>> guest: the processer ifs on the other side -- philosophers on the other side? well, marx and edge ls. i think when people talk about progressivism or democratic socialism or even liberalism,of them may not realize -- many of them may not realize how much they take from marx in one form or another. doesn't mean you have to round up people and put them in gulags, although that clearly has been done. the european socialists borrowed heavily from marx. i think the progressives at the turn of the last century borrowed from marx. this whole distributing wealth and radical egalitarianism and so forth, these are all marxist. but that said, marx talked about the withering away of the state. the problem is as lenin himself said, we can't figure out how that works. the state never withers away, in fact, the state becomes oppressive, horrific and all powerful. >> host: and once the state is under the control of the proletariat, its objectives will generally include the following ten tenets: yeah. i'd say that we've covered, what, six or seven or eight of those? that's ther

so philosophically, it's not unsettling to imagine more than one universe. we also have good theoretical grounds for suggesting the existence of a multiverse. where our universe is just one of some countless number of other universes coming in and out of existence, with slightly different laws of physics within them. that makes it a little dangerous. because we are held together, involved in a universe where we work. where we work physically. if you want to visit another universe, i would, like, you know, send something else ahead of you. >> so explain this to me, why is it i felt more satisfied watching the planetarium show, and as i'm sure we will watching the new "cosmos," than i do personally from science fiction? i mean, i came away with a sense of really having experienced something authentic at the planetarium. >> that's a great question. by the way, there are many science-fiction fans who also embrace the science reality. and people who are fans of fantasy and super heroes and science fiction and all the storytelling that goes on on the frontier, ess

russell curt, a great conservative political philosopher. william f. buckley in the 1950s. national review magazine was launched during the 50s. the conventional wisdom is that as we find the beginning of modern american conservatism. and many slaves busier wrote a very interesting book on calvin coolidge and propose we had to go further to the 1920s because calvin coolidge was the beginning of modern american conservatism. i saw her week or so ago and i think you've really launched a coolidge is school movement. that probably wasn't easy to do. you see the cover of the book, the top half. he's not really a 21st century kind of guy. the place to go is actually to the 1930s because in their view, modern american conservatism is the response to the new deal to franklin roosevelt. she was, the conservative response in the 1930s was the beginning of modern american conservatism. that response initially came from former president, herbert hoover. lots of people debate how conservative hoover wes as a president and secretary of commerce in the 1920s. i'm happy to talk about that

that was the philosophical difference. philosophical difference 2 had to do with the french revolution. jefferson who was minister to france when the revolution broke out, edited the declaration of the rights of man and the citizen for his friend lafayette believed the french revolution and -- >> host: never bailed out. >> guest: and so many friends of his work killed and so many friends of ours, so many allies in the revolutionary war said i just look at them as casualties of war and if there were one adam and one evil left in every country, republican adam and eve, and hamilton thought it was -- and terror. >> a comment and question. >> host: question please. >> okay. the question is in studying the revolutionary war it became clear to me one of the biggest reasons for the start of the war was the way that the french and indian war ended. washington had done a lot of surveying as a young man out west. he knew the property. when the french and indian war ended, a lot of offices were given major tracks instead of money. wa

russell kirk, a great conservative political philosopher, william f. buckley in the 1950s, action review magazine was launched during the '50s. and so the conventional wisdom is that's where you find the beginning of modern american conservatism. then amity shlaes wrote i think a very interesting book on calvin coolidge i proposed we have to go further to the 1920s because calvin coolidge was the beginning of modern american conservatism. i saw her a week or so ago and i said you watched a coolidge cool. he's not really a 21st century kind of guy, but gordon and i in this book and the place to go is actually to the 1930s because, in our view, modern american conservatism is essentially a response to the new deal of the 1930s, the franklin roosevelt. to us, the conservative response in the 1930s was the beginning of modern american conservatism. that response initially actually came from former president herbert hoover to lots of people debate how conservative hoover was as a president and as a secretary of commerce in the 1920s that i'm happy to talk a

that was philosophical difference. philosophical difference two had to do with the french revolution and jefferson minister to france when the revolution broke out. the declaration of the rights of man and the citizen for his friend lafayette. absolutely believe the french revolution and he said you know he never bailed out. and so many friends of his were killed. so many friends of ours, so many of our allies of the revolutionary war. he said you know i just look at the mess casualties of war. if there were one adamant one e. fluffed in every country and that a republican adam and eve, that would be fine with me. and whereas hamilton thought it was mere anarchy and terror was terror. >> next year. >> bob ulrich. a comment and a question. >> a question. >> okay. the question is in studying the revolutionary war, it became clear to me that one of the biggest reasons for the start of the war was the way that the war the french indian war ended. washington had done a lot of surveying as a young man out west. he knew the p

but also the class youic philosophers talked about the importance of retribution, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. jay-z has a song where he says if you kill my dog, i'm going to kill your hat -- kill your cat. same concept, this idea of equivalence. you know, when i started thinking about hip-hop carefully, it was around the time that i started being a law professor. and i practiced criminal law as a prosecutor for years, but i never really had gotten to the theory until i started teaching. and i heard this conversation between these classic philosophers like jeremy -- [inaudible] and snoop dogg and nicki minaj. they were saying the same things about the fairness of punishment, about who the society should select out to intentionally hurt. so, you know, people say you should write about things that only you can write about. i didn't know anybody who was as well versed in both hip-hop and criminal philosophy as me. and so sure enough, all these concepts, again, this remix of three strikes. and it comes out not just as interesting philosophy, but as brilliant art. man, tupac sh

christ wears the robe of a greek philosopher... and his beardless, youthful face bears more than a passing resemblance to pagan images of apollo. the first great churches were variations of the roman assembly hall known as a basilica, with a central nave often ending in a semicircular apse and side aisles screened by colonnades. santa sabina, finished in 432, is a particularly fine example of these simple but elegant early christian basilicas. the roman arch appears here in yet another form, springing directly from the column capitals. the insignia of the new christianized empire, whose capital is no longer rome but constantinople, are placed with perhaps unconscious symbolism atop the corinthian columns taken from a pagan building. once reviled and persecuted, christianity is triumphant. historians have argued about the causes of the fall of the roman empire ever since it happened, when saint augustine wrote that the empire had been part of god's divine plan for the furtherance of christianity through the world, that it had now fu

>> i come with the philosophers in mind. it's a fascinating subject.n area of philosophical concern. it is the subject that is mysterious. what has happened historically, the material conception of thinking has -- there is no soul. the soul is a fiction. it is just the brain. the problem that creates is to figure out how the brain creates feeling, thought, wishing, longing. all these states of mind we think of consciousness. how does it happen? nobody knows. >> there is a huge story about in the new york times. >> it is wonderful work. if they can do things like figure out what to do about parkinson's, or alzheimer's, that is terrific. >> that is what the motivation is. >> i understand. it is noble. it is necessary. supposing we do figure out how the brain works, if that happens, then we can build a computer that has consciousness. this sounds like movie stuff. there are serious people in this field who believe that the radically that is possible. if that ever happens, all the stories we have been living by our finish. the bible. all the mythological s

my guest tonight is a newero scien test who asks philosophical questions by studying the brain, i amet her with my medula oblon-gotchas. please welcome patricia churchland. hey, patricia, thank you so much for copping on. >> nice to be here. >> stephen: all righty diety. you are a professor he mer that of philosophy at uc san diego. you received a mcarthur genius award for your work in neurophilosophy and your new book is called touching a nerve, the self-. >> first of all, what is neurophilosophy. did you just put the neuroon there because as a philosophy major you would never get a job? what is neurophilosophy. >> it has to do with the interface between the discoveryings that we are a's paging in neuroscience and how those discoveries might have an impact on traditional philosophical questions, questions about where does morality come from, how do we page decisions? what is the nature of consciousness, how do we learn about the nature of the external world. >> stephen: there is already a book for that. it's called the bible. (laughter) right? have you read it? have you read it with

>> well, i commit this from the point of view of philosophers of mind. fascinating subject area of philosophical concern and it's the subject of all very mysterious. what has happened historically is that the materialist conception of thinking has taken over from the old corps taoegs dualism. modern neuroscience there's no soul. the soul is a fiction. there's just the brain. but the problem that creates is to figure out how the brain creates feeling, thought, wishing, longing, falling in love and all these subjective state of minds that we think of as consciousness. how does that happen? nobody knows. and there's all sorts of immense amount of activity going on to map brains and figure out these -- >> rose: there's a huge story about in the the "new york times" this last couple weeks. >> so i have a separate thought about that. it's wonderful work and if it can figure out what to do about parkinson's disease or alzehimer's disease, that's terrific. >> rose: that's primarily what the motivation is. >> i understand and it's noble and it's necessary. but i'

russell kirk, a very conservative political philosopher, william f. but we in the 1950s, national review magazine was launched during the 50s and so the conventional wisdom is that's where you find the beginning of modern conservatism. and then amity shlaes this year wrote i think a very interesting book on calvin coolidge and he proposed we have to go further to the 1920s because calvin coolidge was the beginning of modern american conservatism. i saw her a week or so ago and i said you have really launched a coolidge's cool movement. i said that probably wasn't easy to do. he is not really a 21st century kind of guy. gordon and i in this book think the place to go is to the 1930s. in our few modern american conservatism is essentially response to the new deal of the 1930s to franklin roosevelt. and to us, the conservative response of the 1930s was the beginning of modern american conservatism. that response initially came from former president herbert hoover. lots of people debate how conservative hoover was as the president and the secretary of com

so i get your philosophical point that we all ought to feel entitled to that.give me your sense of how it is that we start to tweak this debate that is happening in washington now, which is really going to pick up here in the month of january. at the end of last her, we figured out what the budget was going to be. this month, the fight will be going in earnest about what we spend that on and what we don't spend it on. budgets are a moral document. we figure out this month on what we spend the money on. the trying to stop using phrase entitlements and used the term earned benefits. what people are upset about, some of these angry white men are angry about his not so much that they feel entitled, but that these are earned benefits at they are now being screwed out of. is that make any sense? they think they are earned benefits. i think many of them feel like, i played by all the rules and now i'm not getting what i thought i had earned. respect that might be the case. i use the word entitlement to describe the kind' him for men. what you and i also seem to agree

there, there's a philosopher that i didn't mention. and he wrote particularly about the cold war and the iron curtain, but he skewered in a brilliant way the elites, the so-called intellectuals. and it's just a tremendous book. and and i learned a great deal from him. you know, these masterminds. these aren't necessarily words that he used, i'm using. but he -- and he gave great examples of it and the danger of it, and he would talk about the communist elite and the liberal elite and the academic elite. and while he didn't agree with every exact thing, but the mentality. it was just superb. he's not the only one to do that. joseph schumter is another, great economist and philosopher. he did the same thing, and he's not alone either. hayak did it in so many of his books too. so this is the problem with centralizing all these decisions. you know, we accept the fact that men and women aren't perfect or, we accept the fact that all our institutions are imperfect. then why would we give so few people so much power, so few imperfect human be

they may have more luck at a deep philosophical level. even then they do not always get the one they want. san francisco, i was born and grew up in. i lived in cambridge massachusetts an awful lot of times. i have seen a lot of disagreements, but i did not know what one was until i came here. i wish those people agree with me more. over time, i thought, it is a big country. there are a lot of different points of view. we have 310 million people. they think every race, religion, point of view possible. well, it is not so bad that you have courts with it and points of view, based at that level of philosophic philosophy or different basic approaches. it is ok. and i am not always in the minority. it shifts a lot. when i am, it is a miraculous thing. i see it every day. there is a miraculous thing still that these 310 million people have decided to resolve their differences under the law. it was not always that way. it only took us a few horrors like the civil war, slavery, 80 years of legal segregation. the country has not always been on a g

but also, a classic philosophers the importance of richard duchenne. an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth. jc has a song where he says if you kill my dog, i will kill your cat. same concept, dysphagia. when i started thinking about hip-hop, carefully around the time i started being a law professor. i practiced criminal law is a prosecutor for years. i've never really gotten to the theories until i started teaching. i heard the conversation between the classic philosophers and emmanuel calms and snoop dogg on the other hand and lil' kim, nikki minaj. they were saying the same thing about the fairness of punishment, who the society should select now to intentionally hurt. people say you should write about the things that only you can write about. i didn't know anybody who was his welfare's both hip-hop and criminal philosophy as me. so sure enough, on this comp tips again, this remix of three straight system comes out not just as interesting philosophy, but a brilliant art. tupac shakur were as a song about it's called your momma. it's about his mom who is

they may have more luck at a deep philosophical level. even then they do not always get the one they want. san francisco, i was born and grew up in. i lived in cambridge, massachusetts an awful lot of times. i have seen a lot of disagreements, but i did not know what one was until i came here. i wish those people agree with me more. over time, i thought, it is a big country. there are a lot of different points of view. we have 310 million people. they think every race, religion, point of view possible. well, it is not so bad that you have courts with different points of view, based at that level of philosophic philosophy or different basic approaches. it is ok. and i am not always in the minority. it shifts a lot. when i am, it is a miraculous thing. i see it every day. there is a miraculous thing still that these 310 million people have decided to resolve their differences under the law. it was not always that way. it only took us a few horrors like the civil war, slavery, 80 years of legal segregation. the country has not always been on

the global -- at a philosophical level. fit in, how does law fit in?n you get to these great big open constitutional questions, i think that that plays a role. what is the freedom of speech? 14th amendment. equal protection of the laws. liberty,ation of life, or property without the due process of law. by the time they reached the supreme court, there are good arguments of both sides, most of the time. a person's background, how they see the law, how they developed over time, it does have an impact. it cannot be avoided, and i do not think it is wrong. that is one reason why these terms last a long time. with different views appoint different people. now any president who thinks that he is going to get the decisions he always wants. surely wrong. roosevelt appointed wendell holmes. he ended up deciding in the wrong way in an antitrust case. they may have more luck at a deep holocaust call -- philosophical level. even then they do not always get the one they want. san francisco, i was born and grew up in. lived in cambridge, massachusetts an awful lot o

>> the philosophers are on the other side. and i think when people talk about this with the aggressive is a more democratic socialism or liberalism, maybe they don't realize how much they take from this in one form or another and that could've been done in that way, with them being socialists, i think the progressives -- this notion of redistributing it an eagle. as i'm, these are all marxist. that being said, he talked about this withering away of the state and the problem is that we can't figure out how that works in the state becomes oppressive and all-powerful. >> once the state is under the control of the proletarian, in its object that will include the following tenants. abolition of property and application of all public purposes in a heavy progressive of the income tax and centralization of the property of all emigrants and rebels and centralization of credit in the means of communication, equal liability and the combination of free education for all children in public schools. >> okay, so i think we have covered this

of ancient times, of course the more they looked, the more the greek philosophers thought, well, this doesn't make any sense, all these gods, apollo, you know? the universe or wouldn't work if it was, had all these warring gods in it. god must be one. and then they heard about this strange people who believed that there was one god, which is rather like saying god is one, isn't it? you know, and so many, many people in the ancient world -- greeks in particular or greek-speaking people -- became very interested in judaism. they didn't convert completely. they were called, you know, sons of noah and thicks like -- things like that. because the idea of circumcision wasn't something they just couldn't bring themselves -- and also the dietary laws were extremely inconvenient especially if you were going to have an orgy. [laughter] what really happened with christianity, you know, forgetting about the word kris canty, didn't know he was a christian. he thought he was a jew. [laughter] so the early followers of jesus thought the same thing, and then they had this conference in jerusalem whic

you should have been a philosopher. >> indeed he was a philosopher, a landmark but biography of the manoroughs' life cannot be overstated. in old age, he felt becoming a junkie was the best thing he ever did, because without it, he would not have written "the naked lunch" or encountered the underground characters that populate his world. barry miles is the author, and he knew him for many decades, so he's in the guest spot. barry, you say the biggest influence on him was whatever drugs he was into at that time that affected him chemically and socially in chemically and socially. let's talk about "naked lunch." what was he dealing with at that time? >> well, it began in tangier. he was on a painkiller that was developed in germany. it made people high. they discontinued it. he bought up all the stocks. he had a terrible time getting off of it. and he always claimed, of course, that he never wrote anything meaningful on drugs, but most of "naked lunch" was written on some form of very strong pot or that painkiller. the book didn't take shape until after quite a few years of his writining

this is part of the philosophical debate going on in the republican party. you have some who have taken a break from, say, her dad's neo con views, vice president cheney's neo con views, like rand paul, who say let's be more libertari libertarian, more withdrawn from the world. liz cheney's quite the opposite, very aggressive, saying america needs a strong foreign policy. so, this was an interesting race, if you would, had it gone forward to air out some of the civil war philosophical differences in the party, but we won't get that now. >> and even philosophical disagreements within her own family, with her sister on the issue of same-sex marriage. if you had to wager a guess in terms of her political career, you wouldn't rule out a future run? >> i would not, and i would definitely not rule out future political activity. you mentioned the public disagreement with her sister around gay marriage played out around the holidays. that was part of this, too, a combination of things. the problem with her daughters, with her sister, this was a first-time candidate,

we support members who are philosophically consistent. so for the patent reform legislation we thought it was significant and important, so we announced we were scoring this let's. when we have a pac meeting, we want to know how members have voted on different pieces of legislation. it's not a quid pro quo and, certainly, no member of congress gets a perfect score by be us. but we do score them that way and other things. are they speaking about innovation, do they care about it as a national priority, those are the things that are important to us. >> certainly, there are similar scorecards, i guess, out there, you know, from the nra or from a group like the club for growth, for example. do you have the sense that lawmakers are particularly tied into something like a technology legislation scorecard? are they saying, boy, i better be on the right side of the patent bill, or are they more say, you know, i could get in trouble if i'm on the wrong side of the debt ceiling or budget debate in. >> guest: what i think legislators share in common

. >> we have such a philosophical mission around bringing people together around food.so natural for me to come here. >> we want them to walk away feeling like they have the tools to make change in their lives. whether that change is voting on an issue in a way that they will really confident about, or that change is how to understand why it is important to support our small farmers. each class has a different purpose, but what we hope is that when people leave here they understand how to achieve that goal and feel that they have the resources necessary to do that. >> are you inspired? maybe you want to learn how to have a patch in your backyard or cook better with fresh ingredients . or grab a quick bite with organic goodies. find out more about 18 reasons by going to 18 reasons.org and learn about buy right market and creamery by going to buy right market.com. and don't forget to check out our blog for more info on many of our episodes at sf quick bites.com. until next time, may the fork be with you. ♪ ♪ >> so chocolaty. mm. ♪ >> oh, this is awesome. oh, sorry. i thou

person who tries to connect events and practical questions to deeper currents, theoretical or philosophical currents. there are narrower definitions. you know paul johnson, the great british historian, wrote a book called "intellectuals" in the '80s in which he said that an intellectual in politics is actually a person who tries to remake the world in the image of some theory he has. in that sense, there probably is no such thing as a conservative intellectual, but i think if you take a broader view of it and a notion that an intellectual tries to connect theory and practice then maybe that's right. that's certainly part of what my work tries to do. >> the information on your background has you doing so many things. what's the number 1 thing you do for a living? >> i am the editor of "national affairs," which is a quarterly journal of essays on public policy and political thought and i'm also a fellow at a think tank called the ethics & public policy center here in washington. >> what does -- what do you do? >> well, so editing the magazine means really editing the magazine. it's a quarterl

. >> there's a philosophical discussion underway in america about the minimum wage. some people like financial commentator peter schiff think increasing it could have devastating effect. there's a law in economics, supply and demand. it's something you learn in econ101. as you increase the price of something you decrease the demand. wages that's the rice of labor. the high -- price of labor. the higher you make the minimum wage the more jobs. >> you care about the poor. of course, i do. >> i just acknowledge that government programs are trapping them in poverty. >> why have one job for 15 dollars an hour when you could have two jobs for $7.50 on hour. >> would you rather have that or pay twice as much for your burger. >> i do like to taste the tears of poverty in my milkshakes. i couldn't wait to discuss these with real world fast food workers protesting for higher wages. if we raise the minimum wage eventually the market will adjust and everybody is going to lose purchasing power. >> we cannot survive the bear minimum. >> if we could keep this out of personal realm.

commercial galleries around union square, and it is because of their core mission, to increase social, philosophical, and spiritual change my isolated individuals and communities. >> it gives a statement, the idea that a significant art of any kind, in any discipline, creates change. >> it is philosophy that attracted david linger to mount a show at meridian. >> you want to feel like your work this summer that it can do some good. i felt like at meridian, it could do some good. we did not even talk about price until the day before the show. of course, meridian needs to support itself and support the community. but that was not the first consideration, so that made me very happy. >> his work is printed porcelain. he transfers images onto and spoils the surface a fragile shes of clay. each one, only one-tenth of an inch thick. >> it took about two years to get it down. i would say i lose 30% of the pieces that i made. something happens to them. they cracked, the break during the process. it is very complex. they fall apart. but it is worth it to me. there are photographs i took 1 hours 99 the former s

you're not safe anymore anywhere, or to paraphrase a certain sage philosopher... ♪ i always feel likeomebody's watching me ♪ that brings us to our new segment, "somebody is watching me." but you don't have to worry about "big brother" anymore, big brother is getting in on the game. >> the new spying scandal this morning, though, not some government agency. no, at ikea. the furniture company stands accused of spying on employees and customers in france. >> jon: france! not just ikea, french ikea, a place that combines the chaos and frustration of ikea and combines it with france. [laughter] so here's the deal: there's in way ikea has been spying on their employees because if they did, they would know that ikea has a terrible feline infestation. [laughter] i'm being told that's just an ad for their new line of cat urine scented furniture. so what are theseling -- these lingonberry slingers trying to find out? >> ikea may have used information to quell workplace grievances. >> >> jon: that's got to be one of the most humiliating places to be fired from. monsieur bernard, i know you've be

we're now talking about finding a way to have a conversation about philosophical bigistry. this is a brand spanking new day because there's a major threat from the right, and it's not moving further to the right. it's actually having a conversation where we embrace people who are in need and in trouble and we show people, as i was shown, the path forward using basic commonsense principles that govern the actual economy. >> philosophical bigotry, dana. tim scott said we would have to have the conversation about this. it's something that african-americans, i think, in the republican party have dealt with for a very long time. is it time to have that conversation, and instead of maybe focusing on the advancements of blacks, which the naacp doesn't seem interested in doing, talking about how they talk about blacks even when they reach the highest high points in their career just because they're a conservative? >> it doesn't make sense to me to go after somebody, presumably, the naacp has fought for the right of the individual and the equal right of people to stand for whatever

a lot of the staff as they go out into the community have the philosophizers - >> you have it on the 2 o'clock in the afternoon are you going to be doing any pregsdz like that in the evening because most people work in the daytime. >> couple of things the first 6 will be during the day. we clot at 6 o'clock fwhats a peak time if you're a restaurant that's your lunch break it's post their peak so our goal for the first 6 is during the daytime and moving forward after the 6 also those presentations will change because the forms will be a different presentation and they been we'll change them to up the evening. we've made ourselves available with certain organizations like the march group it's going to bring a lot of different merchant groups together and we're going to try to do that based on the needs of their businesses and the times. so march is extremely important this is when our media campaign will begin. so you'll be seeing p.s. a's on the radios and local newspapers and getting the word out. heavily front loaded to get out in front of the registration fee. in april you'll see a

join me and my guests--scholars and scientists, spiritual teachers and philosophers-- as we explore theoundaries of religion and metaphysics, of science and spirituality. join me and some really fascinating people as we try to figure out what life's all about and how it can have meaning for each one of us.

king not have him philosophically encounter a debate on it is somehow somewhat specious. >> i don't think the issue is just being a pacifist. that is not what dr. king called on everyone to be. he called on everyone to put justice at the center and he said that violence does not create justice. bennett was one of the first non-african-americans to be on the front lines of the civil rights movement. he had seen the horrors of combat up close as a soldier during world war ii. >> i don't think there is -- there has never been a good war. there has never been one. it is legalized murder. you're killing somebody. teaches you to believe in god. and then at 17, we are going to show you how to kill. it is too schizophrenic. it doesn't make sense. we should believe in god, believe in being a human being. and giving to the earth instead of taking from it. tavis: the fallout from beyond the anon continued to play dr. king in the last year of his life. >> he had to check the front of his face. members would not open doors to their churches and the democratic party almost turned against him. blacks wh