Eighteen years of thoughtful, non-adversarial, accessible, and welcoming philosophy.
Sometimes it feels like there isn’t any intelligent debate left in the world. All we hear is fighting: irresponsible, loud-mouthed partisanship disguised as information. For 2500 years, philosophers have tried to cut through the rhetoric, the infighting, and the abuse, but they forgot that everyone doesn’t speak in the same technicalities.
It’s time for accessible and fun philosophy. It’s time for Why? Philosophical Discussions About Everyday Life.
Join us each month as we engage in philosophical discussions about the most commonplace topics. From explorations of hunting to discussions about domestic violence, from classic works of art to the most cutting-edge digital media, from the American prairie to the heart of post-communist Romania, Why? Radio takes you on a journey through the great questions, the puzzling answers, and the deepest recesses of your mind.
We’re not just a podcast. We’re part of National Public Radio, so you know we have the highest standards and have earned our reputation.
Why? Radio is a partnership between Prairie Public Radio and The University of North Dakota’s College of Arts & Sciences. Our mission is to entertain while we inform and educate. Our host and guests translates even the most obscure philosophy into a language that anyone can understand. We want to convince all of our listeners that philosophy is relevant to our daily lives and that everyone is doing philosophy all the time, most people just don’t know it.
Our host
Host Dr. Jack Russell Weinstein is a Chester Fritz Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and the Director of the Institute for Philosophy in Public Life at the University of North Dakota. He is an award winning teacher, author of three books and dozens of academic and popular articles, and has edited six collections for both academics and general audiences. He is an amateur triathlete and a hobbyist baker.
Follow us on our social Networks
Our latest episode
“Why Do People Deny Such Obvious Things?” with guest Adrian Bardon
So much of politics today is about people denying things that others know to be perfectly true. From science to economics, to religious belief, people not only wave away obvious falsities, but they proudly act inconsistently. How can someone dismiss expertise but insist on having a surgeon, when they need one? Why do some people cite research proving climate change but ignore the studies that defend genetically modified food? On this episode, we explore denialism and inconsistency, while trying to make sense of personal belief.
Adrian Bardon is Professor of Philosophy at Wake Forest University. He is the author of A Brief History of the Philosophy of Time and The Truth About Denial: Bias and Self-Deception in Science, Politics, and Religion both published by Oxford University Press.
Read the new (FREE) Book from Why? Radio Host
Jack Russell Weinstein
israel, Palestine, and the trolley problem
On the futility of the search for the moral high ground
Arguments about Israel and Palestine are almost always accusatory and polemical. Rather than learning from one another, opponents jockey for the moral high ground trying to find that one attack they believe proves their side to be completely on the right, without compromise. This means Israel’s advocates dismiss Palestinian land claims without due consideration and Pro-Palestinian voices falsely accuse Israel of the most heinous modern crimes: colonialism, genocide, and apartheid. None of this is productive or healthy.
In Israel, Palestine, and the Trolley Problem: On the Futility of the Search for the Moral High Ground, philosopher Jack Russell Weinstein interweaves philosophy, history, politics, and personal experience to expose the argumentative mistakes we all make too often. Mapping out moral psychology—how we actually make moral decisions—and using the famous Trolley Problem as a metaphor, Weinstein paves the way for a new, more empathetic exchange of ideas about today’s most puzzling moral dilemma: how to find peace in the Middle East.
Jack Russell Weinstein is Chester Fritz Distinguished Professor and Director of the Institute for Philosophy in Public Life at the University of North Dakota. He is also the host of the public radio show/podcast Why? Philosophical Discussions About Everyday Life.
Available for free to download as a PDF.
Click here.
Available as a paperback at Amazon.com:
click here
“Easily the Best I’ve encountered ★★★★★
The only problem with this podcast is that there are not enough of them. Jack Russell Weinstein is first, brilliant and second, as unbiased as a human could be. The problem i have with nearly every other philosophy podcast is the systemic negativity. I understand it is in a philosophers blood to find the failings of any affirmative position, but it gets tiring when hosts don’t even attempt to present the position being torn down fairly. J.R.W. will argue brilliantly for one side as he inhales then exhales, just as brilliantly the opposing position; all the while keeping in mind the whole point of the podcast, which is to answer the question ‘why?’”
Veritruviann iTunes Review
“Great Show About Ideas ★★★★★
At first glance, I wouldn’t think a public radio show about philosophical ideas would make it. I say this and I’m a philosopher by trade. Jack Weinstein makes it work wot a great combination of good guests, interesting topics, and great conversation. One of the marks of a great conversation is that you don’t usually notice the wheels turning. Good conversations can sound easy and effortless, but they take really good listening and thoughtfulness. Three thumbs up for this show, and I’m glad a show like this really can make it in the United States. Wahoo for Why?”
Tony Cunningham
iTunes Review
The Best Philosophy Podcast★★★★★
I’ve listened to a lot of philosophy podcasts, but this one takes the cake. Jack does an outstanding job at facilitating fascinating conversations while still being accessible and easily digestible. The guests are always a delight, and you can tell that everyone is invested in the project. Highly recommend for anyone that’s intellectually curious and wants to hear genuine conversations between genuine people! <3
— Anna478,
iTunes
More from Why? Radio
WHY? RADIO SENIOR CITIZENS PHILOSOPHY DISCUSSION GROUP
Open to anyone of any age. Just bring your curiosity.
Philsophical Currents:
A Philosopher’s Exploration of This Month’s Most Intriguing News Stories
Happy or Content: Rethinking What A Good LIfe Really Means
Philosophers spend a lot of time discussing the meaning of happiness but don’t explore the idea of contentment as much. Surely there is a fundamental difference between feeling fulfilled and recognizing that things don’t need to get better. In this episode, Craig and Jack explore the tension between joy, pleasure, and satisfaction, and investigate the place of morality, emotions, and reason in these feelings.
Read the Latest Article on our Blog,
PQED: Philosophical Questions Every Day
“what is empathy for?”
The battle over empathy is more than just politics. It’s actually about nihilism, masculinity, and the stability of the American republic.
Empathy makes you weak. This is a message that Charlie Kirk is supposed to have communicated to his millions of followers. Interestingly, he never actually said this; Elon Musk is the one who did. In an interview on the Joe Rogan Experience, Musk remarked that “The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy. The empathy exploit. They’re exploiting a bug in Western civilization, which is the empathy response.” You should care about other people, he reluctantly concedes, but then he doubles down: “there’s so much empathy that you actually suicide yourself.”
Kirk’s comments about empathy are different but more extreme. Criticizing Bill Clinton, he opines: “I can’t stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that—it does a lot of damage.” Kirk also looks like he will concede his point by admitting that some people should, at times, feel sympathy for others, but he waves that conversation away. He is assuming that the distinction between empathy and sympathy is both clear and significant. It is not.