Hosted by Jeffrey Howard, editor-in-chief of Erraticus, Damn the Absolute! is a show about our relationship to ideas.
Doing our damnedest not to block the path of inquiry.
Produced by Erraticus.
www.erraticus.co
S2E05 Americans Don’t Know How to Sing the Blues w/ Brad Elliott Stone & Jacob Goodson
Thursday, August 3, 2023 • Duration 01:13:27
School boards and state governments have been locked in intense debates over what counts as history and whose history ought to be taught. Many of these wrestles orbit around events and cultural beliefs that the pragmatist philosopher Cornel West might refer to as “catastrophes.”
Some voices are eager to bury, ignore, or sterilize many of the truly horrendous deeds that have happened in the United States. Slavery. Segregation. Jim Crow. Genocide. The exploitation of workers. And the list goes on.
This inability to process the pain, guilt, or shame many of these events provoke in people is, arguably, a major contributing factor to the polarization, dehumanization, and political corrosiveness we encounter in both the national discourse and our local communities.
Brad Elliott Stone and Jacob Goodson believe the answer can be found in building beloved community.
They draw from the philosophies of Josiah Royce, Martin Luther King Jr, Cornel West, and William James. In their new book, Building Beloved Community in a Wounded World, they argue for ways in which we can heal the wounds inflicted on all of us by racism and economic injustices, both past and present.
Here are just a few of the questions considered throughout the conversation.
Should building beloved community be focused locally, nationally, or globally? What does it take to effectively respond to the cries of the wounded? And, how can communities better work through the emotional pain of past wrongs?
Brad Elliott Stone is Professor of Philosophy and Associate Dean in the Bellarmine College of Liberal Arts at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, California.
Jacob L. Goodson is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Southwestern College in Winfield, Kansas.
“Nobody’s Dirty Business” by Mississippi John Hurt
“That’s All Right” by Arthur Crudup
“Sissy Man Blues” by Kokomo Arnold
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit damntheabsolute.substack.com
S2E04 Does Metamodernism Actually Move Us Past Postmodernism? w/ Jason Ānanda Josephson Storm
Thursday, March 30, 2023 • Duration 01:06:02
The German philosopher Hegel gives us a useful tool for understanding the history of ideas: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.
We can see this clearly in the movement from the Enlightenment to romanticism to modernism and postmodernism—each intellectual movement a reaction to its predecessor, integrating what works from the previous era with new solutions to meet the demands of new problems.
But, where does that leave us now? What comes next after postmodernism?
Odds are, we’re already in it this new intellectual movement.
A growing number of people have become worn out with deconstruction and the postmodernist impulse to doubt everything, to dismantle every concept and institution. It’s become apparent this exercise which started out as emancipatory and liberating has congealed into its own set of dogmas and less-than-productive ways of being.
Eager to revitalize a more constructive mindset and free us from postmodernism’s long shadow, as he calls it, Jason Ānanda Josephson Storm makes a case for what he hopes will come next. He argues this in his recent book Metamodernism: The Future of Theory (2021).
Chair and professor of religion and chair of science and technology studies at Williams College, he aims to take us through postmodernism to metamodernism, to establish a new approach to producing what he calls “humble knowledge.” He’s trying to create a paradigm shift, not just describe what is happening.
He believes metamodernism is about the future of all disciplines, especially the human sciences. Ultimately, metamodernism is about hope. It’s a vision whose ethical and political goals are rooted in compassion and multispecies flourishing.
And here are a few things we consider during our conversation:
How does metamodernism utilize skepticism without falling prey to either nihilism or a dogmatic doubting of everything? Why has postmodernism possibly, I say, possibly, reached a dead end? What is the relationship between metamodernism and Pragmatism? And what pressing political or social problems can metamodernism help us solve?
Show Notes: Music Credits: This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit
S2E03 Literature Must Be an Unsettling Force for Democracy w/ Elin Danielsen Huckerby
Wednesday, June 1, 2022 • Duration 01:03:08
Whether it's theology, philosophy, politics, or science, it is not uncommon for people to believe their particular worldview has greater authority over others. This authoritarian approach to ideas implies that one person's representation of truth more closely and certainly reflects reality—they have the truth and we must submit to it.
Alternatively, pragmatists believe this abstract certitude leads to religious fundamentalism, philosophical dogmatism, political absoluteness, and rigid scientism.
For thinkers like the late-twentieth century philosopher Richard Rorty, language is an instrument for coordinating our efforts in addressing concrete issues we face in our lived environments.
He doesn't believe theology, politics, philosophy, or even science are about acquiring an accurate representation of reality. In fact, he rejects the notion that the nature of truth is one of language mirroring reality. Instead, he views language as a dynamic tool, not something that reproduces truth.
Often credited with rehabilitating pragmatism, Rorty encourages us to abandon these authoritarian approaches for what he calls a literary culture. While he holds that none of these disciplines have an epistemically privileged position from which they can determine which truth claims more closely represent reality, they each still play important roles in society.
In other words, each provides us with particular vocabularies with different uses. Their vitality resides in the way they empower us to describe and redescribe experiences in continually novel and fruitful ways.
Elin Danielsen Huckerby is a research fellow at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, associated with an EU-funded project on Inclusive Science and European Democracies. She recently graduated with a PhD from the University of Cambridge, where she worked on Rorty’s uses of literature in his philosophical work.
What is the role of literature in liberal democracies? What is moral progress for Rorty? How can liberal democracies benefit from embracing a more literary rather than scientistic culture? And, how worried should we be about Rorty's rejection of objective truth? This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit
S2E02 Fear of Breakdown in American Democracy w/ Noëlle McAfee
Wednesday, March 9, 2022 • Duration 53:16
Democratic deliberation can be viewed in a few different ways. It can be approached as a means of competing interests coming together to bargain between groups until they come to some kind of political agreement. From an epistemological sense, deliberation is what we do in the absence of certainty, and where uncertainty exists so does the political. This requires us to practice as the political philosopher Hannah Arendt says, "thinking without banisters." Deliberation takes place as members of a community discuss and determine answers to perennial questions: What is real? What is moral? What do we value? How can we best address our political or economic problems? There's a third form of democratic deliberation, one often overlooked or under-utilized: deliberation as a way of working through emotional trauma. Rather than debate the significance of certain political events and which legislative actions should be taken, this more therapeutic view considers deliberation a tool for helping communities process emotional cataclysms or psychological maladies, especially past ones left unacknowledged or repressed. This can happen on a personal level, or collectively, for a community. Think of it like political activism as a massive group therapy session. This third form is advocated for by Noëlle McAfee, a professor of philosophy at Emory University with a secondary appointment as professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences. She is also the director of Emory’s Psychoanalytic Studies Program. In her 2019 book, Fear of Breakdown: Politics and Psychoanalysis, which won the American Psychoanalytic Association's 2020 Courage to Dream Book, McAfee applies a psychoanalytic lens to some of the most pressing political issues faced by American democracy today, such as racism, inequality, alienation, and globalism. In this conversation, we reflect on a few things. What is the fear of breakdown and how does this anxiety make democracy more difficult to practice? What are some psychoanalytic explanations for the rise of nativism and authoritarianism in the United States? What are some of these political ghosts and wounds that remain submerged or repressed? And what does it look like to use democratic deliberation as a form of collective therapy?
Show Notes:
(2020) This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit
S2E01 Scientific Knowledge Is Metaphorical w/ Jessica Wahman
Wednesday, February 16, 2022 • Duration 49:28
Scientific inquiry is sometimes viewed as a way of getting after literal knowledge, the belief our scientific claims are a one-for-one match with reality—or what is actually happening out there in the world. However, this view requires a certainty in our beliefs or truth claims about nature that may not be justified. Furthermore, this absoluteness may lead us toward a scientism that runs counter to the openness and dynamism that animates so much of what scientists practice in their labs, field work, empirical research, and daily lives.
Alternatively, other scientists and philosophers frame scientific knowledge as metaphorical. Mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell, for instance. Scientific claims require storytelling components and familiar imagery to help us understand what's happening at any given moment. Scientific metaphors are valid only as much as they are useful in addressing problems in our lived environments, or providing a reliable means for predicting future events.
Jessica Wahman is the author of Narrative Naturalism: An Alternative Framework for Philosophy of Mind and co-editor of Cosmopolitanism and Place. She researches and publishes on topics in American philosophy, particularly the work of George Santayana and philosophical psychology. Her current research focuses on pragmatic conceptions of the self and their implications for debates about free will. She is also a senior lecturer in philosophy at Emory University.
Wahman believes that viewing scientific knowledge as metaphorical creates not only a more fruitful approach to science, but avoids the many missteps and dogmatism that often attend more literalist ways of investigating nature and experience. This metaphorical thinking informs what she calls narrative naturalism, a non-reductive but naturalistic method for studying our world and the way things work, specifically consciousness and questions of the mind.
A few things to consider. If scientific knowledge is metaphorical, why not settle for more mythological explanations rather than material or naturalistic ones? Why should we be careful about reducing feelings or thoughts to mere brain chemistry? And, what concrete impact in our daily lives can a narrative naturalist approach have?
I hope you'll contribute to the conversation.
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit
S1E20 Can Pragmatism Help Us Live Well? w/ John Stuhr
Wednesday, July 7, 2021 • Duration 56:57
Pragmatists do not hold absolute faith in any particular value, principle, or belief. This applies even to the many concepts affiliated with pragmatists—such as pluralism, fallibilism, democracy, and naturalism.
They focus on experience as the field in which we continually test out and reconstruct our views of the world and determine what works in our particular place and time. Pragmatism is focused on concrete results in experience, judging ideas and beliefs according to their fruits and not their roots.
For a pragmatist, the world is constantly changing—not just our views or understanding of it. The questions that were relevant two millennia ago may no longer be relevant today. This requires new solutions and novel practices.
Pragmatism offers an approach to the human experience that will resonate with some, and not with others. So is pragmatism best understood as a temperament? A method? Is it a theory of truth? Or is it primarily a way of viewing the world?
In the final episode of the season, Jeffrey Howard speaks with John Stuhr. Stuhr is Arts and Sciences Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and American Studies at Emory University, where he chaired the department of philosophy from 2008-2016. He is the author or editor of over a dozen books, including Pragmatism, Postmodernism, and the Future of Philosophy (2003); Pragmatic Fashions: Pluralism, Democracy, Relativism, and the Absurd (2016); and 100 Years of Pragmatism: The Revolutionary Philosophy of William James (2009).
Stuhr thinks of pragmatism more as a fashion or "season of belief." It's a temporal philosophy. If reality weren't constantly changing, then we could assert a truth and hold onto it for eternity. Instead, by leaning into experience and viewing truth as provisional, we can continue to adapt to changing circumstances. This provides us with a dynamic means through which we can improve our communities and personal lives just a little more each day.
That is if we're willing to do the work, because, for a pragmatist, the future is never guaranteed.
A few questions to consider. How does pragmatism avoid devolving into reckless relativism? How might a pragmatist approach questions of what it means to live well? What is the future of philosophy and what role can pragmatism play in our pursuit of truth?
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit
S1E19 Buddhist Reflections on Race and Liberation w/ Charles Johnson
Wednesday, June 23, 2021 • Duration 42:35
Buddhist practice has been around since the sixth century. As a way of life, Buddhism acknowledges there is suffering in the world, which arises from selfish desire, and that by letting go of this desire and following the Eightfold Path—put forward by the Buddha—we can be liberated from suffering. In tandem, followers of the Buddha are called to reduce the suffering of all sentient beings.
But what does this mean in the context of racism in the United States, in particular, the enormous damage inflicted upon Black Americans throughout the past four centuries? What insight might Buddhism offer us as we continue to pursue racial justice and greater equality?
Jeffrey Howard speaks with Charles Johnson, a University of Washington professor emeritus, novelist, philosopher, short story writer, cartoonist, and essayist. In addition to receiving the 1990 National Book Award for his novel, Middle Passage, he has authored 24 other books, including most recently Grand: A Grandfather's Wisdom for a Happy Life. Throughout his expansive career, he has written extensively on Buddhism, race, creativity, martial arts, and the writer's craft.
Presenting Buddhism as a radical form of liberation, Johnson suggests that to truly let go of race, we must abandon our assumptions and explanatory models of who we think other people are. And by relinquishing our ego, we can achieve what Martin Luther King, Jr. calls "the Beloved Community."
A few questions to consider. How does Buddhism inform political activism? If Buddhism teaches there is nothing we should cling or attach to, what does that mean for our political commitments or philosophical worldviews? And how do we navigate the tension between letting go of race while amplifying awareness of its continuing negative impacts on people of color?
Show Notes
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit
S1E18 A Friendly Introduction to Stoicism w/ Derek Parsons
Wednesday, June 9, 2021 • Duration 46:50
A philosophy of living, similar to a religion, explains the human condition and provides a moral and spiritual guide for how we can navigate identified challenges. It directs our behavior and helps us understand the significance of what we experience.
Originating in the ancient Greco-Roman world, Stoicism is a life philosophy that places reason at the center of human flourishing. For a Stoic, living well means developing one's moral character through logic and mindfulness. Virtue is the highest good. By focusing on what we can control and accepting what we can't, a Stoic tackles the world with equanimity.
Jeffrey Howard speaks with Derek Parsons, an educator with a bachelor's degree in English and history and a master's in educational administration. He serves as a contributing editor for Erraticus and co-hosts the Open Door Philosophy podcast. In this episode, he introduces us to ancient Stoics such as Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius, explains the recent resurgence of Stoicism, and reflects on the benefits this 2300-year-old philosophy of living has for us moderns.
A few questions on Stoic thought. Why are we wrong to view the Stoic as detached and emotionally muted? Does Stoicism allow for a variety of religious views, including a belief in God? What are the potential pitfalls of focusing too much on developing one's moral character? And which philosophies of living couple well with Stoicism?
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit
S1E17 Reversing Climate Change w/ Ross Kenyon
Wednesday, May 26, 2021 • Duration 48:43
Debates about reversing climate change can be understood as a tension between two groups: wizards and prophets.
According to Charles C. Mann, wizards are tech-optimists, those who believe that technology resolves more problems than it creates, that technology will save us from the climate crisis. It has advanced us this far, and it will continue to do so. Think of the innovations in alternative energy, such as wind or solar power.
On the other hand, prophets are more focused on how culture shapes our choices. They believe we need to live more within our means, exercise more humility about what we're able to control or even manage. For prophets, we face this climate crisis because of human hubris and the reality that we are taking more from the earth than it can give.
This is certainly a clarifying model for understanding the discourse around our perhaps most ubiquitous challenge in the twenty-first century. But what if there's a more productive middle way between these two perspectives?
Jeffrey Howard talks with Ross Kenyon, a cofounder of the Nori carbon removal marketplace where he serves as Creative Editor. He has had a varied career, working in an academic center and taking PhD coursework in political philosophy before switching to screenwriting and producing content. He currently leads Nori's creative media efforts, hosting their Reversing Climate Change podcast and producing the Carbon Removal Newsroom podcast.
Kenyon exemplifies a curiosity-driven approach to reversing climate change. He minimizes polemics or alarmist rhetoric, hoping that doing so will bring more voices to the climate crisis table. While he freely admits his communication style doesn't work for everyone, he believes we need this pluralistic vision to reversing climate change if we're going to have much success in reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
A few questions to ponder. What role does literature or climate fiction have in convincing us of the urgency around the climate crisis? How bad are things now, and what will our failure to reverse climate change mean for geopolitical issues such as war, immigration, starvation, and drought? How do we get people with conflicting ideologies to work together toward shared problems, and what should we personally be doing to help reverse climate change?
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit
S1E16 Where Do Animals Fit into Human Flourishing? w/ Ike Sharpless
Wednesday, May 12, 2021 • Duration 44:43
Answering questions about what it means for humans to flourish is difficult. Attempting any certainty as to what it means for nonhuman animals to flourish is even more confounding. And yet, these questions have significant overlap.
While some cultures have developed relationships that are responsive to the lives and needs of other animals, some communities—many stemming from modern Western traditions—have tended to view nonhuman animals more like resources. Materials to be managed or controlled for the primary benefit of humanity. From this perspective, the natural world is mechanical, passive, and speechless, seen as distinct from the human world.
But how might attending more to nonhuman perspectives and ways of being contribute to human flourishing? What, if any, moral obligations do we have to the nonhuman members of our particular communities and households?
Jeffrey Howard speaks with Ike Sharpless, a political theorist interested in animal ethics and the history of science and philosophy. He holds two master's degrees from Tufts University. One in law and diplomacy, the other in animals and public policy. In addition to earning a master's degree in political science from UC San Diego, he is also studying to receive his doctorate. He advocates for a more inclusive view of human nature that obscures the divisions between humans and nonhuman animals, inviting us to reflect more on the sensorial encounters we have with other living beings. He takes us on a freewheeling exploration into the challenging territories of animal flourishing, interspecies relationships, and how we might better accommodate nonhuman animals into our political and social systems.
Now some things worth considering. How confident can we be in our understanding of the inner lives of other animals? What are some tangible steps we can individually take to make right our relationships with other animals? Do nonhuman animals have moral agency? In what ways do other living creatures contribute to human wellbeing and what can we do to bolster animal flourishing?
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit
Discover shows related to Damn the Absolute!, based on actual content similarities. Explore podcasts with similar topics, themes, and formats, backed by real data.
