Gerald J. Erion

Some kinds of “fake news” bits on Saturday Night Live (SNL) become more meaningful when linked back to the work of media theorist Neil Postman. Postman's best‐known book, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, argues that TV journalism will inevitably reflect the influences and biases of television itself. The result is an entertaining but incoherent stream of “disinformation” in a “peek‐a‐boo world” of unfocused and shallow discussion. Using Postman's arguments for structure and support here, this chapter explores similar concerns reflected in the satirical news reporting of SNL. It shows that “Weekend Update” and other such pieces can ground key lessons that help us navigate our increasingly complex media environment, a point that Postman himself considers in his book's closing pages. As our media environment continues to change, it becomes helpful to see Postman's thesis as a valuable philosophical insight, and one that SNL's comedy can illustrate quite effectively.

While The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is certainly entertaining, it can also deliver a deeper analysis of our contemporary media environment. Stewart's analysis echoes that of the celebrated New York University media theorist Neil Postman, whose discerning insights seem to ground some of The Daily Show's sharpest comic bits. Much of The Daily Show's sharpest comedy requires its audience to grasp a Postman‐like criticism of television news. In addition, Stewart himself seems to offer a more general critique of today's televised public discourse that is reminiscent of Postman's in several significant ways. This isn't to say, however, that Postman and Stewart are in perfect agreement. For one thing, Postman argues that the transformation of serious discussion into entertainment is all but inevitable when this discussion takes place on television. Stewart, on the other hand, seems to believe that television can do better.

This chapter explores themes like freedom of expression and what makes for a democratic society by examining characters and situations collected from a variety of South Park episodes. It discusses some of the important democratic concepts and arguments presented by thinkers like Karl Popper and Thomas Jefferson. Of particular interest are the roles of free expression and unfettered intellectual inquiry—even when they're offensive—in a democratic society. Finally, the author speaks that Popper and others understand this sort of freedom to be absolutely essential to a healthy democracy.

This paper reviews goals, content materials, and other essential elements of a new, experimental philosophy course on the built environment of cities now being developed in Buffalo, New York. Applying traditional philosophical methods, the course adds experiential components and expands philosophy’s scope in ways that promote deep learning about the city. A model unit on the work of Frederick Law Olmsted receives special attention here, as Olmsted’s work in Buffalo and elsewhere invites philosophical treatment—analysis, critical examination, and so on—from scholars, students, and city residents alike. We shall see that the distinctive character of philosophy can encourage teaching in new areas where philosophical study might promote learning and understanding, thus inspiring curricular innovation and a wide range of powerful student learning experiences.

We shall identify the subset of objective reality that all people experience during their everyday lives as the common-sense world. The most prominent occupants of this world are medium-sized physical things and people. However, the common-sense world is a rich and exciting domain that is also home to countless other kinds of entities. ;Common sense, then, is the sophisticated, true, and reliable set of fundamental beliefs and abilities shared by all human adults. This knowledge base underlies whatever other knowledge we might obtain, and it allows us to provide expert explanations and predictions about the common-sense world. Like knowledge in general, common-sense knowledge may be either declarative or procedural . Since common sense includes both procedural and declarative knowledge, its justification is both intuitive and pragmatic. Young children acquire common sense through simple experience with the common-sense world, not by undertaking any formal instruction or systematic inquiry. ;Among common sense's most general claims is common-sense realism , a commitment to the objective existence of the common-sense world. The more specific theory of common-sense psychology explains the behavior and mental activity of people in terms of their beliefs and desires. Likewise, naive physics attempts to describe, explain, and predict the behavior of the purely physical parts of the common-sense world. ;Just as there are common-sense theories of psychology and physics, there is also a commonsensical theory of ethics. This important component of common sense is a prerequisite for more sophisticated moral philosophy. It is also a crucial component of common-sense psychology, since we presuppose it during our everyday interactions with others

In Part V of his Discourse on the Method, Descartes introduces a test for distinguishing people from machines that is similar to the one proposed much later by Alan Turing. The Cartesian test combines two distinct elements that Keith Gunderson has labeled the language test and the action test. Though traditional interpretation holds that the action test attempts to determine whether an agent is acting upon principles, I argue that the action test is best understood as a test of common sense. I also maintain that this interpretation yields a stronger test than Turing's, and that contemporary artificial intelligence should consider using it as a guide for future research