David Kyle Johnson

Context: Few professional philosophers have addressed in any detail radical constructivism, but have focused instead on the related assumptions and limitations of postmodern epistemology, various anti-realisms, and subjective relativism. Problem: In an attempt to supply a philosophical answer to the guest editors’ question, “Why isn’t everyone a radical constructivist?” I address the realist (hence non-radical) implications of the theory’s invocation of “others” as an invariable, observer-independent, “external” constraint. Results: I argue that constructivists cannot consistently defend a radically subjectivist theory of knowing while remaining entirely agnostic about the nature and existence of the larger world (including independent others). That is, any non-solipsistic account of human experience must explicitly acknowledge its extra-subjective, ontological dimension. Implications: It follows that no pedagogical, social, philosophical, or commonsensical insight associated with so-called “trivial” or “social” constructivism survives or receives any support from the move to radical constructivism

Christopher Nolan’ Inception is more than its folding cityscapes and mind-bending ambiguous ending. It’s a film that makes its viewer question the very nature of reality. Not only is it possible that the entire movie is a dream, but multiple viewings of Inception leaves one wondering whether the same might be true of one’s experience. Indeed, according to the author of “The Fiction of Christopher Nolan” Todd McGowan, Inception calls its viewers to abandon any concern they have for knowledge of reality and instead choose to believe what they want. But does this moral hold up? Is it philosophically defensible? In this chapter, after a close inspection of the movie itself, this moral will be identified and evaluated. An examination of a number of related arguments by important philosophers will reveal that, although knowledge of reality is sometimes difficult to attain, it should always be sought.

The 2014 movie God’s Not Dead is a clear argument for the truth of its title; in other words, it is an argument that God exists. It does this, primarily, by having its protagonist, college freshman Josh Wheaton, present a number of arguments for God’s existence in front of his philosophy class. It is the purpose of this chapter to evaluate those arguments. In the end, we will see that the movie fails, pretty dramatically, at accomplishing its task, while also unfairly demonizing those who deny its thesis along the way.

Don’t Look Up is a 2021 Netflix original film about two astronomers who discover a 9-kilometer “planet killer” comet on a collision course with Earth. The way humanity responds to this threat – which is less than ideal, given that the movie ends with humanity’s destruction – is supposed to be an allegory for how humanity is dealing with the real-world threat of climate change. Consequently, we argue, the movie is an argument that presents the viewer with a moral imperative: Do all that you can to prevent climate change. But does the argument work? To answer this question, we look at criticism of the movie, decipher its messages, examine the aptness of its analogy, and use the philosophy of Plato, Kant, and Peter Singer to explain exactly what kind of argument the film is. In the end, we conclude that, while most (although not all) criticisms of the film fall flat – it doesn’t really matter. Given that the moral imperative presented by the movie is undeniable, the only appropriate response to the film is an unrelenting effort to fulfill our duty to stop climate change.

Quentin Tarantino’s filmography, especially since the turn of the century, seems to be an argument for the moral justification of revenge. Bill and his D.iV.A.S. hit-squad (from Kill Bill); Adolf Hitler and Hans Landa (from Inglourious Basterds); “Monsieur” Calvin Candie and his loyal house slave Stephen (from Django Unchained); Stuntman Mike and the Manson family killers (from Death Proof and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood); and Daisy Domergue and General Sanford Smithers (from The Hateful Eight) – they all had it coming, and audiences celebrate when they get what they deserve. Revenge, Tarantino reminds us, is a dish best served cold. But is it really the kind of thing that can be morally justified? To see whether it is, this chapter explores arguments both historic and contemporary. After delineating revenge from legal justice and simple retribution and exploring how Tarantino’s films argue for moral justification of revenge, we will consider common everyday arguments on the topic, as well as the relevant arguments of Plato, Baruch Spinoza, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Friedrich Nietzsche, Trudy Govier, Suzanne Uniacke, Andrew Oldenquist, Simone de Beauvoir, Joshua Gert, Gilead Bar-elli, David Heyd, Robert Nozick, and others. In the end, we will see that revenge can be justified – but only in very specific conditions.

Midnight Mass (created by Mike Flanagan) is a Netflix limited series about a small fishing community on Crockett Island and the small Catholic Church that serves as the core of its religious life. A young priest takes over the parish, only to eventually be revealed as the elderly priest who spent his life running it – returned to youth by a creature that he thinks is an angel. He tries to do good for both God and islanders by having his churchgoers drink the creature’s blood – thus healing and making them young again – only for Crockett Island, in the end, to turn into a fiery bloodbath. Not at all a “jump scare” kind of “vampire” series, Midnight Mass is cerebral and deep and – I will argue – serves as an argument for atheism. Not only is the problem of evil articulated, but arguments are presented against belief in miracles, the supernatural, and the afterlife. To boot, it explains away religious belief and endorses the idea that religious faith is dangerous. Each of these arguments will be explored in turn.

Perhaps no show has ever engaged in philosophy as much as South Park. Although it has made many philosophical arguments, this chapter will focus on the arguments South Park makes regarding censorship and freedom of speech, especially the ones made in the banned episodes “Cartoon Wars” (Part I and II), “200” and “201.” Does catering to terrorism create more? Should we respond to terrorism by doing more of what the terrorist want to forbid? When it comes to mockery, is everything fair game? How much should we be willing to sacrifice for freedom of speech? And how far should freedom of speech go? After a historical summary of South Park’s controversies, and by engaging with the works of many past philosophers (e.g., John Stuart Mill and Karl Popper) and contemporary ones (e.g., Geroge Letsas, Aaron James, and Brian Leiter), this chapter will answer these questions and more.

The plot of the first three seasons of the Amazon Prime series The Boys, adapted from the graphic novel by Garth Ennis and Darick Robertson, makes direct comparisons between its superpowered protagonists, the Nazis, and the modern MAGA movement. As such, the series seems to be an argument from analogy that the modern MAGA movement is fascist. It is the goal of this chapter to examine that argument and evaluate its conclusion. In the end, we will see that the analogy is strong, and that the modern MAGA movement is not even just “fascist adjacent.” Although the historical circumstances are different, the modern MAGA movement belongs to the family of fascist political ideologies, just as much as 1930s German Nazism.

Seth MacFarlane’s space adventure, The Orville, is not “Family Guy in Space.” It is a social commentary of the most direct and compelling sort. Through satire, humor, and symbolism, The Orville explores the potential dangers of religion. It does so in individual episodes, such as “If the Stars Should Appear” and “Mad Idolatry,” as well as through the series as a whole in its depiction of how the Union resolves its political differences with the Krill and the Moclans. In this chapter, we will look at how The Orville criticizes religion, both generally and specifically. We will see that while it is not a condemnation of all religious believers, it is a critique of religion itself, suggesting that it can become dangerous when it merges religious dogma with political power.

The people in utopias have many characteristics Abraham Maslow said self‐actualized people have: they're accepting, spontaneous, creative, appreciative of life, honest, responsible, and hardworking; they even maintain deep relationships and have childlike wonder. In Star Trek: Mission Log, Ken Ray defends life under the care of Norman's androids on Mudd's planet as preferable because of its possibilities for self‐actualization. Self‐actualization is impossible unless the basic biological, safety, and social needs are met, all of which the spores and Vaal guarantee. The spores even saved the colonists’ lives. Once one achieves self‐actualization, it's easy to pity those who can't attain it; but for those who struggle just to survive, giving up safety and security for an unlikely chance at self‐actualization would seem crazy. The criticisms of Vaal seem to echo the criticisms of communism, and the control a communist government must exercise in providing for its people.

Some fans have suggested that the titles of the Skywalker Saga films are in the wrong order. Episode VIII: The Last Jedi should've been “A New Hope” ‐since Luke's sacrifice in his battle with Kylo gives Rey and The Resistance a new hope in their struggle against the First Order. In his Two Treatises of Government, Locke argues for a better solution: a separation of religious and political power. Religion should be a private affair; politics and government should be a secular matter. To understand Luke's position, it's important to understand that pacifism is not a call to inaction; when something wrong occurs that could be stopped by violence, the pacifist is not obligated to stand around and do nothing. Especially when it's an act of violence, the pacifist is obligated to stop it.

Some Saturday Night Live (SNL) religion sketches are relatively harmless. Sears pulled their advertising from NBC's online posting of the sketch and Jim Baker argued that it was the “most blasphemous skit in SNL history.” Actor Pat Boone, who starred in the film, objected to the SNL parody, equating it to an attack on God and suggesting that the writers had earned themselves a place in hell. SNL was birthed into existence in conflict with religion. That conflict came to a head on October 3, 1992 when Sinead O'Connor – after singing an acapella version of Bob Marley's “War” – held up a picture of Pope John Paul II, sang the word “evil,” tore the picture to shreds, and shouted “Fight the real enemy!”. The Republic is essentially one long argument that it's better to be like O'Connor because being virtuous comes with its own internal reward that far outweighs the reward of public recognition.

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called 'mystery, therefore magic fallacy' (MTM). One commits the (MTM) when one takes the fact that one cannot find a “natural” or “rational” explanation for some event or thing as a reason to favor or to accept a magical, supernatural, or fantastic explanation for that event or thing. This fallacy gets its name from the fact that we instinctually avoid it every time we watch a good magic show. MTM is very common in religious circles since “God did it” is often the religious supernatural explanation of choice. In fact, MTM is simply another way of committing the appeal to ignorance fallacy. When committing MTM, one simply takes one's inability to prove there is a natural explanation (by finding one) to be a good reason to conclude there is not one.

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called 'proximate causation'. One commits this variety of causal fallacy when one mistakes the relevance of proximate causation. One mistakes the relevance of proximate causation when one thinks the fact that something is a proximate cause makes it irrelevant to the story of how the event in question happened. Mistaking the relevance of proximate causation can also “go the other way”. That is, one can overinflate the importance of something being a proximate cause. This is often done by those looking to avoid responsibility for their actions. Matters of causation are never simple. And sometimes whether something is a proximate cause is relevant to the issue at hand. But we must be careful to make sure that we do not mistake its relevance.

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called 'all or nothing (AON)'. AON presents a false dilemma by suggesting that there are only two options – either all or nothing – when in fact there are many more options in the middle ground between those two extremes. AON also happens in the political arena anytime a politician insists that being against one of the policies is equivalent to being against all of them. Often people adopt a kind of all or nothing attitude when it comes to supporting a candidate or political party. Of course, the argument suggests that gun laws would be completely ineffectual – criminals would still find ways to buy guns. But AON also appears in politics when people are proposing or drafting laws and policy.

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy, 'anthropomorphic bias'. One displays an anthropomorphic bias when one displays a tendency to ascribe humanlike characteristics, usually mental properties or agency, to things that do not have it. One is guilty of the anthropomorphic bias, however, when one stretches this kind of reasoning too far – when one sees a single or limited number of things that remind him of humanlike behavior and then jumps to the conclusion that the entity in question possesses a humanlike mind. An example that is a bit more obvious and egregious is when people conclude that ghosts are the cause of unexplained noises or motions. Although this invokes the mystery therefore magic fallacy, it also includes ascribing humanlike agency to something that does not have it: the cause of the noise or motion.

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called 'subjective validation'. An objective validation of a statement can be accomplished by showing that the statement actually matches up to the way the world is; this can be done by comparing the statement to the world itself. Combined with other mistakes, like confirmation bias and availability error, subjective validation can fool people into thinking that psychics can read their minds, predict the future, or even communicate with the dead. Although the subjective validation of Nostradamus's “predictions” doesn't fuel much else besides silly beliefs in the paranormal, falling prey to subjective validation can be much more costly. The same subjective validation “retrodiction” techniques are also used to interpret the prophecies of the Bible, like those that are supposedly in the Book of Revelation.

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called the suppressed evidence. This fallacy is as simple as it seems: one commits the fallacy when one presents evidence or an argument for a position but leaves out (or suppresses) relevant evidence that would weaken or show false one's conclusion. Suppression of evidence is commonly found in the (mis)presentation of statistics. Suppression of evidence is most common among conspiracy theorists. The fallacy of suppressing the evidence can come from left, right, or center. According to The Skeptics Dictionary, scientists sometimes do it, reporters do it, and pretty much everybody does it now and again. It is an extremely effective way to make one's argument appear stronger than it is. But those interested in the truth should always present all the evidence they can, regardless of whether it hurts or hinders what they want to believe.

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called ' representative heuristic'. A heuristic is a shortcut rule, or guide, by which one tries to organize one's understanding of the world. The representative heuristic is the rule that suggests we should associate things that are alike, grouping them together, usually invoking “the principle that members of a category should resemble a prototype”. A way the representative heuristic leads us astray is by making us apt to think that causes and their effects must resemble each other – that like causes like. This is most striking in the realm of alternative and “natural” medicine, where certain physical qualities of objects are thought to be transferable to those who ingest them.

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called 'Galileo gambit'. Perhaps the best way to describe the fallacy is as an association fallacy or a faulty analogy. The Galileo gambit fallacy is committed by those theories that contradict the mainstream scientific consensus. The Galileo gambit is often used to suggest that science is not open to criticism, but nothing could be further from the truth. No one is more open to criticism than the scientist; that is how we make sure we are not wrong and get closer to the truth. Persons who are making the Galileo gambit in recent times are Rupert Sheldrake and his morphic resonance/fields, Bigfoot believers, UFO enthusiasts, creationists, conspiracy theorists of all stripes, and people who deny climate change.

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called countless counterfeits. The countless counterfeits fallacy occurs when one argues that the fact that there is an abundance of unreliable evidence for a conclusion is a good reason to think there is reliable evidence for that conclusion. A countless number of counterfeit pieces of evidence are seen as a good reason to think that some such evidence is legitimate. In the Townsend article, Kreeft suggests that an abundance of counterfeit ghost sightings “strongly argues for” the existence of real ones. Indeed, this fallacy is committed most often in discussions regarding what James Randi calls “flim‐flam” (i.e., pseudoscience and the paranormal). It's utilized to defend belief not only in ghosts, but in UFOs, demons, alternative medicine, and even conspiracy theories.

One commits the availability error when one pays attention to, or is compelled by, the readily available evidence – the evidence that is obvious, memorable, or psychologically compelling – instead of taking into account all the evidence or the reliable evidence. This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called availability error. The availability error contributes to confirmation bias, the tendency to only pay attention to the evidence that confirms what we believe and ignore the evidence that doesn't. The availability error also encourages other fallacies, such as hasty generalization – where you generalize about an entire group based on a statistically insignificant portion of that group. In fact, memory is especially susceptible to the availability error because we are apt to remember only what is memorable, and that is often only what is psychologically compelling.

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy: the constructive nature of human perception. Many of the things that we believe are generated by our senses interacting with the outside world. Our brains make decisions about what information to interpret and how to do so mostly based on our assumptions, preconceptions, and desires. An assumption that informs how we interpret the information that our brain receives is that the size, color, and shape of objects is constant. This allows us to perceive an object the same way even if how we are seeing it is changing. There are of course countless visual illusions that demonstrate this fact. This is why science has proved to be such a powerful tool in understanding the world; it is designed specifically to guard against the way our senses can lead us astray.

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy, “confirmation bias”. Confirmation bias is the human tendency only to look for evidence that confirms what one wants to believe or what one already thinks is true. Usually people are not too keen to look for evidence against what they want to believe is true. The human propensity for self‐delusion is strong. When one is confronted with sufficient evidence against some belief that one holds, what one should do is reject that belief ‐ at least if one is concerned with truth. When we surround ourselves with people and views that already agree with our own, we can draw erroneous conclusions. Confirmation bias greatly hinders one's ability to find the truth. Confirmation bias and evidence denial is why we start “seeing something everywhere” once you learn about it. The more scrutiny a belief can withstand, the more likely it is that it's true.

Conscious technology features in many Black Mirror episodes. For example, there are the cookies in White Christmas, the people uploaded into the San Junipero simulation, Robert Daly's digital copies of his coworkers in USS Callister, and the copy of Clayton Leigh that is exhibited in Black Museum. But would such pieces of technology really be conscious? Would they, for example, feel pain? And how could we tell? Is uploading or replicating someone's consciousness even possible? This chapter explores these questions and discusses the ethical issues that are raised by consciousness technology.

Bandersnatch is a unique piece of television. Like the eponymous choose your own adventure book at the center of its winding narrative, the episode lets the viewer actively make choices that shape the direction of the story. In this same spirit, we present this chapter in an equally novel way: as a collection of miniature essays on a dozen or so philosophical topics, loosely bound together. Just as in the episode, the reader's choices will determine the philosophical path she takes through the chapter. The authors engage primarily with questions about freedom: Do we have free will? Is there any relationship between free will and moral responsibility? Can artistic expression provide us with socio‐political freedom? How does technology restrict freedom? In addition, we explore existential concerns about choice, consider the possibility of time travel and multiple universes, and ethically take viewers to task for decisions they made while watching the episode.