Value of Philosophy at Brain in a Vat

Brain in a Vat is a philosophy podcast and video channel hosted by Jason Werbeloff and Mark Oppenheimer. They recently invited me on to talk about the value of philosophy, touching on matters such as the kind of knowledge philosophy produces, how philosophy can make people’s lives better, how philosophy contributes to aesthetic appreciation, whether philosophy makes progress, risky questions, the analytic-Continental divide in philosophy, and more.

The podcast is available via all the usual podcast services and on Youtube. It’s also right here:

As usual, it takes me a little while to get warmed up, I have my fair share of verbal clumsiness, and there’s a lot more that can be said about all of the topics we cover. That said, I think it was an interesting and fun conversation. Feel free to ask any follow-up questions in the comments here.

One response to “Value of Philosophy at Brain in a Vat”

John Birchler

November 26, 2025 at 3:47 pm

Professor Weinberg’s discussion of the Deaf couples’ desire for a deaf child seems like a missed opportunity. A large majority of the non-philosophers I talk to about philosophy maintain, apparently like Prof. Weinberg, the field of philosophy can provide no direction. This is problematic on many levels. Let’s take the example of the deaf couple that are contemplating taking steps to ensure a fetus is created that would grow to become a deaf child. If we grant such a pursuit is acceptable it seems we must by extension grant making them blind as acceptable. Why not removal of all sensory apparatus? What principal do we use to limit removal of sensory apparatus? Or consider taking a newborn with hearing and making them deaf. Is that acceptable? Would the deaf couple be happy to know they could have had hearing were it not for the actions of their parents? Are we to ignore the common sense idea that hearing is a natural gift? I state these as questions instead of declaratives since the later seems disapproved of nowadays. I trust the answer pointed to is clear.

I do not mean to imply the considerations Prof. Weinberg mentions, doing harm, disabilities, good life, etc., are not meaningful to think about. Just that in this very specific case there is a more direct path to a better way of thinking about the situation. That is, in this case applied ethical thinking actually results in a pretty good answer. We can get somewhere with philosophy. The related case of gender selection, to name one, is far more complicated. Perhaps an approach would be to juxtapose the path to thinking about selecting deafness against selecting gender and see why one is so much more complicated. The danger of merely adding value by asking questions is that people may walk away with the impression that thinking about these questions can only yield ambiguity, complexity. If so, they might as well go with their gut. After all it is faster and easier with no apparent rational difference. Even with the more complicated case it seems advisable to show how clarity of thinking can inform one and yield decisions different from one’s initial gut assessment. If this is never true, what need have we for our intellect, our rationality?

LikeLike

Reply