Please like, share, comment, and subscribe. It grows the newsletter and podcast without a financial contribution on your part. Anything is very much appreciated. And thank you, as always, for reading and listening!

This is an AI-generated podcast discussing an article of mine on the issue of personal identity. Who are you? What makes you who you are? These are central questions in the philosophy of personal identity. My article adds to the debate by arguing that the simple fact that we can see ourselves in the mirror is well-explained by, and so evidence for, the metaphysical theory that we are merely biological organisms—or, ‘human animals’ according to the philosophical terminology. The article can be found online HERE. Or, to get around the paywall, visit HERE.

I checked the audio for accuracy, but the level of rigor ain't great. In any case, if you would prefer to listen to audiobots — that sound like NPR hosts — discussing my work in an easy to digest format, then enjoy!

Uncommon Wisdom is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Please like, share, comment, and subscribe. It helps grow the newsletter and podcast without a financial contribution on your part. Anything is very much appreciated. And thank you, as always, for reading and listening.

Many people believe that free speech is dead (or on life support) in higher education. My guest for this episode—Assistant Professor of Business, Matt Burgess—disagrees, arguing instead that not only is one’s speech freer in higher education than many other places, but that freedom may strengthen as political polarization burns itself out. Matt and I also discuss why higher education would be advised to reform itself and how integrity and principled stances remain good signals of integrity and sincere engagement. Our conversation in this episode is based on Matt’s wonderful article of the same title.

Matthew Burgess is Assistant Professor of Economics at the University of Wyoming. He works on issues related to economic growth futures and their implications for the environment and society, political polarization of environmental issues, and mathematical modeling of human-environment systems, especially as it relates to natural resource management and conservation. He runs the Substack newsletter Guided Civic Revival and podcast Grounded, Not Divided.

Uncommon Wisdom is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

In this episode, Peter and I discuss the value and benefits of voting at the margins, the ethics and efficacy of censorship, and why having children is better and more nuanced than the debate over natalism would have one believe.

Peter Ryan Brookes (Oxford) is a PPE (philosophy, politics, economics) tutor in the UK. He writes the persistent ruminator on Substack.

Uncommon Wisdom is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

In this episode, Prof. Morris and I discuss the problem of evil, skeptical theism (God’s reasons are beyond our ability to understand), and how to think about suffering in a Christian context. We also discuss her recent paper on the topic, and her book on the basics of Christian philosophy.

Prof. Morris is an associate professor of instruction in the philosophy department at the University of South Florida in Tampa, Florida. She received her PhD in Philosophy from the University of Notre Dame in 2010. Her current research interests are philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, philosophy of religion, and the intersection thereof.

Uncommon Wisdom is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The infamous economist, Bryan Caplan, and I discuss the potential impact of AI across domains like immigration, national security, employment, and much much more! He’s much more sanguine about AI than I am, but he makes good points, as per usual. Enjoy the show!

Bryan Caplan is a professor of economics at George Mason University, research fellow at the Mercatus Center, and adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. His Substack is Bet On It.

In this episode, Eric and I discuss his theory of jerks, moral mediocrity, death bed regrets, the extent of our conscious experience, and much more!

Eric Schwitzgebel is Professor of Philosophy at University of California, Riverside. He works on topics in the philosophy of psychology, philosophy of mind, and moral psychology. He has many publications to his credit.

In this episode, Prof. Morris Kleiner and I discuss the nature of occupational licensing, why occupational licensing is more about excluding competition than quality or competence, why licensing requirements need to be reformed, and much more besides. Everything you wanted to know about occupational licensing!

Morris M. Kleiner is professor and AFL-CIO Chair in Labor Policy at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs. He also teaches at the University's Center for Human Resources and Labor Studies. He has received many teaching awards including University and school-wide ones for classes in public affairs, business, and economics. He is an expert on labor issues for the government, labor, nonprofits, and business.

In this episode, Robin and I discuss the nature of prediction (read: betting) markets, how they originated, how they work, and how such markets could be used to solve any number of social and policy problems we face.

Robin Hanson is associate professor of economics at George Mason University, and research associate at the Future of Humanity Institute of Oxford University.

In this episode, Robin and I discuss the fact that we don’t know our own minds nearly as well as we think, how practices like laughter and charity are often more about impressing others, the inefficacy of healthcare spending on outcomes, and much more besides.Robin Hanson is associate professor of economics at George Mason University, and research associate at the Future of Humanity Institute of Oxford University.

In this episode, Antony and I discuss inflation and shortages, monetary and fiscal policy, and whether, in the long term, the bankruptcy of the Federal government would be something positive.

Antony Davies is Associate Professor of Economics at the Palumbo Donahue School of Business at Duquesne University. His research interests include econometrics, public policy, and consumer behavior. Davies has authored over 150 op-eds for, among others, the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Forbes, Investors Business Daily, and New York Daily News.

In this episode, Donald and I discuss the best arguments for and against gun control, the implications of gun control, and how gun control relates to regulating alcohol.

Donald Bruckner is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Penn State University, and the author of many research articles on gun control and veganism.

In this episode, Dan and I discuss the ethics of eating meat, and why vegetarianism and veganism aren’t as morally straightforward as many people think.

Dan Shahar is a Professor of Philosophy at University of New Orleans, and the author of, among other books, Why It’s OK to Eat Meat.

Two AI podcast hosts discuss a recent article of mine—the invisible hand of partisan irrationality—where I argue that a little acknowledged benefit of political irrationality is that people are forced to act consistent with their virtue signaling and rationalizations or be credibly charged with hypocrisy. The full paper can be found HERE.

I checked the audio for accuracy, but the level of rigor ain't great. In any case, if you would prefer to listen to audiobots discussing my work in an easy to understand format, then enjoy!

Uncommon Wisdom is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

In this episode, Emrys and I discuss the virtuous aspects of vices such as gossip and disrespecting the views and beliefs of others, the value of frugality, and much more.

Professor Emrys Westacott is a professor of Philosophy at Alfred University in New York, where he has taught since 1996. He is the author of, among other books, The Virtues of Our Vices and The Wisdom of Frugality.

In this episode, Kevin and I discuss the issue of free will, the evidential problem of evil, the nature of character traits, the contours of agency, and much more.

Kevin Timpe is the William H. Jellema Chair in Christian Philosophy at Calvin University. His primary research interests range across the metaphysics of free will, philosophy of disability, virtue theory, and philosophical theology

In this episode, Tom and I discuss monetary policy, why inflation is bad and unlikely to abate in the near term, how cheap money erodes prosperity, crypto-currencies, and much more.

Thomas Hoenig is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, served as Vice Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation from 2012 until 2018, and was President and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and a member of the Federal Reserve System's Federal Open Market Committee from 1991 to 2011.

‘The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.’

—Friedrich Hayek, The Fatal Conceit (1988)

In this episode, Larry M and I discuss his journey from alcoholism to recovery, insights and tools he gained in recovery like acceptance and gratitude, the role of a higher power in the process of recovery, and much more.

In this episode, Phil and I discuss the 1619 Project, its virtues and vices, the New History of Capitalism, apply Public Choice theory to slavery, and more besides.

Phil W. Magness is an economic historian whose work explores the intersection of history and political economy, including the 19th century as well as trends in the macroeconomy such as taxation, trade, and economic inequality. He works at the American Institute for Economic Research. His most recent book is The 1619 Project: A Critique.

In this episode, Michael and I discuss the ethics of price gouging, the tendency of democratic capitalist societies toward cronyism, the platform economy, the distinction between directionalism and destinationism in politics, and much more.

Michael C. Munger Professor of Political Science, and Director of the PPE Certificate Program. His primary research focus is on the functioning of markets, regulation, and government institutions. He is the author, most recently, of The Sharing Economy: Its Pitfalls and Promises.

In this episode, I moderate a discussion between Robin Hanson (economist, George Mason University) and Agnes Callard (philosopher, The University of Chicago) and focused on the nature of asceticism on their podcast Minds Almost Meeting.

In this episode, Tomas and I discuss whether the mind is just matter or something more, the contingency of religious belief, and many things philosophy besides.

Tomas Bogardus is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pepperdine University. He works mainly in metaphysics and epistemology, and is most interested in the mind-body problem and the rationality of religious belief.

In this episode, Prof. Michael Beckley and I discuss China’s financial and military strength relative to the United States, why China’s rise looks exaggerated and misunderstood, and why a weaker-than-expected China may be more dangerous than a dominant China.

Michael Beckley is an associate professor of political science at Tufts University and a Jeane Kirkpatrick Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He is the author of Unrivaled: Why American Will Remain the World’s Sole Superpower from Cornell University Press (2018).

On the Eve of the Anniversary of Pearl Harbor in the United States of America, I interviewed the historian Victor Davis Hanson. In this brief interview, we discuss some myths and misconceptions about World War II, largely revolving around the fact that the Axis powers were likely to lose the war from the start. The interview centers on Prof. Hanson's wonderful book, The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won.

Victor Davis Hanson is the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution; his focus is classics and military history. Hanson received a BA in classics at the University of California, Santa Cruz (1975), was a fellow at the American School of Classical Studies, Athens (1977–78), and received his PhD in classics from Stanford University (1980).

If you enjoyed this, please SUBSCRIBE. It’s FREE, with new content EVERY week.

China is shrinking demographically and economically (relative to the United States). Some cheer this development, thinking it lowers the chance of military conflict with the United States and her allies. Professor of Political Science at Tufts University, Michael Beckley, the author of the recent and excellent book, Danger Zone, argues that the opposite is true: for the next five to ten years, a fading China will likely be even more dangerous. The United States and the West would do well to keep that in mind. So, for the next few years especially, the United States is in the danger zone.

Uncommon Wisdom is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

In this episode, Liz and I discuss the rationality of faith, reasons and evidence for the existence of God, whether Pascal’s Wager is a bad bet, and many other interesting topics.

Liz Jackson is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Philosophy at Ryerson University. Her main philosophical interests are in epistemology and philosophy of religion. She received her Ph.D. from the Department of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame

If you enjoyed this, please SUBSCRIBE. It’s FREE, with new content EVERY week.

In this episode, Bryan and I discuss why voters are largely uninformed and irrational, the signaling theory of higher education, the case for open borders, and the role and value of failure in life.

Bryan Caplan is Professor of Economics at George Mason University, and bestselling author of The Myth of the Rational Voter, The Case Against Education, and Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration.

In this episode, Chris and I discuss labor markets as markets, profit and wage motives, labor shortages, the plausibility of Universal Basic Income (UBI), and many other labor related topics. This is an especially relevant episode given the current economic climate.

Chris M. Kaiser is a research assistant working on labor issues at a thinktank in Washington D.C.

If you enjoyed this, please SUBSCRIBE. It’s FREE, with new content EVERY week.

Prof. Freiman and I discuss the importance of elections, whether one can complain if they didn’t vote, the (dis)value of political participation, free-riding in a democracy, the fact that so many voters are poorly informed, and much more.

Prof. Christopher Freiman is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at the College of William & Mary. He is the author, most recently, of Why It’s OK to Ignore Politics (Routledge).

Prof. Boettke and I discussed Austrian economics, the nature of incentives and why they matter, what philosophers and economists can learn from each other, whether free markets can hold as the West loses faith in them, and a whole lot more.

Peter Boettke is a University Professor of Economics and Philosophy at George Mason University, the BB&T Professor for the Study of Capitalism, and the Director of the F.A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

Prof. Cowen and I had an interview on topics ranging from economic growth as a moral imperative, the nature of UFOs, whether rent seeking is a drain on the economy, and whether Plato, pumpkin spice, and the Founding Fathers are overrated, why we should (or shouldn’t) care about chess, and how to think about failure, among other topics.

Tyler Cowen is the Holbert L. Harris chair in economics at George Mason University, Faculty Director at the Mercatus Center, and co-author of the popular blog Marginal Revolution.

Prof. Westra and I discuss his decision to become a philosopher, why gut feelings can be a better approach to decision-making than weighing pros and cons, why people are bad at predicting what they will want in the future, the nature of social mind reading, the reliability of moral character attributions to friends and loved ones, and many much.

Evan Westra is a postdoctoral fellow at York University. He works on a number of topics in the philosophy of cognitive science and moral psychology, particularly issues in the theory of mind, character judgment, and the psychology of social norms. He received a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Maryland.

In this episode, Prof. Jaworski and I discuss the relationship between business and ethics, the ethical scope of the marketplace, and various objections to the practice of paying people for blood plasma—a market that undoubtedly saves numerous lives.

Peter Jaworski is an Associate Teaching Professor at the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University. He specializes in business and medical ethics, and holds a doctorate in philosophy from Bowling Green State University.

In this episode, Dr. Bhattacharya and I discuss various aspects of the Covid-19 pandemic: the differences between the Alpha and Delta strains, whether vaccine policy is more about paternalism than public health, the efficacy of both mask wearing and the vaccines, the vulnerability of (especially young) children to the virus, and much more.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is Professor of Medicine at Stanford Medical School, Senior Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economics Research, and Professor, by Courtesy, of Economics. He holds an M.D. and a Ph.D. in Economics, both from Stanford University.

In this episode, Prof. Miller and I discuss the value of good character, the empirical evidence showing that most of us are morally mediocre (not too good; not too bad), what steps we can take to develop better character, whether developing it bumps us against diminishing marginal returns, and to what extent, if any, religious folks tend to have better character than secular folks. Most of the discussion was based on his excellent 2018 book, The Character Gap (Oxford University Press).

Prof. Christian Miller is the A. C. Reid Professor of Philosophy at Wake Forrest University. His research is primarily in contemporary ethics and philosophy of religion.

Become a paid subscriber. This Substack is a labor of love, but the coffee it takes to write the Substack ain't free. Did I mention I'm a poor professor? Thanks! ☕

Should we consume dangerous sports where people are hurt and take serious risks for the money? Is it wrong to be a fan of football or boxing? Are sports a kind of pretend for adults? These questions and more are featured in my latest episode with Professor Shawn Klein, Associate Teaching Professor at Arizona State University. Disclaimer: he is my colleague. He is also the editor of several books on philosophy of sports and fiction franchises.

Uncommon Wisdom is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

In this inaugural podcast episode, Prof. Timmerman and I discuss how he became a professional philosopher, the work of the most famous living philosopher Peter Singer, effective altruism, the ethics of sweatshops, and whether heaven would be boring, among other fascinating topics.

Prof. Travis Timmerman is a Philosophy Professor at Seton Hall University. He specializes in normative and applied ethics, and the philosophy of death.

Become a paid subscriber. This Substack is a labor of love, but the coffee it takes to write the Substack ain't free. Did I mention I'm a poor professor? Thanks! ☕

In a world in which only the present moment exists, travel to the past would be impossible, no? And perhaps even suicidal since time travel in such a universe would be leaving the whole of reality? Steven and I begin the episode by debating these questions. (You can find Steven's original article here, my reply here, Steven’s counter here, and my final reply here).

Our conversation then turns to the question of abortion and father's rights, why luck is a myth, and the disastrous effects of AI on teaching in higher education. And just like myself, Steven likes to work on topics that come from left field—the baseball examples help too!

Steven Hales is Professor of Philosophy at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania. He also is the author of, account other books, The Myth of Luck: Philosophy, Fate, and Fortune.

Uncommon Wisdom is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Become a paid subscriber. This Substack is a labor of love, but the coffee ☕ it takes to write the Substack ain't free. Did I mention I'm a poor professor? Thanks! 🙏

In a fun and freewheeling conversation, philosopher Andrew M. Bailey and I discuss his current book Resistance Money: A Philosophical Case for Bitcoin about the power of Bitcoin as a resistance money, the basics of how bitcoin works, and why you as an ordinary consumer should consider Bitcoin as a form of currency. Bitcoin is for anyone who values autonomy and privacy — more and more so into the future!

Andrew M. Bailey is a former philosophy professor at Yale-NUS in Singapore, and soon to be an Associate Professor of Philosophy at University of Wyoming and a senior fellow at the Bitcoin Policy Institute.

Uncommon Wisdom is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Become a paid 💰 subscriber. This Substack is a labor of love, but the coffee ☕ it takes to write the Substack ain't free. Did I mention I'm only a poor professor? Thanks! 🙏

This post is experimental. It is an AI-generated podcast with two ‘hosts’ discussing a published article on mine—which I no longer endorse, but which is fun to discuss regardless—arguing that procreation (having children) is wrong most, if not all, the time. You can find a copy of the published article HERE. It was also the subject of a reddit thread a few years ago HERE.

I checked the audio for accuracy, but the level of rigor ain't great. In any case, if you would prefer to listen to audiobots — that sound like NPR hosts — discussing my work in an easy to understand and digest format, then listen away!

If subscribers like this feature, then I will add it as a regular on Uncommon Wisdom. If so, then let me know in the comments. Enjoy!

Uncommon Wisdom is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Become a paid 💰 subscriber. This Substack is a labor of love, but the coffee ☕ it takes to write the Substack ain't free. Did I mention I'm only a poor professor? Thanks! 🙏

This post is experimental. It is an AI-generated podcast with two ‘hosts’ discussing a published article on mine on the dark sides of political and legislative transparency. Sunlight ain't all good folks! There's a reason that the Founders wrote and debated the Constitution behind closed doors. This podcast is based on an article that can be found HERE.

I checked the audio for accuracy, but the level of rigor ain't great. In any case, if you would prefer to listen to audiobots — that sound like NPR hosts — discussing my work in an easy to understand and digest format, then listen away!

If subscribers like this feature, then I will add it as a regular on Uncommon Wisdom. If so, then let me know in the comments. Enjoy!

Uncommon Wisdom is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Consider becoming a paid 💰 subscriber. This Substack is a labor of love, but the coffee ☕ it takes to write the Substack ain't free. Thanks! 🙏

This post is experimental. It is an AI-generated podcast with two ‘hosts’ discussing a published article on mine on the implications of moral mediocrity on how just a society can be. You can find the official article linked HERE.

I have checked the audio for accuracy, though the level of rigor is somewhat lacking. In any case, if you would prefer to listen to audiobots — that sound like NPR hosts — discussing my work in an easy to understand and digest format, then listen away!

If subscribers like this feature, then I will add it as a regular on Uncommon Wisdom. If so, then let me know in the comments. Enjoy!

Uncommon Wisdom is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Please like, share, comment, and subscribe. It helps grow the newsletter and podcast without a financial contribution on your part. Anything is very much appreciated. And thank you, as always, for reading and listening.

About the Author

Jimmy Alfonso Licon is a philosophy professor at Arizona State University working on ignorance, ethics, cooperation and God. Before that, he taught at University of Maryland, Georgetown, and Towson University. He loves classic rock and Western, movies, and combat sports. He lives with his wife, a prosecutor, and family at the foot of the Superstition Mountains. He also abides.

AI has the potential to change everything. Why not higher education? Few colleges and universities—with exceptions—appear to be taking AI seriously. So, I decided it was time to take charge and interview people on the cutting edge of AI and higher education, but with distinct visions of the future. Hollis Robbins is Professor of English and Special Advisor for Humanities Diplomacy at the University of Utah. Her Substack, Anecdotal Value, is a gold mine for forward thinking about AI, higher education, and a pedagogy for the future. Bryan Caplan is Professor of Economics at George Mason University and author of the book The Case against Education. His Substack, Bet on It, is a repository of economic thinking and contrarian takes.

In this interview, Hollis Robbins treats AI as the first real threat to the university’s old claim to be the keeper and distributor of knowledge. Once students can learn faster, earlier, and on their own, the value of a semester suddenly looks arbitrary. What is left in her view is the ‘last mile,’ the part of education that AI can’t reach because it lives in the edges of expertise, in the unpublished, the contextual, the unsettled. Bryan Caplan pushes the opposite direction: most students are chasing a signal. And most universities are more invested in preserving graduation rates than in cultivating minds. Better tools won’t change that. Better incentives will.

I push them both on whether any of this really counts as disruption or whether we’ve simply been here before with smarter software and bigger promises. My modest worry is that collapses often arrive late and suddenly, and almost never on schedule. Hollis thinks AI finally forces institutions to confront their inefficiencies; Bryan thinks the system’s dysfunction is exactly what keeps it together. The exchange leaves a picture of a sector stuck between real intellectual value and performative bureaucracy.

Please like, share, comment, and subscribe. It helps grow the newsletter and podcast without a financial contribution on your part. Anything is very much appreciated. And thank you, as always, for reading and listening.

Please like, share, comment, and subscribe. It helps grow the newsletter and podcast without a financial contribution on your part. Anything is very much appreciated. And thank you, as always, for reading and listening.

About the Author

Jimmy Alfonso Licon is a philosophy professor at Arizona State University working on ignorance, ethics, cooperation and God. Before that, he taught at University of Maryland, Georgetown, and Towson University. He loves classic rock and Western, movies, and combat sports. He lives with his wife, a prosecutor, and family at the foot of the Superstition Mountains. He also abides.

I recently sat down with Kurt Blankschaen (Philosophy, Daemen University) to talk about his new paper, co-authored with Travis Timmerman (Philosophy, Seton Hall University), in the Journal of Moral Philosophy (‘Acting Out’), on whether straight actors may permissibly play queer characters. It is one of those questions that looks trivial—just hire the best actor—until you realize that the public conversation is tangled up in worries about representation, lived experience, and online pressure campaigns that can force young performers to out themselves before they are ready.

What I wanted to understand, and what we worked through over the course of the conversation, is why this debate got so moralized so quickly. Kurt and Travis argue that the real philosophical pressure point isn’t Who has the right identity? but What makes a portrayal good? Their distinction between performer authenticity and character authenticity is doing the real work here. You can have the “right” identity and still give a crappy performance. You can lack the lived experience but, through preparation, consultation, and craft, portray a character with real depth. Acting is a skill, not an autobiographical disclosure.

If you insist that only queer actors can play queer characters, you get three bad results: you risk outing closeted performers; you shrink the available talent pool to the point of absurdity once intersectionality enters the picture; and you block actors, whether straight or queer, from roles they’d otherwise excel at. Because Hollywood is already a brutal, low-probability career lottery, the idea that “missing out on a part” is a distinct moral harm is less compelling here than it would be in ordinary employment contexts. But it still matters when people are treated unfairly, regardless of their sexuality.

Finally, I also pressed Kurt on cases like obesity, disability, conservative Christians, and other groups that either lack media sympathy or are represented through caricature. Why do some identities get treated as inviolable while others get ignored or mocked? There is no neat answer. History and politics shape which groups we treat as requiring authenticity, and those patterns aren’t always consistent.

An overall great conversation!

Please like, share, comment, and subscribe. It helps grow the newsletter and podcast without a financial contribution on your part. Anything is very much appreciated. And thank you, as always, for reading and listening.

Please like, share, comment, and subscribe. It helps grow the newsletter and podcast without a financial contribution on your part. Anything is very much appreciated. And thank you, as always, for reading and listening.

About the Author

Jimmy Alfonso Licon is a philosophy professor at Arizona State University working on ignorance, ethics, cooperation and God. Before that, he taught at University of Maryland, Georgetown, and Towson University. He loves classic rock and Western, movies, and combat sports. He lives with his wife, a prosecutor, and family at the foot of the Superstition Mountains. He also abides.

I had anxieties about AI and the future. So I decided to sit down with Cyril Hédoin of The Archimedean Point to hash out our thoughts together.

Talking with Cyril, I kept coming back to two linked worries: displacement and disempowerment. He traced his path from institutional economics into philosophy and admitted the same professional anxiety: AI doing more and more of the work we once took to be distinctly human. Neither of us thinks anyone can predict the labor-market fallout. The historical record makes forecasts laughable. But he’s right that whoever owns the AI infrastructure will hold enormous economic power, and that is a shift worth taking seriously.

Cyril’s worry about “uniformization” struck me. If people increasingly rely on broadly similar models for writing, thinking, and making decisions, the range of genuine variation shrinks. Because these systems are trained to be agreeable, even sycophantic, we risk reinforcing the worst aspects of our epistemic bubbles.

We ended on the personal terrain: loneliness, synthetic intimacy, and the temptation to treat AI as a partner or companion. I don’t think this becomes the norm soon, but the cultural pressures are obvious. It feels like relational junk food—immediately gratifying, ultimately hollow. Yet there is a genuinely hopeful angle too. If used well, AI might revive a kind of synthetic Socratic method—an always-on dialectical partner that sharpens arguments rather than dulls them. The real question is whether we use the tool without quietly surrendering ourselves to it.

Please like, share, comment, and subscribe. It helps grow the newsletter and podcast without a financial contribution on your part. Anything is very much appreciated. And thank you, as always, for reading and listening.

Please like, share, comment, and subscribe. It helps grow the newsletter and podcast without a financial contribution on your part. Anything is very much appreciated. And thank you, as always, for reading and listening.

About the Author

Jimmy Alfonso Licon is a philosophy professor at Arizona State University working on ignorance, ethics, cooperation and God. Before that, he taught at University of Maryland, Georgetown, and Towson University. He loves classic rock and Western, movies, and combat sports. He lives with his wife, a prosecutor, and family at the foot of the Superstition Mountains. He also abides.

In this special video episode of Uncommon Wisdom, I talk with philosophers Michael T. Hicks and Joe Slater of the University of Glasgow about their paper “ChatGPT is b******t” (Ethics and Information Technology) and my companion piece “ChatGPT is b******t (partly) because people are bullshitters” (Philosophy & Technology). Here we unpack what Harry Frankfurt meant by b******t, how large language models exemplify it, why the line between “soft” and “hard” b******t matters, and a little bit whether human b******t plays a role here. Along the way we discuss AI design, the attention economy, and why both humans and machines seem wired to sound smart even when they don’t know what they’re talking about.

My apologies for the video quality on my end. I shot the video underwater. Just kidding, but who can tell the difference? In any case enjoy!

Please like, share, comment, and subscribe. It helps grow the newsletter and podcast without a financial contribution on your part. Anything is very much appreciated. And thank you, as always, for reading and listening.

Please like, share, comment, and subscribe. It helps grow the newsletter and podcast without a financial contribution on your part. Anything is very much appreciated. And thank you, as always, for reading and listening.

In this episode of the Uncommon Wisdom Podcast, host Jimmy Licon talks with professor, theologian, and author Joshua Ryan Farris about the nature of the soul and consciousness. They examine the debate between materialism, which sees mental states as purely physical, and dualism, which holds that there is more to the mind than the brain. Farris critiques materialist arguments, highlighting the gap between brain states and subjective experiences (qualia), and drawing on thought experiments like Frank Jackson’s “Mary.” We also discusses near-death experiences as possible evidence for dualism and responds to common materialist appeals to neuroscience, causal closure, and simplicity, offering listeners a rich, accessible overview of this philosophical divide. Do not miss out!

Please like, share, comment, and subscribe. It helps grow the newsletter and podcast without a financial contribution on your part. Anything is very much appreciated. And thank you, as always, for reading and listening.

Please like, share, comment, and subscribe. Thank you, as always, for reading and listening.

About the Author

Jimmy Alfonso Licon is a philosophy professor at Arizona State University working on ignorance, ethics, cooperation and God. Before that, he taught at University of Maryland, Georgetown, and Towson University. He loves classic rock and Western, movies, and combat sports. He lives with his wife, a lawyer, at the foot of the Superstition Mountains. He also abides.

A few months ago, I sat down with a cancer immunologist from the Salk Institute, Adam Rochussen, to discuss the relationship between ethics and evolution and we we quickly found ourselves in deep waters. Adam advanced a strongly Dawkinsian view: morality, at its core, is an evolved biological trait—a gene-level adaptation that helped our ancestors cooperate and propagate. Ethics, on his account, is the cultural and philosophical overlay: our attempt to formalize and rationalize those inherited instincts. Veganism became our central test case. Adam argued that some forms of ethical veganism are a misapplication of evolved compassion, especially our tendency to anthropomorphize animals whose “cuteness” hijacks psychological mechanisms originally tuned for protecting kin.

I pressed him on what philosophers care most about, namely normativity. Even if evolution explains why we have moral instincts, does it explain why some actions are wrong regardless of survival outcomes or gene frequencies? Our discussion ranged through birth control, demographic decline, self-sacrifice, and Peter Singer’s drowning child argument. If morality is whatever survives evolutionary selection, what work is left for ethics? Is philosophy merely describing biology in slow motion, or does it supply genuine critical leverage over our inherited moral psychology? We didn’t settle the matter—but the tension itself is illuminating. Nothing was settled in our discussion, but it was a fun exchange nonetheless.

Adam Rochussen is a postdoctoral fellow at Salk Institute for Biological Studies working on cancer immunotherapy. He has a great Substack, Fruits of Eden, where he writes about biology, philosophy, and politics, and is always provocative.

Please like, share, comment, and subscribe. Thank you, as always, for reading and listening.

Please like, share, comment, and subscribe. It helps grow the newsletter and podcast without a financial contribution on your part. Anything is very much appreciated. And thank you, as always, for reading and listening.

About the Author

Jimmy Alfonso Licon is a philosophy professor at Arizona State University working on ignorance, ethics, cooperation and God. Before that, he taught at University of Maryland, Georgetown, and Towson University. He loves classic rock and Western, movies, and combat sports. He lives with his wife, a lawyer, at the foot of the Superstition Mountains. He also abides.

In this conversation with George Mason University economist, Pete Boettke, we explore Friedrich Hayek’s enduring relevance to debates about markets, socialism, and artificial intelligence. Boettke explains Hayek’s core insight that prices are not mere accounting tools but communication devices that coordinate dispersed and evolving knowledge in a world of fallible agents. The discussion moves from the socialist calculation debate and the “anarchy of the market” critique to the question of whether large language models change the game. So, although AI excels at aggregating and summarizing existing information, Boettke argues that it operates within fixed parameters and cannot replicate the open-ended and generative character of market processes. AI may amplify human productivity, but it does not eliminate the need for decentralized coordination in a dynamic and creative economy.

Peter Boettke is a Distinguished University Professor of Economics at George Mason University, the BB&T Professor for the Study of Capitalism, and the Director of the F.A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.