Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Content

Prof. Scott Aikin is philosophy professor at Vanderbilt University that has taught logic, ancient philosophy, American pragmatism, and epistemology.  

He the author of such titles as Why We Argue (And How We Should) (2013)  and Political Argument in a Polarized Age (2020), as well as many  writings on Pragmatism alongside his colleague Prof. Robert B. Talisse,  whom I have interviewed previously.  

Aikin and I have a sprawling conversation where he helps me through  various thoughts I have been struggling with and shares his perspective  on niche internet political cultures, the state of democracy in the  digital era, misconceptions about stoicism and of course, pragmatism.  This conversation is from about six weeks ago, and I'm finding that it  has been very influential on me. I hope you find it useful in some way  too. Scott is a really good man.   

There is a random technical error in the middle from which we recovered  quickly, and it ends a little abruptly as our call got cut off while we  were trailing off about YouTube as a business and institutionalized  philosophy. But I feel like this isn't the last we'll see of him on this  channel.

-----------

I'm "sorry" I've dwindled in Patreon content over the last few months. I've recorded a lot of Conversations With episodes and Social No Para eps but have felt like I haven't been on my game, and have been more confused and anxious about things, less confident in my creativity and knowledge. It's been a hard few months, personally, spiritually, and intellectually. But I think I am recovering, and I have experienced some reconfiguration and revitalization in my thinking that is finally settling, and I'm excited about creating things again, my motivation slowly returning to its regular surging levels. 

So the video is coming along very well and Kill The Internet Book Reports / Live Event are/is coming along well and I have new ideas and some awesome Conversations With episodes coming down the pipeline. Thank you for putting your trust in me this past year allowing me to cook and cook and cook. I come back biting. And I'll review the stuff I made and scrapped this past year to see if I was looking at it through an overly negative lens.

Either way, I'm excited to start dancing like a monkey for you again. *blows you a kiss that explodes on impact* 

Files

A Conversation With Prof. Scott Aikin

Prof. Scott Aikin is philosophy professor at Vanderbilt University that has taught logic, ancient philosophy, American pragmatism, and epistemology. He the author of such titles as Why We Argue (And How We Should) (2013) and Political Argument in a Polarized Age (2020), as well as many writings on Pragmatism alongside his colleague Prof. Robert B. Talisse, whom I have interviewed previously. Aikin and I have a sprawling conversation where he helps me through various thoughts I have been struggling with and shares his perspective on niche internet political cultures, the state of democracy in the digital era, misconceptions about stoicism and of course, pragmatism. This conversation is from about six weeks ago, and I'm finding that it has been very influential on me. I hope you find it useful in some way too. Scott is a really good man. There is a random technical error in the middle from which we recovered quickly, and it ends a little abruptly as our call got cut off while we were trailing off about YouTube as a business and institutionalized philosophy. But I feel like this isn't the last we'll see of him on this channel.

Comments

george putnam

haven’t listened to the conversation yet, just read the text blurb, and wanted to say i’ve been feeling off creatively lately too, it’s good to know i’m not alone

benedict.m

respectfully, please never apologize for posting less stuff. we're here cause we trust u, and our foaming at the mouth for more CJ cOnTenT is absolutely not ur problem. but very glad to hear ur period of doubt is starting to resolve into something new ❤️

Micha Nicheva

Very much looking forward to watching this. Here's to doubting everything! Come out the other side in your own time. We're here by choice and you owe us nothing :) Thanks for the kiss anyways

Ruth Hope 🩷

Just subscribed to the YouTube channel last week and just became a patron today! Your Kronk video really moved me and I've been slowly (so as to savor) working my way through your other videos. I found you in the first place because your Folger's video popped up on my home feed and I was like "oh my god HOW MUCH COULD HE SAY ABOUT THIS" and I watched the whole thing and loved it. Cheers and take care!

Tela

Great watch. There was an interesting moment for me was near the end. I think of myself as a "nihilist whose chosen to be an optimist" for a while now, so I was caught off guard by the "I am a very cynical person that has decided to be hopeful." Also reminded me, I don't remember the exact thought (guess it's time to rewatch it), but I remember in the latter 30 minutes of the Bo Burnham video you said something that not only felt similar to some internal dialogue I had been working through, but you then took it a few steps further and helped me clean up my thoughts on the matter. The differences among humans are intriguing, but I do love those moments of "They are in my head! They get it!" Wonderful harmony.

Bloom

i’m halfwayish through the video and i’m so beyond glad to know that pragmatism at its corse is basically what i’ve already been practicing lmfao. whenever philosophers get too caught up in semantics i’m always just like … why are we arguing about this again? what is the point?

Yeedo Chun

your cheeky post-modern neo-cartesian idea reminds me of the concept of hegemonic forms of knowledge production mentioned in this video from John Duncan, and it sounds like both of you are using this lens to examine "public intellectuals". fun to make connections as i listen! https://youtu.be/s8CFzTv_k-k?si=zjul1C9__aKlruX0

ijbol

Lots I could say about the many idea threads discussed in this 2.5-hour exchange, but I mainly wanna emphasize the bubbly almost blush-y feeling I'm getting from watching you two interact since you both clearly have deep respect for each other's work (The number of times Scott references concepts in your videos I too have resonated with makes me think we're all CJ stans lol).

RueDahDay

Perfection is\n't created. Cool talk

Shy Anne

Coming from a math perspective, the pragmatic approach seems so intuitive to me. Like the most basic example I can think of is the statement: 10+8=6. If you’re counting, it’s not useful to consider that to be true, but if it’s 10pm and you sleep 8 hours, what time do you wake up? Mathematicians create symbols and language to help discern what world of meaning they’re working in, like the above thing would be more properly written 10+8=6(mod 12) and even more properly if I had a “congruent” symbol on my keyboard, it’s just another parallel line on the equal sign. But like, people work with clock time and thus do addition in “the integers modulo 12” all the time. It’s useful, and modular arithmetic has a lot more powerful and interesting uses in algebra, number theory, and combinatorics that I wouldn’t do justice in a few sentences. But like if I’m working with a kid learning addition and they write 10+8=6, they’re objectively wrong, it’s useful to have objectively correct answers within the context of integer addition, like without that we can’t get to modular arithmetic. One time my favorite most iconic professor ever was asked if he thought math was created or discovered: the subjectivity vs objectivity debate mathematicians have been having forever. “That is a question for the philosophers, I am a mathematician. I can argue both sides, but it doesn’t really matter.” But like there are mathematicians who think that’s wrong and stupid, it’s a diverse field, hell you talk about Cartesian and I think coordinates, Pascal’s triangle is objectively amazing no cap but his wager? Yikes! Lots of different philosophical approaches, some people don’t like infinity as a concept, but like it’s mad useful. I think I kinda apply the “subjectivity button” idea to math, like objectivity is useful within the structures we create, category theory goes hard; but at any time if we’re held back by our axioms, we press the subjectivity button and can consider other structures, with different axiomatic truths. When euler was first presented with the königsberg bridge problem he said it had nothing to do with mathematics; but it bugged him enough to start graph theory about it! It’s a subfield of combinatorics that goes hard, like I think it’s dandy; but it also can be evil, like by “graph” they mean network, very useful in a social media age, it’s like how the YouTube algorithm herds all the gays into one corner and all the broics into another, deeply horrifying use of such a nifty thing.

d

"what's the prior notion of perfect?" What is the objectively held notion of perfect to the user of the term? For me it is flawed, So when I think or speak that something is perfect I mean that it is flawed and yet still as right as can be. That has gotten me in trouble with at least one person who's objectively held notion of perfection is ideal perfection- until I had the chance to explain myself. This convo feels like a therapy session and the prof. is providing objective affirmation that works like a salve in the honor of his love!

d

What fun to see good friends meet!