story and understand who they are and what their life is about. And yet it is so often used to manipulate people, to sway people, to create specific emotional experiences for people, so that whoever's doing the manipulation can get something that they want. And how might we create communities of faith that are resilient against manipulation, resilient against co-option by, I like y'all's term “colonial power” or “colonized faith?”I think it's a great lens to think about the ways in which the Evangelical tradition, which when I teach my kids about where Evangelicals came from, because I've studied this church history, abolition, that was Evangelicals. So many of the really positive expressions, I think, of Christian faith have also been a part of this tradition. So how did we get co-opted by fear and a desire to go back in time to some imagined past? How did so many churches and church people get co-opted in that way? I talk a little bit about the first time I encountered it. I'm 42, dispensationalism was around, but it wasn't a part of my church community.Sy Hoekstra: Which is just, briefly, for people who don't know.Matt Lumpkin: Yeah. Dispensationalism is the idea that… oh boy. So it's pretty young as a theological movement, I think, around 100 years. And in fact, it's a really great propaganda strategy if you want to have your religious idea emerge from the grassroots, you just print up a Bible, a study Bible. Scofield Study Bible has a lot of these connections drawn for pastors. They gave them away, they printed them up and shipped them out to pastors all across the country. Twenty years later, lots of people came up with dispensationalism, simultaneously invented. It's a really great propaganda strategy, worthy of Dune [laughter]. It laid those foundations early. But it only took 20 years in America for this idea, and this idea being that Jesus is going to come back and take away the faithful, but then real bad stuff's going to happen on earth, trials and tribulations are going to happen.And then in some versions there's a showdown with Jesus and Satan, in other versions there's not. Then it gets pretty divergent, and you can find really cool maps of this in old bookstores where people try to map it out because it's impossible to explain.Jonathan Walton: Yeah [laughs].Matt Lumpkin: And then the churches that I was around in my early theological study were obsessed with arguing over whose version of dispensationalism was right. And then you dig into it and you're like, this is a novel idea [laughs], it doesn't even go back very far in church history. So it's a great example of a way a theological concept takes hold and then gives people a lot of busy work to do, to go home and read Scripture and try to mix and match and come up with a way that makes sense of it. So The Late Great Planet Earth was the antecedent to the Left Behind books, which were big time when I was in college. And all of that is based on this idea of dispensationalism, that there's going to be an antichrist arise and then all these switcheroos and people get taken away [laughs].Like the rapture, it literally comes from the same word that we get raptor, the birds of prey, because some people are snatched away, not a good image. I don't want to be taken like that actually. That doesn't seem a positive [laughter]. So all this to say, those ideas, when did they emerge? They emerged during the Cold War. They emerged when kids were having to duck and cover under the [laughs] idea that's going to save you from an atomic blast. Like real terrifying existential stuff going on that causes people to look around and say, “This is causing me anxiety. I am terrified all the time. How can I not be terrified?” And a lot of these moves, they go back, or they look for a scapegoat to blame.And that's really, I think, one of the most harmful and most important litmus tests to hang on to. I don't like the word litmus test. I would call these heuristics. They're strategies you can use to understand something, questions you can ask yourself, like who's paying for this? Who benefits from this? What does this demand of me? Who's at fault? Who's to blame here? If the persons to blame are somebody you already feel disgust or separation from, that should be a red flag. Because we know that the human mind feels emotions before it knows why it feels them, and then this narrative kicks in to try to make sense of why do I feel these emotions? And I think a lot of how the conspiracy theories work, particularly the really deeply dark ones around pedophilia, around…Sy Hoekstra: Cannibalism.Matt Lumpkin: …cannibalism.Jonathan Walton: Cabal.Matt Lumpkin: Yeah, and a lot of those, they draw on really, really deeply held old, long, deep human history social taboos. We don't eat other people. Children are off limits as sexual partners. These are deeply held boundaries on civilization, on humanity, on even having any kind of community at all. So once you say, my opponent, the enemies, once you make them into something so horrible…Jonathan Walton: Lizard drinking blood people [laughs].Matt Lumpkin: …then it justifies the disgust you already felt towards somebody that you didn't like. So that's another way of thinking about this, of not falling for this trap of somebody coming along and saying, “You know what, your life is messed up. You are disempowered. You don't have the same cultural power and influence you had before. You can't enjoy just talking to your grandkids without worrying about offending them, and it's because of those people and their secret agenda that you can't actually know about, but I'm going to tell you about because I know,” and then what job does that do? It makes you feel justified in the things you already felt and thought. It makes you feel angry, and it makes you feel you were right all along.Feeling like you were right all along almost never [laughs] results in good actions. [laughter] When it turns out, everything I already thought was right, that's not a great place from which to get closer to truth.Jonathan Walton: Yeah, and there's a lot of gold in what you're saying, but something standing out for me is I can feel strongly about something without thinking deeply about it.Matt Lumpkin: Oh, yeah.Jonathan Walton: So Hillary Clinton can be a lizard person who drinks the blood of children to stay alive. That's much easier than saying she's actually just somebody who benefits from systems of powers and structures that have put her in place her the majority of her life, and she's responsible for the deaths of a lot of people. But not drinking the blood of children, but like drone attacks. You know what I mean? But one requires thoughtfulness and doesn't engender those same feelings, because we don't have compassion for folks in the Middle East. I have compassion for folks in South America, but I can feel strongly about this 500 year old cabal that she's a part of and that Obama and Oprah and all them are.Matt Lumpkin: You've been reading more of that than I have. I don't know all that [laughs].Jonathan Walton: Hey man, hey man, you know, some of us got to do it so other people don't [laughter].Matt Lumpkin: Yeah.How Can We Help People Let Go of Conspiracy Theories?Jonathan Walton: But as we're engaging with these things, and I'm sure you're going to get to it, but what are some ways that you've actually seen people let go of this stuff, and how can we move towards those people in love instead of judgment, the way that you've been sharing about being empathetic?Maintaining Relationships with Conspiracy Theorists Is KeyMatt Lumpkin: I have to tell you guys, I don't think I'm particularly good at this. I have learned from some other people that I think are better at it than me. One is the thing we've talked about, about getting curious. This is just a good, this is Matt's unsolicited advice for all humans, whenever you're getting mad, pause and get curious. That's a good move to make. Getting out of the deep emotion space and into the curiosity space of what's going on here? What's really happening? Why am I feeling this?Jonathan Walton: Right.Matt Lumpkin: Why are you feeling this? What's really motivating this? But the second one is, it may feel good to want to dunk on people with facts, because it's so easy [laughs] with so many of these things, but it doesn't actually result, dunking on people rarely results in closer relationships. There are times where I think it's important to push back against direct untruths that if spread can actively harm people. But the way you want to think about it is how can I say this and keep our relationship? Because what has been shown to work to get people to move out of some of these terrible ideas is relationships with people who don't share them. Because once all of your relationships are comprised of people who share this shared reality, that's an intersubjective reality that is mutually reinforcing.All those people are thinking the same things and talking the same things and thinking under the same reality, and it will make that reality more real. So just being in someone's life and existing and being the sort of person that isn't dismissible. For your listeners that are good Bible readers, go read the Gospels again. Watch how Jesus stays uncondemnable by the rules of phariseeism, so that he can transgress the rules of phariseeism in a way that upends them, in a way that challenges them. If he was just like, “Well, this is all terrible. None of this is true,” and just lived a way that, they would say, “Well, we can't take this man seriously. This person's not a person of faith. He's not even following the law.”But no, he carefully stays comprehensible to them as a participant in their community, so that when he does transgress on purpose with intention, a thing that needs to be challenged, he can't be dismissed. So staying in the lives of these people, and this is hard work, because some of the rules and the ways in which they put their world together are nonsensical. They don't match, they don't fit together.Jonathan Walton: Right.Matt Lumpkin: So you can't do it perfectly, but staying a person that has not rejected them, and staying in relationship with them while holding on to your reality and talking about it. It's not enough that the reality just lives in your mind. You have to bring it out into the world and make it real for them, so that you become a problem [laughs] for them that they have to resolve.Sy Hoekstra: Well, I had two quick things to say about that. One is the point about throwing facts at people. If you have asked the question of what job is this conspiracy theory doing, and you have answered that question, then you will realize that throwing facts at people is not going to address that problem.Matt Lumpkin: You've just taken away the thing that was fixing something for them, and now they're not going to let go of it easily because you've not offered anything better.Jonathan Walton: Yes.Sy Hoekstra: Yeah, and the problem is still there. Their problem wasn't insufficient facts.Matt Lumpkin: [laughs] Right.Sy Hoekstra: So that's one thing. And the other thing is talking about having close relationship with people and being credible and all that, I think that just emphasizes a point that we made before in this show, which is that if you are in a dominant group on a hierarchy, it's easier for you to do that. It is easier for White people to talk to other White people about racism and to remain credible and to maintain your close relationships, and to be able to talk about things that maybe your racist cousin would never talk about with Jonathan. You know what I mean? And that goes for anything. Able-bodied people talking about disabled people or whatever, checking people who use ableist language. So I just wanted to draw those two points for our listeners out of what you were saying.Matt Lumpkin: I think that's really important. And I think that any advice that I'm offering here is offered from the perspective of somebody who enjoys a lot of power and privilege. As a White, cis het man in America, in my middle age, I am at the height of my power and privilege. So the question that I ask myself is, I learned early on in life, I can't give the power that these corrupt cultural institutions have given me away. I can try, but they just give it back [Sy laughs].Jonathan Walton: Yes.Matt Lumpkin: So how might I use that power to amplify the voices of people that don't have it, that don't enjoy it? Those are questions that I come back to and need to come back to more and more. And frankly, the less risk I take, I take less risk for me to challenge those ideas. But I think again, the challenging… and I get it. I get mad and I want to shatter these false realities. When I get in a space of anger, I want to burn it down. I want to reveal the falsity of it. But burning down a shelter someone has made for their psyche is rarely a gateway to a continued relationship [laughter]. So instead, the metaphor that I like to use, and I use this even when I was working in churches and doing adult Bible study, it's a metaphor of renovation.We all have rotten boards in our faith house and in our own psychological house, the shelter that we use to face the challenges of reality. We all have things that could be improved, and it's easier to take somebody walks through and says, “Oh, I think you've got little bit of dry rot over here. I got some time this week, you want me to help you work on that? I think we could fix it.” There's a really, really great passage over in Jeremiah that could really help us shore this up. That's a better way than saying, “You know what, I came over and you're living in a house full of rotten garbage, and I just burned it down for you.” That's less helpful.Jonathan Walton: Right.Asking What Evidence Would Prove the Conspiracy Theory Is False?Matt Lumpkin: Finally, I think the thing that, and I looked for the source on this, I couldn't find it. And if I find it, I'll let you know.Sy Hoekstra: Yeah.Matt Lumpkin: But I heard a guy being interviewed, and he had done a lot of work scientifically in this area. If you can't tell I care a lot about science. I care a lot about how you know what you know. Scientific method is important to me. But he had said that basically, there aren't a lot of good strategies for getting people to let go of these ideas, but one that has been shown to be successful is to ask more questions. And to ask questions about, “Okay, well, why do you think that? How did you come to this conclusion?” To get curious with the person of how they came to these conclusions. And then when you hear things that are factually untrue, ask like, “Okay, well, what evidence would you accept?”So the move is this, you get curious, you ask questions, you get more data on why they think what they think. You offer some counter evidence that challenges some of the false foundations. When they don't accept it and they won't, then the move is, if you don't accept that evidence, what evidence would you accept that would actually change your mind? And that question can become the seed of doubt in the conspiracy theory thinking. Why? Because conspiracy theories are self-authenticating. There is no evidence that can show them to be false. And so telling somebody that isn't the same as them coming to that conclusion on their own and then feeling a little bit conned.At least for what I understood from this gentleman, the most successful paths are not making the leap for them, but leading them up to the leap to understand that they're locked in.Jonathan Walton: Right.Matt Lumpkin: And a lot of folks that really these theories appeal to, they appeal to them because they feel empowering. “I'm choosing this, I'm believing against the mainstream.” So once they start to realize that they're locked in a system that they can't actually ever get out of, because no evidence would convert them out of it, that's a bad feeling.Where to Find Matt's WorkSy Hoekstra: Interesting. Matt, before we let you go, can you tell people where they can find you on the internet, or what work of yours you would want them to check out?Matt Lumpkin: I do a lot of stuff at www.mattlumpkin.com, that's where most of some of the stuff that I write goes. If you want to see pictures of the paintings that I'm working on or the furniture that I'm designing [laughs], which is unrelated to our conversation, that's on, mostly on Instagram. But I don't have any way for people to subscribe, I don't have a Substack or anything like that. So I do post on Instagram when I have a new piece up, so that's one way you can sort of keep up.Sy Hoekstra: Awesome.Jonathan Walton: Nice.Sy Hoekstra: Matt is a jack of all trades [laughs].Jonathan Walton: Nice.Matt Lumpkin: Life's too short to do one thing.Sy Hoekstra: [laughs] Matt, thank you so much. This has been a wonderful conversation. We really appreciate you coming on and for being a part of the anthology.Jonathan Walton: Yeah, man.Matt Lumpkin: Thank you so much. And I just want to say again, thank you for the work that you're doing in decentering us White guys and centering the voices of people of color, of women. I saw your recent episode you were highlighting the challenges around birth and women of color. I'm so inspired by the way that you guys are bringing together these real deep awareness and understanding of the hard problems that we face, and also keeping that connected to communities of faith and people who are striving to be faithful to the life and teachings of Jesus.Sy Hoekstra: Thank you so much, Matt. We really appreciate that.Jonathan Walton: I appreciate that, man. Thanks so much.[the intro piano music from “Citizens” by Jon Guerra plays briefly and then fades out.]Jonathan Walton: att's handle on Instagram is @mattlumpkin, and we'll have that link plus his website in the show notes.Sy's and Jonathan's Thoughts on the InterviewJonathan Walton: All right Sy, what are you thinking about that interview?Sy Hoekstra: Too much [Jonathan laughs].Conspiracies vs. Prophecies Is a Crucial DistinctionSy Hoekstra: Well, okay, I have two main thoughts that I would like to highlight. One of them, I just once again, I would like everybody in the world to be making the distinction between prophets and conspiracy theorists [laughter] in terms of what people are asking you to do with the stories they're telling you. If they're asking you to do nothing except oppose all of the evil that is out there in the world, versus asking you to examine yourself and see how you can change and make the world a better place. If everybody in the world was on the lookout for that, man, we would be in a better place [laughs] in our society.Addressing How Conservatives Would Process This ConversationBut second, I just wanted to address some tension that I sometimes feel when we're having conversations like this that I'm sure other people feel as well.In conversations like these and a lot, we're talking about conservatives or White Evangelicals or people who believe in conspiracy theories or whatever. It's conversations about these people. These people over here, who we are not a part of. And we're trying to be humane by understanding what it is that, what makes them tick, what it is that puts them into the places where they are. But it's always from our perspective, how did they get into the position where they are so wrong. That's really what we're asking. And we're not just asking that about people who are involved in QAnon, we're asking that about just kind of everyday conservative White Evangelicals or White Christians of any kind, or lots [laughs] of people who just subscribe to whiteness, who may or may not actually be White.But the people who actually hold those positions would not really see this conversation as humane. They would mostly see it as condescending. They would mostly see it as, “You trying to understand how I got to the place where I'm so wrong, is not you being generous or kind, it's you being kind of a jerk.” [laughs]How to  Think about the Narratives We Have about People We Disagree withSy Hoekstra: And the thing that I always have to remember, and I just wanted to kind of flag this for our listeners, is that really that is kind of just the nature of disagreeing. Anybody who disagrees about anything has some story, conscious or not about why the other person is wrong. That's just the nature of the diversity of thought, just having people who disagree about stuff. That's going to be what happens in a society, you're going to be making up stories about the other people and why they disagree with you.But what you get the choice of doing is trying to understand people the best you can, or dehumanizing them and attributing bad faith to them. Or saying, “Oh, the reason you think that is because of, I don't know, you're just those people.” I'm not trying to come up with any coherent psychological framework that makes sense of where you are. I'm just saying, “Ah, you're just a bunch of racists.” Or it could be, “Oh, you're just Black people. You're just inferior.” Anything like that. Anything that's dehumanizing, whatever, you can choose to do that, or you can choose to understand people as best you can, given the reality that you disagree with them and think that they're wildly wrong and that their views are harmful. So I just want everyone to remember that. Everyone's doing this, it's just about how you go about it. I don't know. I hope other people also sometimes feel that tension and I'm not just addressing no one, but that was a thought that I thought it might be worth sharing. What do you think, Jonathan?Jonathan Walton: Well, I mean, it is very possible to disagree with someone without disrespecting or dehumanizing them.Sy Hoekstra: Yeah.Jonathan Walton: That is possible, but the amount of work that that takes, most of us are unwilling to do at this point in time. And what's sad about that is, and I think a couple of things that stood out to me, is that the main point of what he said in the essay he wrote for the anthology, and this is like, what am I going to gain if I hang out with this conspiracy theory? What am I going to keep, what am I going to get? What am I going to maintain if I believe this, and then if I not just think it, but believe it, and then act like it's true, and then enforce that reality on other people, what do I gain? And that to me, I think stands out to me because humanity, particularly though anyone upstream of a power dynamic has shown just an incredible capacity to enforce things that are not true to maintain power, authority, privilege and resources.Our Ability to Lie to Ourselves to Maintain OppressionOur capacity to innovate, to maintain lies, is fascinating. So when he talked about the Pentecostal who says Jesus is coming back in 1988 on January 13, and then Jesus doesn't show up, they got another revelation, and they don't lose any followers.Sy Hoekstra: This is in the essay, not in the interview.Jonathan Walton: Oh, so sorry.Sy Hoekstra: No, it's fine.Jonathan Walton: Yeah, but just that constant innovation and the individualization of your relationship with God, to the point that there's this entire reality that's constructed, and to deconstruct that reality would be so disorienting that we would rather just function as though it is true. So that confirmation bias where we then go seek out information then it sounds true, and so we add it to our toolkit to maintain our reality, that to me feels, and I need to think about this more, but feels at the root of a lot of injustices.Sy Hoekstra: Oh, yeah.Jonathan Walton: So it's like, I won't change this, because it would change everything about my life, and I'd rather just not change. So I'm going to keep it this way. So whether it's men and patriarchy, able-bodied folks and disabled folks, Black folks and everybody else, wealthy people and poor people, we'd just rather not change. So I'm just, I'm not going to do that. And then Newt Gingrich said, “Well, it doesn't feel true, so the facts don't matter.”Sy Hoekstra: [laughs] Yeah.Jonathan Walton: And that to me stood out. And then Kellyanne Conway, an iteration of him just coming back and saying, that just saying “alternative facts.” Like what are we talking about? [laughs] In some world that feels plausible, and because it feels plausible, it must be true. And then their entire apparatuses, religious, political, social, familial, built around protecting these realities. And if we could just shake ourselves away from that, that would be wonderful. But it is... [laughs] I mean, when Jesus says, “You shall learn the truth, and the truth shall set you free,” there is just freedom in living in the truth, like what is actually there. So the last thing I'll say is I appreciated his emphasis on the reality that truth and knowing happens in community.It does not happen like me going to the mountain, getting it, then coming down and living unaccountable to anyone. This is not how it works. I say this in every single prayer workshop I do, the Lord's Prayer starts off “Our Father,” not “My daddy” [Sy laughs]. It just doesn't start like that [laughs]. So how can we have a more collective, communal relationship with God and one another?Sy Hoekstra: The thing you just said about the skill of being able to maintain falsehood, it feels particularly important to me in maintaining systems of oppression after they've been built. Because they're usually built on a lie, and then at some point that lie can get exposed and that can threaten the whole system, but the system can survive by evolving. We've talked about this before. You can get rid of slavery, but the essential lie behind slavery stays and justifies every Jim Crow and segregation and the Black Codes and sharecropping and all that. So there's a refining almost of how good you can get at lying to people until you have a not insignificant number of people talking about lizard people [laughs].And it's just I'm almost sometimes impressed by how skilled evil is at understanding humanity. Does that make sense? [laughter]Jonathan Walton: Well, I mean, not to quote myself. In Twelve Lies I talked about how whiteness, White American folk religion, race-based, class-based, gender-based hierarchy is forever innovating. And the current container is in the United States of America, and it's being perfected.Sy Hoekstra: Yeah, it's forever innovating, and it's good at it. That's what I'm saying. Which is why we spend so much time emphasizing how much you have to keep learning and being alert and praying. I'm going to say everything except “stay woke” [laughter]. Any other thoughts or should we get to our segment?Jonathan Walton: The only other thing I would say, and I almost started a whole thing about this, was just the importance of critical thinking. Just basic being willing to ask, why? Like, hey, Hillary Clinton is actually part of a race of lizard people that drink children's blood to get this chemical that's going to make them eternal. Why do you believe that [Sy laughs]? Like a person, a real human person went to a pizza place with a gun. That is a real thing that happened. Folks show up and ask questions. Like we cited this resource in a newsletter probably three years ago where the New York Times did this amazing podcast called Rabbit Hole. And this young man who worked an overnight job stocking shelves in one of the Midwestern states listened to podcasts every single night. Podcast and YouTube videos that drove him to become an extremist. And then he changed his podcast diet, he changed his YouTube diet, and then he realized, you know what, maybe I don't have to be afraid of everybody. He just started asking, why.There are people around him that said, “Hey, why do you believe the things that you do? Why are you becoming more afraid? Why do you feel the need to arm yourself? What do you think is going to happen?” Just people asking him questions, and he was willing to engage. So friends, just to love the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. We can think. And that would be just a wonderful thing to push back against the anti academy thing that exists within modern Evangelicalism and most patterns of dominant religious thought.Sy Hoekstra: We can think, and that would be a wonderful thing. That's the pull quote.Jonathan Walton: [laughs] Right.Sy Hoekstra: That's the t-shirt [laughs].Jonathan Walton: That's true.Which Tab Is Still Open?Sy Hoekstra: All right. Jonathan, let's get into our segment, Which Tab Is Still Open, where we dive a little bit deeper. We're really shifting gears here from conspiracy theories [laughs] to Albert Camus, where we dive a little bit deeper into one of our recommendations from our newsletter. That newsletter is free at KTFPress.com. Get recommendations from us on discipleship and political education each week, along with resources to help you stay grounded and hopeful, news about KTF Press, all kinds of other great stuff at www.ktfpress.com. Jonathan, for you, out of all the stuff we've been writing about in the newsletter, Which Tab is Still Open, can you tell us about it?Jonathan Walton: Okay, friends, we are going from not thinking at all to thinking very deeply. Okay?Sy Hoekstra: Yes [laughter].Jonathan Walton: So this episode of a podcast called The Gray Area, where the host Sean Illing talks with a historian and philosopher, Robert Zaretsky about the politics and the ethics of Algerian philosopher Albert Camus. Again, we're going to think really hard, so go with me. Camus lived through the colonial occupation and the French annexation of Algeria. And he also lived through the violent struggle between Algerian rebel forces and the French army. He opposed France's policies of discrimination and oppression of the Algerian people, but never fully endorsed Algerian independence. So leftists thought of him as a moderate. Keep going with me, okay?He also believed that killing was wrong no matter who was doing it, and that neither the rebels nor the French had a monopoly on truth. But he was not abstract. He thought that violence was inevitable. He just couldn't justify it being used against innocent people, even in the name of freedom. He was not at all abstract or a systemic thinker. Like a lot of European philosophers, he was grounded in reality of day to day suffering that he had lived, and his conviction was that it was simply wrong.Prioritizing Vulnerable People in the Halls of PowerSo as I listened to this episode, the thing that just fascinated me about Camus is that it is possible to hang out in the biggest halls of academic power, to win awards, as he did for his literature and novels and essays, but to stay grounded in the village, to stay grounded in the community, to stay grounded in reality.Because I think something that struck me, my daughter does gymnastics and she got the chance to go to a state competition, and I was walking with her through a college campus, it was her first time on a college university campus. And I thought to myself, the distance between where my daughter is right now and the quote- unquote, grandeur of this university is all false. The reality is, these are just kids. This is the same kid that was in the neighborhood an hour ago that drove to this place to do flips and tricks in this new gym. The walls might be shinier, the mats might be cleaner, it may be a bigger stage, but the reality is we are just people doing the same things together in a different venue.So Camus, even though he was at a university, held the village with him, even though he was at a newspaper, held the village with him. Even though people were pushing back against him, held the village with him. So how can I Jonathan Walton, Ivy League educated person, or you listening with whatever background you have, hold fast to the reality that the things we say and do impact vulnerable people? I can't just say that there's an invasion at the southern border and not think that there are implications to that. I can't just say, grab women by their genitals. I can't just say that and not think that something's going to happen. The reality of the things that I say and the things that I do impacts people downstream of me is something I have to hold fast to.And just what Camus said, violence is inevitable and totally unjustifiable. I think that felt to me as one of the truest things I've heard in a very long time, is that, do I think that all of a sudden, on this side of heaven, violence is going to stop? No. At the same time, could I ever justify in the name of Jesus, violating the image of God in someone else for whatever cause? No, I cannot, because Jesus didn't do it. If violence was justifiable, then Jesus absolutely would have joined Peter and started the revolution, or did it beforehand, which I wrote about. If I was Jesus, I would have slapped Zacchaeus so hard in the moment.Sy Hoekstra: [laughs] Wait, Zacchaeus?Jonathan Walton: Yeah, I wrote a piece called “Jesus Didn't Slap Zacchaeus” [Sy laughs]. Just that reality of even before Pilate, because, you know, there's other things happening with Pilate. But it's like if I was Jesus and Zacchaeus is standing right there. He stole money from my family for years and years and years and years. He betrayed our people. He did all that. And he's short, he's standing there, I'm stronger than him, the crowd is behind me. Pow! I would have done it and felt totally justified. But Jesus doesn't do that, just like he doesn't throw himself off the cross and start the revolution. Just like he doesn't call angels to intercede and do things on his behalf. He stays in line with his vision and mission and calling because he knows the cup that he has to drink. And so Camus messed me up.Sy Hoekstra: The thing that I wanted to highlight from the podcast was a story that I think the guests, I think Zaretsky told about Camus being confronted by a student from Algeria saying, “Why aren't you supporting the rebel forces who are fighting the French? Why haven't you, in an outspoken way, said that what they're doing is good?” And he says, “Look, at this very moment they are placing bombs under tram cars in Algiers, and my mother could be on one of those tram cars. And if what they are doing is justice, then I prefer my mother.”Jonathan Walton: Yes.Sy Hoekstra: And I think that's kind of what you're talking about. Just this, he just had this wall in his mind where he's like, “You cannot, you can't kill my people and call it justice, and call it goodness. I will not let you do that.” And that's, I'll talk about this in a minute, the place that he leaves you in politically and morally and whatever, is very difficult, but you got to respect the integrity [laughs].Jonathan Walton: Yes, absolutely. A thousand percent. The other thing that I really appreciate about this podcast is that Sean Illing, when he opens the podcast, addresses a reader or a listener who sent him a handwritten letter asking him why he had not addressed Israel, Palestine. And I respect him, and I respect his answer. And I suspect that other journalists and politicians are being confronted, whether on Instagram or not like, “Why aren't you doing x, y and z?” So I just appreciated Sean's, I'm talking about him like I know him, Sean Illing's candor and honesty to open the podcast. I think it just set the tone, really, really well.Sy Hoekstra: Yeah, I totally agree with that.Jonathan Walton: So Sean, I mean, Sean, what do you think? So Sy, what do you think about the podcast? [laughs]Sy Hoekstra: I, Sean Illing, believe… [Jonathan laughs] Yeah, no, this podcast had me deep in my feelings is what I'm saying.Despair about Violence and Hope without Answers are Both BiblicalSy Hoekstra: First of all, I don't say this a lot, but I think French existentialism might actually be a decent way to respond to Pale

Albert Camus was a Nobel-winning French writer and public intellectual. During Algeria's bloody war for independence in the 1950s, Camus took a measured stance, calling for an end to the atrocities on each side. He was criticized widely for his so-called “moderation.” Philosophy professor Robert Zaretsky joins Sean to discuss Camus's thoughts on that conflict and the parallels with the present moment. Host: Sean Illing (@seanilling), host, The Gray Area Guest: Robert Zaretsky Enjoyed this episode? Rate The Gray Area ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ and leave a review on Apple Podcasts. Be the first to hear new episodes of The Gray Area by following us in your favorite podcast app. Links here: https://www.vox.com/the-gray-area Support The Gray Area by making a financial contribution to Vox! bit.ly/givepodcasts This episode was made by:  Producer: Jon Ehrens  Engineer: Patrick Boyd Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Sean Illing speaks with history professor Robert Zaretsky about Simone Weil, a 20th-century French writer and activist who dedicated her life to a radical philosophy of love and attention. They discuss how she inspired her contemporaries — like Albert Camus and Simone de Beauvoir — and how her revolutionary ideas have remained relevant and important. Host: Sean Illing (@seanilling), host, The Gray Area Guest: Robert Zaretsky, history professor, The University of Houston References:  The Submersive Simone Weil: A Life in Five Ideas by Robert Zaretsky (The University of Chicago Press, 2021) “The Philosophers: Resisting Despair” by Sean Illing (Vox, May 2022) The Ethics of Attention: Engaging the Real with Iris Murdoch and Simone Weil by Silvia Caprioglio Panizza (Routledge, 2022) Enjoyed this episode? Rate The Gray Area ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ and leave a review on Apple Podcasts. Subscribe for free. Be the first to hear the next episode of The Gray Area. Subscribe in your favorite podcast app. Support The Gray Area by making a financial contribution to Vox! bit.ly/givepodcasts This episode was made by:  Engineer: Patrick Boyd Editorial Director, Vox Talk: A.M. Hall Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Sean Illing talks with author and professor Robert Zaretsky about the French philosopher, novelist, and journalist Albert Camus (1913–1960). Though Camus might be best known for his novel The Stranger, Sean and Prof. Zaretsky explore the ideas contained in his philosophical essays "The Myth of Sisyphus," The Rebel, and in the allegorical novel The Plague, which saw a resurgence in interest over the past two years. They discuss the meaning of "the absurd," why one must imagine Sisyphus happy, and how the roots of mid-20th-century political nihilism (making sort of a comeback lately) can be found in one's relationship to abstract ideas. This is the first episode of The Philosophers, a new series from Vox Conversations. Each episode will focus on a philosophical figure or school of thought from the past, and discuss how their ideas can help us make sense of our modern world and lives today. Host: Sean Illing (@seanilling), Interviews writer, Vox Guest: Robert Zaretsky, author and professor, University of Houston Works by Camus:  The Rebel (1951) ; The Stranger (1942) ; The Plague (1947) ; "The Myth of Sisyphus" (1942) ; "The Century of Fear" (in Neither Victims Nor Executioners; 1946) ; "The Human Crisis" (1946) ; The First Man (uncompleted manuscript, pub. 1960) Other References:  "This is a time for solidarity" by Sean Illing (Vox; Mar. 15, 2020) "What Camus's The Plague can teach us about the Covid-19 pandemic" by Sean Illing (Vox; Jul. 22, 2020) A Life Worth Living: Albert Camus and the Quest for Meaning by Robert Zaretsky (Harvard University Press; 2016) Lo straniero, dir. by Luchino Visconti (Italian film adaptation of Camus's The Stranger; 1967 - English-dubbed version) Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men, by Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1755; a.k.a. Rousseau's "Second Discourse") The Gay Science, by Friedrich Nietzsche (1882; passage on eternal recurrence: Bk. IV, sec. 341) Albert Camus's "The Human Crisis" read by Viggo Mortensen, 70 years later (Columbia University Maison Française; 2016) Enjoyed this episode? Rate Vox Conversations ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ and leave a review on Apple Podcasts. Subscribe for free. Be the first to hear the next episode of Vox Conversations by subscribing in your favorite podcast app. Support Vox Conversations by making a financial contribution to Vox! bit.ly/givepodcasts This episode was made by:  Producer: Erikk Geannikis Editor: Amy Drozdowska Deputy Editorial Director, Vox Talk: Amber Hall Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Simone Weil's figure poses a challenge to each reader of hers. In this conversation, our editor Kasia Krzyżanowska speaks to prof. Robert Zarestky (professor at the University of Houston), about the heroine of his recently published biography: Simone Weil.

Albert Camus, Edith Stein, and the Problem of Empathy in The Plague Abstract: Whilst there is no mention of the phenomenology or ethics of Edith Stein (1891-1942) in the fiction and non-fiction of Albert Camus (1913-1960), one can easily surmise that Camus, being a part of the Parisian café scene during the years leading up to, including and beyond the second world war, would have encountered some discussions of Stein’s thought through Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) or Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908-1961), prior to his falling out with both men. It is then the purpose of this paper to set out and accomplish several things: firstly, I would like to provide a very brief historical introduction to Stein; secondly, I should like to offer readers a concise summary of Stein’s principle text on empathy (On the Problem of Empathy)[1]; finally, I would like to offer an exposition and analysis of Stein’s concept of empathy, from a phenomenological perspective, in Camus’s novel The Plague[2]. To say that 2020 has been an ‘uneventful’ year is a gross understatement. Clearly, the Covid-19 pandemic affected us in ways which we could have never imagined. One benefit of the pandemic, as you are probably aware, is, once again, the intense interest in The Plague[3]. As I plan to illustrate, the novel contains six major and minor characters (Dr. Rieux, Paneloux, Tarrou, Rambert, Grand, and Cottard) from which Camus utilizes in order to demonstrate an individual’s interaction with empathy in the midst of an epidemic; however, I would like to first look at Stein in order to provide the framework for the novel’s analysis. [1] Edith Stein, On the Problem of Empathy. Translated by Waltraut Stein (Springer: The Hague, 1964). [2] Albert Camus, The Plague. Translated by Stuart Gilbert (Vintage: New York, 1948). [3] According to the NY Times, The Plague has seen a resurgence on the best seller list. In addition to Vintage having an extremely difficult time keeping the novel in stock, Camus scholars Dr. Robert Zaretsky and Dr. Peter Francev were interviewed by National Public Radio’s Salt Lake City affiliate regarding Camus’s life and the significance of The Plague, respectively.

Imagine a time when a dispute between two philosophers was the talk of high society. That is the time that our guest, Robert Zarertsky, describes in his book "The Philosophers' Quarrel: Rousseau, Hume, and the Limits of Human Understanding." He tells the story of the short and dramatic friendship between Hume and Rousseau. Hume, who championed the progress of the sciences and arts, and Rousseau, who questioned progress, wondering whether it was just another word for moral decay and despair. He also discusses the implications their friendship may have had on the Enlightenment's conceptions of reason and human understanding. Robert Zaretsky is a professor of French history at the University of Houston Honors College and the Department of History. He has published several books about philosophy and history of philosophy. Sped up the speakers by [1.0, 1.1876328091797705]

More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/camus-and-absurd. Albert Camus is most famous for his existential works of fiction including The Stranger as well as his philosophical essay The Myth of Sisyphus. He led the French resistance press during Nazi Occupation and became one of the youngest Nobel laureates in literature. His contemporary, Hannah Arendt, described him as “head and shoulders above the other intellectuals.” How does Camus' philosophy of Absurdism compare and contrast with Sartre’s popular existentialism, especially in their conceptions of freedom? What political and philosophical issues of his time were he deeply involved in, and what relevance does his thinking still hold for the problems of contemporary life? John and Ken remain sensible with Robert Zaretsky from the University of Houston, author of "A Life Worth Living: Albert Camus and the Quest for Meaning."

Following up on their interview with Robert Zaretsky on the dispute between David Hume and Jean-Jacques Rousseau about the limits of reason, Julia and Massimo expand the topic to include a discussion of the failure of “foundational” projects (e.g., the quest for the ultimate bases of scientific reasoning, or of logic and mathematics). Also, our take on a recent paper on the evolutionary psychology of reasoning that has made mainstream news. Sped up the speakers by [1.0, 1.0490221418109762]

On today's show, Sean talks with Robert Zaretsky, a professor at University of Houston and the author of A Life Worth Living: Albert Camus & the Quest for Meaning. In 1957 French-Algerian writer, Albert Camus was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. He was 44 years old, the second youngest person to ever receive the award. Fifteen years earlier, during the height of World War II, Camus stunned the world with the essay, The Myth of Sisyphus, and the novel, The Stranger. Camus explores the idea of finding meaning in life, especially during times of great struggle like war, the plague and personal tragedy. Camus was a free thinker and a champion of the human experience. Camus ultimately teaches us that we should avoid ideologies and rather search for meaning in our relationships with others and in our love of life.IN THIS EPISODE, YOU'LL LEARN:The life of Albert Camus, especially his role in the French Resistance during World War IIHow to continue moving forward with our lives when things happen that we did not expectHow to find meaning in struggleWhy it's important to rebel against injustice by avoid a revolutionHow we find meaning through relationships Why love for others and love of life is the ultimate source of our happinessBOOKS AND RESOURCESA Life Worth Living: Albert Camus and the Quest for MeaningThe Plague by Albert CamusThe Stranger by Albert CamusThe Myth of Sisyphus by Albert CamusCapital One. This is Banking Reimagined. What's in your wallet?Get the most competitive rate if you're looking to get a mortgage or refinance in Canada with Breezeful. Plus, get a $100 Amazon.ca gift card at your closing.Browse through all our episodes (complete with transcripts) here.Support our free podcast by supporting our sponsors.CONNECT WITH ROBERT ZARETSKYhttps://www.uh.edu/class/mcl/faculty/zaretsky_r/Email: rzaretsky@uh.eduHELP US OUT!Help us reach new listeners by leaving us a rating and review! It takes less than 30 seconds and really helps our show grow, which allows us to bring on even better guests for you all! Thank you – we really appreciate it!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Co-host Sean Illing talks to Robert Zaretsky, professor of French history at the University of Houston, about Albert Camus’s novel The Plague. Relevant resources:  The Plague, by Albert Camus Simone Weil: An Anthology, by Simone Weil Albert Camus: Elements of a Life, by Robert Zaretsky  Featuring: Robert Zaretsky, professor of history at the University of Houston Host: Sean Illing (@seanilling), senior interviews writer, Vox  More to explore: Subscribe to Vox’s Future Perfect newsletter, which breaks down the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. About Vox: Vox is a news network that helps you cut through the noise and understand what's really driving the events in the headlines. Please consider making a contribution to Vox to support this show: bit.ly/givepodcasts. Your support will help us keep having ambitious conversations about big ideas. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I had an amazing conversation with Robert Zaretsky who is a Professor of Humanities at the Honors College, University of Houston. We spoke about French novelist and philosopher Albert Camus and his great pandemic novel The Plague. The Plague is currently receiving renewed critical attention due to the Covid-19 pandemic and is set to be re-issued by Penguin. Thus, I thought it would be a good time to discuss the novel. We touched on the background to Camus' novel, the influence of Thucydides on Camus,  silence, ethics, judgement, the distinction between moraliser and moralist, the strange parallels between Camus and George Orwell as well as Camus' perennial relevance. Rob is a historian of France and literary biographer. Amongst others, he has published two biographies of Albert Camus entitled A Life Worth Living: Albert Camus and the Quest for Meaning with Harvard U.P. and Albert Camus: Elements of a Life with Cornell U.P. You can read his recent essay on Camus' The Plague here, and an essay he wrote on online pedagogy for Times Higher Education here. Elsewhere Rob is a contributor to the Los Angeles Review of Books where you can read his essay on Camus and Simone Weil here, as well as an essay on Franz Kafka here. He has also contributed to New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs and Chronicle of Higher Education. Here is an essay from Foreign Affairs where Rob writes about the importance of books in pandemics.  You can find out more about Rob on his university website here. You can listen to more free back content from the Thales' Well podcast on TuneIn Radio, Player Fm, Stitcher and Podbean. You can also download their apps to your smart phone and listen via there. You can also subscribe for free on iTunes. Please leave a nice review.

Welcome to Episode 11, of Fully Automated, an Occupy IR Theory podcast! Today, we have Part One of our first ever two-part episode, on the topic of Situationism! Joining me for this episode are two friends of mine from Columbus, Ohio, Charlie Umland, and Jim Calder. They are pretty sharp, when it comes to this topic. And, over the course of this two-part episode, they’re gonna help us understand just who the situationists were, and who they weren’t. Now, coincidentally, situationism has sort of been back on the radar, lately. In February 2017, the New York Times ran a piece by Robert Zaretsky, called ‘Trump and the ‘Society of the Spectacle’.’ In the piece, Zaretsky offers this very Situationist sounding line: Like body snatchers, commodities and images have hijacked what we once naïvely called reality. The authentic nature of the products we make with our hands and the relationships we make with our words have been removed, replaced by their simulacra.” In the episode, Charlie, Jim and I get into some discussion of this piece. One of our big points is that perhaps Zaretsky’s take is kind of off the mark. For him, the Trump is the master of the image, in a time when the very form of image itself, has hijacked our reality. Focusing on the image as the problematic form this way, however, Zaretsky’s Situationists resonate somewhat too cynically. Indeed, it could be said they bear a familiar resemblance with the work of another famous French scholar, Jean Baudrillard. Now, Baudrillard doesn’t hail from Situationism. But he is a critic of contemporary capitalism, and he is particularly preoccupied with the rise of what he terms ’hyperreality’ — an economic era dominated by the logic of the image, wherein humans have been seduced into a state of passive consumption. For Baudrillard, where older modes of capitalism were predicated on production of actual goods, society today is a simulation; we are a consumer society, but what we consume is nothing more than signs, or symbols. In such a society, even political resistance has sort of dissipated into a kind of moral relativism; we no longer fight for any particular group’s “code” — instead we adopt a stance of ironic “fascination.” This attitude of fascination, or what we might even call flanneurism, is exemplified in a scene in the recent Adam Curtis documentary, Hypernormalization. In this scene, we meet a young Patti Smith, giggling as she recounts the ironic prospect of poor people, watching movie trailers over and over, on a small screen outside of a cinema. Its as if she’s hypnotized herself, by the total surrender to passivity of the people watching the screen. She is overwhelmed by the cynicism of it all, and can only laugh. But in the episode, we make the argument that this is perhaps precisely the wrong way to interpret the Spectacle. Situationism is much more than simply a critique of seduction; the theory of spectacle is NOT simply that we have been reduced to the status of a mass of consumers, or that we are simply distracted by the ongoing barrage of the media’s meaningless images. To the contrary, a key concept that has come up for us in our discussions is that of “separation” — which is something like the alienation experienced by everyday people, not just in capitalism, but also in other highly bureaucratized technical systems, like the Soviet Union, when rationalities of expertise work to delegitimize any demand they might make, for true collective participation in the productive systems that govern their lives. And, we argue, it is in this sense that Society of Spectacle is still very much a Marxist project. One need only consider how frequently the topic of the proletariat is discussed, and the various tasks to which it must attend, if it is to survive. So, a little bit about our guests today. Both are from Ohio: Charlie Umland is a cook. He likes to learn about art and philosophy and communism, and he is an unapologetic D&D fan.

In our final episode, RealClearPolitics managing editor Emily Goodin talks to Cliff Sims, Special Assistant to the President and Assistant Communications Director for White House Message Strategy, about the president’s first 100 days. Then RealClearWorld editor Joel Weickgenant talks with Robert Zaretsky, a professor at the University of Houston, and an expert in foreign policy matters about the political situation in Europe.

Tamler and David leech off of their listeners and dedicate an episode to their favorite comments, questions, and criticisms from the past few weeks (but not before Tamler goes on a rant about bicycle helmets). Included in this episode: Does doing research on hypothetical moral dilemmas actually say anything about how people would act in real life? Do people make different moral judgments in their native language than in a more recently acquired language? Do Tamler and David only appeal to intuitions when it's convenient for the view they are defending? Do they hold "barbaric" views about justice and revenge? Does doing philosophy make your life better? And, perhaps most importantly, why do we seem to mention porn on every episode? LinksBicycle helmet effectiveness [wikipedia.org]Tamler's appearance on The Partially Examined Life podcast [partiallyexaminedlife.com]Axons and Axioms podcast [axonsandaxioms.com]Spacetime Mind podcast [spacetimemind.com]A valuable site if you're interested in putting together your own podcast: Dan Benjamin's Podcasting Handbook [podcastinghandbook.co]If you like the music we use, you can listen/download here: soundcloud.com/peezismynamePea Soup Blog [peasoup.typepad.com]Qualia [wikipedia.org]Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion" [wikipedia.org]Entranced by Reality by Ian Corbin (Review of "A Life Worth Living: Albert Camus and the Quest for Meaning" by Robert Zaretsky). [theamericanconservative.com]Iranian killer's execution halted at last minute by victim's parents by Saeed Kamali Dehghan [theguardian.com]Academic Articles MentionedBartels, Daniel M. (2008), "Principled Moral Sentiment and the Flexibility of Moral Judgment and Decision Making," Cognition, 108, 381-417. [uchicago.edu]Costa, A., Foucart, A., Hayakawa, S., Aparici, M., Apesteguia, J., Heafner, J., & Keysar, B. (2014). Your Morals Depend on Language. PloS one, 9(4), e94842. [plosone.org]Gold, N., Colman, A. M., & Pulford, B. D. (2014). Cultural differences in responses to real-life and hypothetical trolley problems. Judgment and Decision Making, 9, 65-76. [sjdm.org]Special thanks to listeners (in order of question-appearance) Jakub Maly, Mark Ellis, Derek Leben, Jennifer Cohen, Rob Sica, Larson Landes, Billie Pritchett, Dave Herman, Otakar Horak, Monique Oliveira, Paul Bello, and Dag Soras. 

Following up on their interview with Robert Zaretsky on the dispute between David Hume and Jean-Jacques Rousseau about the limits of reason, Julia and Massimo expand the topic to include a discussion of the failure of “foundational” projects (e.g., the quest for the ultimate bases of scientific reasoning, or of logic and mathematics). Also, our take on a recent paper on the evolutionary psychology of reasoning that has made mainstream news.

Imagine a time when a dispute between two philosophers was the talk of high society. That is the time that our guest, Robert Zarertsky, describes in his book "The Philosophers' Quarrel: Rousseau, Hume, and the Limits of Human Understanding." He tells the story of the short and dramatic friendship between Hume and Rousseau. Hume, who championed the progress of the sciences and arts, and Rousseau, who questioned progress, wondering whether it was just another word for moral decay and despair. He also discusses the implications their friendship may have had on the Enlightenment's conceptions of reason and human understanding. Robert Zaretsky is a professor of French history at the University of Houston Honors College and the Department of History. He has published several books about philosophy and history of philosophy.

A conversation about the dissolution of the friendship between two very different philosophers with John T. Scott, professor of political science at the University of California, Davis and co-author with Robert Zaretsky of The Philosophers' Quarrel: Rousseau, Hume and the Limits of Human Understanding.