Chapters
Shownotes Transcript
Hello everyone, I'm Stephen West. This is Philosophize This. Thanks for supporting on Patreon. So today we're talking about the philosopher Martha Nussbaum. She's one of the names that often comes up in conversations about the greatest living philosophers. We did an episode on some of her work, episode 190, and for whatever it's worth, that episode has become the most listened to episode in the last year of the show, which is pretty nifty. I'm sure she cares a lot about that whole title.
But if you don't remember the episode, we talked about her concept of neo-stoicism. We talked about how to Martha Nussbaum, the history of Western thought has been filled with this mistaken way of thinking about the emotions. But when we're trying to learn more about the world around us, people typically just assume that there's two ways you could be looking at it. You got clear thinking on the one hand, that is rational thinking where we use logic and deduction to figure things out. And then on the other hand, we have unclear ways of thinking that are more emotional, more irrational.
The assumption by so many over the years has been that to base your understanding of something on an emotional response you have to it, well, that just makes you a moron. Emotions are irrational things. For the love of Christ, man, pull yourself together and start thinking more rationally and logically about stuff. That's what a lot of people would say here. But as we laid out on episode 190 to Martha Nussbaum, this is the wrong way to be thinking about it.
That in reality, to her, when you pay attention to what the emotions are, when emotions are properly examined, they are actually extremely valuable appraisals of our reality. And people are always making these sorts of appraisals about the things that matter to them. So as she says, if we don't pay close enough attention to these emotions, we run the risk of completely missing huge pieces of what makes our societies and our relationships with other people even function at a basic level.
And to set the stage for the piece of her work we're talking about today, let's give a concrete example of the sort of thing she's talking about here. You may remember from the episode her comparing the two emotional responses of shame and guilt. The example I used in the episode was to imagine yourself getting into a car accident, rear-ending someone, where it's 100% your fault. And when you get out of the car there after crashing into that someone, staring at the smoking cars on the side of the road, do you feel shame or do you feel guilt when you're in that moment?
And as we talked about to Nussbaum, the specific emotion that you're feeling there actually matters a lot. And you need to examine it because it can tell you important things about the way you're looking at the world. So naturally, in her philosophy, she examines these emotional responses pretty deeply. "Shame," she says, for example, when you look at it real closely, what you find is that it's typically a pretty narcissistic emotion, more inwardly focused. Shame is where you've set up this ideal standard for yourself up inside your head.
And when you don't live up to being perfect in a particular moment, then you start to have feelings of shame. So she says a solution to shame oftentimes becomes for people to just convince yourself that you're perfect again, at least for a while until the next thing comes along in life and that whole self-obsessed illusion gets washed away yet again.
Whereas with the emotion of guilt, she says, you know, if guilt was your response to running into someone on the road, that's an emotion she notices that always fundamentally acknowledges the rights of the other person, the rights that are being infringed upon in that situation.
So to contrast guilt and shame as two possible emotional responses, she says notice that fixing feelings of shame is always about making yourself feel better, while fixing guilt is a person doing something that repairs the wrong that was done to another person.
Now, both these are negative emotions. Neither one of these are fun to feel. But if you had to feel one of them and you examine each of them, they have two completely different orientations towards reality and attitudes towards what the solution to the problem might be. And to Martha Nussbaum, guilt starts to seem like a far more constructive emotional response for people to be having if you lived in a type of society where it was important that the relationships between people in it need to be trusting and cooperative.
However, at the same time, she says, you can also imagine how shame in some other society, different power structure, different social norms, shame you can imagine in that world could be a far more useful emotion for the population to be feeling than guilt. So this is the kind of thing Martha Nussbaum does when examining these emotions deeper.
And we'll see how this kind of analysis of these specific emotions is going to be very important for our conversation here today. But the larger point in episode 190, though, was this. That to Nussbaum, instead of ignoring our emotional responses to things, what we actually need to be doing is examining them even more deeply than we already do. And what if instead of these common strategies people like to do to get away from the emotions, say, turning cynical towards everything, denying the importance of things so you don't have to feel emotions as much,
Or how about turning more stoic towards everything so you can have some kind of inner solitude against emotions where I don't worry about external things. They don't bother me anymore in my state of wisdom. Nussbaum asks, what if instead of doing all that, we accept that we're always living in relation to some external events that are going on, that we're always going to be having emotional responses to the things that matter to us, and
And what if we saw examining them as one of the most crucial parts of a person's development and arrived at an understanding of the emotions, not as useless, irrational, animalistic spasms as they've been thought about in the past, but what if the emotions can actually tell us a lot of important stuff about how a person or a society is appraising reality in terms of what is valuable to them?
are we neglecting an extremely important aspect of understanding human thought and cooperation more generally? So building off this portion of her work that we talked about before, knowing all this is so important to her, if you asked Martha Nussbaum about many of the problems we've been talking about on this podcast lately, she's not going to be an anarchist that thinks we just need to remove forced hierarchical authority.
She's not going to be an anti-capitalist where she thinks the answer is revolution. No, she's going to be someone who thinks these problems can be solved from within the current system as it exists. And don't get her wrong. Absolutely, she would say, structural changes, economic reforms, flattening the hierarchies, all these things may be a good thing for people. And let's certainly have a conversation about it.
But what if a major factor that we're completely overlooking here, that's the reason our democracies have been functioning so poorly, and the reason so many people currently feel powerless to be able to change anything,
maybe what has changed in recent years is not that the system has proven to be a failure, but that maybe a toxic level of fear as an emotion has overtaken our political discourse and it's gotten to such an extreme level that the democratic institutions we believe in and the ways they're designed to work essentially cannot function from within this new climate of fear that we've created. To put it another way, what if the problem is actually that anything political is always emotional?
And what if the primary emotion of our politics has become fear? And that instead of inciting some total revolution, what if we already have the system we need to be able to solve our political problems, but that what we need as citizens, if we want to be able to use our democracies and the ways they were designed to work, is we need to be living a more examined life when it comes to our political emotions, so that we're not so easily captured by media companies and politicians that use our emotions to keep us locked in a monarchy of fear.
That's the title of her book that we're talking about today, The Monarchy of Fear. I mean, to just start making a case for that point, if you wanted to, fear is the emotion you would take advantage of if you were trying to establish or maintain a monarchy.
I mean, fear is a currency within a monarchy. When you can get people to constantly fear outside threats that are going to come in, ruin their lives, take everything they have, when you can even get people to fear each other from within a society, that is exactly the point that people will start to gather together under a strong, absolute leader that is promising to keep them safe from all those threats. It's a time-tested strategy from all throughout human history.
So like she does with many of the other emotions, Martha Nussbaum does a full examination of the emotion of fear.
And to show how primal of an emotion we're dealing with when we talk about fear, she spends time not only looking at the evolutionary origins of it, but at the origins of fear and our psychological development as children. Maybe you'll remember from last episode, but she has a pretty provocative statement she's known for. She says that human babies are born into this world as little tyrants. And it may sound there like she's coming at all the babies of the world, trying to put them all on blast, but
But in fact, what she means is that the babies need to be little tyrants, in part because of this asymmetry between how physically helpless they are and how cognitively aware they are about what's going on around them. Meaning we all start our lives as this little meatball just laying there, oddly aware of the stuff going on around us. But every problem we're capable of noticing is something some adult needs to fix for us. To Nussbaum, this is the stage that the emotional response of fear starts to develop.
We feel fear, and this goes for later in life as well, when there is some threat to our existence that we are not capable of warding off all on our own. And that very basic emotional response to things in the world becomes a primal circuitry that sticks with us throughout our entire lives. It's always there. We just typically fear fewer things as life goes on because we become more capable of warding things off on our own or with a support system. To put this more in the language of organizing a society, though,
As time goes on, people mature and they develop more of an ability to find alternatives to living in fear. We learn to calm down. We consider possibilities. We find a way to work things out by cooperating with the other people around us. And this is what the basic foundation is of a democracy at all. But regardless of any of this, to Martha Nussbaum, we always got to remember that primal circuitry, that fear, is constantly lurking in the background, waiting to be stirred up by someone.
And con artists and abusive partners and salespeople and so many others out there all know this good and well, and they'll often try to use this fear against people to get whatever it is they want. But another group of people that know this, that are important to distinguish here, are the people that control our political discourse. That is, the politicians, the political influencers, the media companies. All these people understand that fear sells. Fear is something that gets people clicking.
It's something that gets people tuning in the next day so they can sell their viewers soap during the commercial breaks. Fear is a really good way to move the needle, no doubt about it. But as Martha Nussbaum is going to say, fear is also an emotion that when left unexamined is fundamentally toxic to the processes of democracy in particular. Because she says democracy is a specific way of organizing society that heavily relies on trust and cooperation between people. It
It requires civil dialogue. It requires us mutually seeking the common good. It requires us to have hope for a future and an ability to calm down and resolve these things among ourselves, even when we don't like the people we're talking to. Now, if you wanted to live in a democracy, then to Martha Nussbaum, these are some of the things we need to make this type of system work. And I guess it needs to be said, maybe you don't want to be living in a democracy.
That's not me being sarcastic here. It's certainly a conversation people out there might be entertaining and that some are having. There's growing discontent with democracy as a system lately. Neo-monarchical thought has now openly crept its way into some of the highest levels of political office today. And maybe covering the philosophy behind this neo-monarchical philosophical trend is an episode you people would want to hear about. Let me know. But the point here today is that to Martha Nussbaum,
If you're wondering why our democratic institutions seem less capable of solving our political problems than they've been in the past, we have to consider this fact that we have an emotional climate of fear that's better suited to make a monarchy work well than it is to make a democracy work well. So this isn't just a point from her that wouldn't it be wonderful if everybody just wasn't afraid of each other anymore. No, fear, she's saying, is particularly toxic to the type of system we're currently trying to make work.
let's take a step back and look at some of the criticisms of this idea. Martha Nussbaum responds to a lot of them in the book. And she says one of the most common ones she faces is when someone comes up to her and says, hey, fear is not a bad thing in and of itself. You're mischaracterizing it. They say, you know, as somebody that studies the emotion so much, it's kind of surprising you don't think about this, Martha Nussbaum. But fear is something that any society, whether it's a monarchy or not, needs in order to operate well.
It's very simple. The people fear bad things happening in the future, and then they take political action to make sure those things don't occur. Fear is a natural part of how anything good ever gets done in a democracy ever. So how could you ever say that's a bad thing, Martha Nussbaum? And what she'd say back to this person is, yeah, I agree, fear is always a part of it. But when you just so smoothly mention there that fear leads to good outcomes within a democracy...
You're smuggling in the entire democratic process that is examining that fear response and then turning it into something productive. Let's not forget, she'd say, fear begins in that primal state we just talked about: unexamined, reactionary, toxic to democracy. It's only through extensive rational deliberation that we ever get to anything someone could consider to be remotely constructive. Let's break this point down a little deeper so we can understand where Nussbaum's coming from. The point is not to get rid of fear entirely.
No, like her work on the other emotions, we just need to examine it more closely. And the type of unexamined fear that we're dealing with in our political discourse is one where people are panicking, just trying to control things. They're not trying to solve any of the actual problems anymore. She compares the way we're talking to each other to the way it's like to be in a bad relationship. She says what happens sometimes when things get sufficiently bad between two people?
is that the two of them get to a point where they aren't even really talking about the problems anymore in good faith. They're not pausing and reflecting. They're just being reactionary and trying to assess blame for everything in real time. You left your dishes in the sink because you just don't care about our relationship anymore, do you? Oh, okay, but you only hate that I don't do the dishes right away because it's a negative reflection on you and your perfectionist ego over there. It's like at a certain point, you're not even talking about the problems anymore.
And Martha Nussbaum thinks this type of interaction happens more and more often when unexamined fear is allowed to corrupt this entire process. In fact, she says, to turn this away from arguments about doing the dishes to things at a more societal level, there are other negative emotions that people have living in a democracy that in one context can be used as constructive negative emotions. But when they become infected by this primary fear that's underneath them, they turn toxic. The three examples she gives in the book are anger, disgust, and envy.
And if you're wondering how any of those could ever be used in a constructive way, well, one example of it when it comes to envy is maybe the way that Nietzsche saw envy. How, from one perspective, during his time at least, envy is considered to be one of the seven deadly sins. It's one of the worst feelings you could possibly have and act upon. But in another sense, he says, from a more examined perspective, envy becomes this measuring stick you can use that's completely personalized to you to figure out what it is you want in life that other people have.
Again, here is an emotion that on the surface seems to be purely negative, that with just a little more examination to it can become something that is constructive.
And there are constructive ways of using disgust when it avoids illness and disease. And there are constructive ways to use anger when it moves someone to change things in their life for the better. The question really becomes then, when do anger, disgust, and envy become something that is toxic to the democratic process? And to Martha Nussbaum, again, the answer is going to be when the more primary emotion of fear becomes the driving force behind these emotions.
For example, anger corrupted by fear becomes something that seeks retribution or pain in the people causing the anger.
Envy corrupted by fear can become something that leads to class warfare. Disgust corrupted by fear can be something that gets projected onto entire groups of people, their culture, or their lifestyle. It's not until fear, in other words, becomes a primary component of what is driving these emotions that politicians and the media can then use them to manipulate people in a way where they are toxic to our ability to trust each other and cooperate within a democracy.
And just so we don't kind of interrupt the show at any point beyond this, I want to thank the sponsors of the show today that signed a contract to help the podcast continue to be a thing. For an ad-free version of the show, sub at any level at patreon.com slash philosophize this. First up today is Rocket Money. How much do you think you're paying in subscriptions every month?
The answer is probably more than you think. Over 74% of people have subscriptions that they've forgotten about. All you got to do is be even a little disorganized, having subscriptions come out of multiple different accounts. This one over here comes out of PayPal, that one. Next thing you know, you're wasting a thousand bucks a year on stuff you don't even use. You don't cancel it because you think about it so little at this point that it doesn't even cross your mind to cancel it.
Thanks to Rocket Money, though, I'm no longer wasting money on the ones I forgot about. Rocket Money is a personal finance app that finds and cancels your unwanted subscriptions, monitors your spending, and helps lower your bills so that you can grow your savings. Rocket Money has over 5 million users and has saved a total of $500 million in canceled subscriptions, saving members up to $740 a year while using all the app's features.
Stop wasting money on things you don't use. Cancel your unwanted subscriptions by going to rocketmoney.com slash pt. That's rocketmoney.com slash pt, rocketmoney.com slash pt.
Next up, this episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Do you ever feel like you're falling behind in life? In a world where everyone shares their best moments online on social media, it's easy to believe that everyone else is doing a lot better than you are. But remember, what you see on those people's pages is just the surface. Everyone has their struggles, and comparing yourself to others can sometimes take a toll on your happiness.
Therapy can help you break free from this cycle. It provides a space to focus on your own growth and well-being, helping you to develop the skills you need to navigate life's challenges. Whether you're looking to build resilience, improve your relationships, or just need someone to talk to, therapy offers support for anyone looking to enhance their mental health.
If you're considering therapy, try BetterHelp. BetterHelp is entirely online, flexible, convenient, and suited to your schedule. Just fill out a brief questionnaire to be matched with a licensed therapist, and you can change therapists at any time without additional costs. Stop comparing and start focusing with BetterHelp. Visit betterhelp.com slash fill this today to get 10% off your first month. That's betterhelp, H-E-L-P dot com slash fill this.
Last but not least is NordVPN. Do you ever get concerned about your online privacy? What if I told you there's a service out there that can hide your digital footprint, ensuring that your private data, things like bank details, passwords, online identity, remains safe from prying eyes? But that's not all. What if I also told you that same service would also allow you to access TV shows, films, and sporting events that aren't available in your region simply by switching your location?
That sounds like a service, I would say. It provides freedom to the people. Well, NordVPN is the thing that offers that freedom. For about the price of a cup of coffee per month, it is the fastest VPN in the world and one account can be used on up to 10 different devices, giving you the peace of mind of having your own cyber bodyguard protecting your devices 24/7.
Plus, their dark web monitor feature scours the dark web to see if any of your data has been leaked, notifying you immediately if any of your information is out there. So if you're interested in giving it a try and you want to support the podcast, to get the best discount off your NordVPN plan, go to nordvpn.com slash philothis, P-H-I-L-O-T-H-I-S.
Our link will also give you four extra months on the two-year plan. There's no risk with Nord's 30-day money-back guarantee. The link is in the podcast episode description box. And now, back to the podcast.
And it just needs to be reiterated right here that this is an extremely common thing that politicians and media influencers are doing. It's stoking fear in the hearts of people. Like, is this something that you can relate to in any way? Like, have you ever been led to believe that the end of the world is just around the corner? The end of civilization? The end of democracy? Has anybody who's a politician or in the media ever made you feel that way?
Well, to Martha Nussbaum, building off the politics of Aristotle, stoking fear like that in the population is actually the opposite of what a politician or a public intellectual is supposed to be doing in a democracy. It should be said it's perfect if you wanted to live in a monarchy. But again, a democracy requires civil dialogue, deliberation, and an attempt to bring about the common good. So she says, if you were a politician or an intellectual that's trying to make the tools of a democracy work well...
You wouldn't be stoking fear. You would act as that calming influence that slows down, looks at the situation from several different angles, considers the possibilities, and fosters a hope in the people that need to deliberate within that democracy to solve the problem. That would be an effective use of the political system you have. Not going out there and riling people up against their supposed political enemy.
Reminds me of that scene from Lord of the Rings where the orcs are invading and the king's just losing it. He's like, run, run for your lives. And Gandalf just cracks him. He's like, prepare for battle. That's what a politician should be doing. Metaphorically, of course, don't go out there cracking people.
We need people that are trying to get the gears of democracy turning so that the system can actually work. And fear, she says, is an emotion that if you pay attention to it, fear shrinks our possibilities. It retreats people inward. It makes them feel like they have to reject the experiences of other people in order to save their own lives.
But people can say back to all this, "Look, I'm all for a good bout of democratic participation, don't get me wrong." But from my perspective, most of the problems we're facing today are best addressed at a structural level or at the level of legislation. This person could say that the goal shouldn't be for us to reason with all these people that are holding society back. Look, sometimes in this world, society has to move forward through the implementation of law.
And the people that don't agree with that law sometimes need to be dragged along with the changing times. Otherwise, you're just meeting these horrible people at the dinner table, having conversations with them, and legitimizing their points.
To which Martha Nussbaum says, sure, that whole strategy may work very well for people in a monarchy, you know, where you can use fear and intimidation to force people into submission. But that doesn't end up working out as well in a functioning democracy. I mean, if mask mandates during the pandemic showed us anything, they showed us that it doesn't matter if people in some distant government building somewhere create a new rule for everyone.
If the people on the ground level in a democracy don't understand the rule or don't think it should be a rule, people are just not going to follow it. Again, something that if you wanted to live in a monarchy would be a very inconvenient reality of us needing to have better conversations with each other and be on the same page.
But this tendency, Martha Nussbaum says, to fear our political opponents and turn them into the people that are destroying our democracy is ironically the very type of attitude that is destroying democracy's ability to function. And importantly to her, it's really only something that goes on in a country that is overly segregated. In fact, this is why one of the solutions she offers to all this towards the end of the book, a very unexpected thing to hear from a philosopher at first,
is that she's in favor, at least in the United States where she's from, of a mandatory national service plan for the young people of the country. This is a good idea, she says, because if we want to fix the segregation in our country, we have to understand the two main reasons it's happening. One is that we generally live apart from each other, geographically speaking. The fact is most people just don't see or have deeper interactions with many people from different classes, races, or cultural backgrounds. That's one element of it, she says.
And number two is that, at least in the US, we're typically raised to think as individuals, or as she says, in more of a narcissistic way, where by default, we usually start by considering what's good for my family here, not necessarily what's going to be the best for every type of person out there that could possibly exist.
For Nussbaum, this is something that obviously every society faces at some level, but in the U.S., this is a little more pronounced than it is in other countries. And it's for these reasons that Nussbaum thinks a youth national civil service program would go a long way towards letting young people get to know about the country that they're a part of.
She says about the specifics of the program in the book, the program would be, quote, modeled on the civil service arm of Germany's former national service requirement, but entirely civil and for all young people. My program would enroll young people, preferably for three years, and send them to do the work that urgently needs doing all over America, elder care, child care, infrastructure work, but always sending people into different regions, both geographically and economically, end quote.
Again, to Martha Nussbaum, a program like this would open young people's eyes to the very people and lifestyles that they're turning into the other later on in life through the media. The thinking is, getting people to have these toxic levels of fear about an entire group of people almost always requires you to know almost nothing about them. It's almost like, with it being so possible for people to insulate themselves into echo chambers through media, and with the deliberate change in media strategy as of late,
Maybe this kind of exposure is just a wise thing for a country to do if it wants a population of people that can understand and solve the political problems of the culture they're living in. On a more general note, when talking about solutions, Martha Nussbaum says that if the emotion we're over-focusing on here is unexamined fear, then just like with the conversation about shame and guilt from before, part of how we need to be thinking about solutions is by thinking about which emotions are more productive for members of a democracy to be focusing on.
And to her, the answer is obvious. The flip side of fear, if you had to come up with one, is the emotion of hope. Think about the relationship for a second between fear and hope. Both of them, she says, are reactions to uncertainty, but they react to it in opposing ways. Fear sees uncertainty and shrinks back. Hope, on the other hand, expands and surges forward.
Fear causes us to remove possibilities. Hope seeks to bring about new ones. Fear, she says, is self-protective. Hope, on the other hand, is more vulnerable. She cites the work of the philosopher Immanuel Kant and what he wrote about the importance of hope. Nussbaum says, "...one of the moral duties Kant believed we have during our life is to do things that produce valuable social goals, the kinds of things that make it more likely that people will treat each other as ends in themselves, not only as a means to some other end they desire."
And to Kant, no matter how much uncertainty we think we might see out there in the world that might make us react with fear or might tempt us to turn inwardly stoic or to turn cynical towards everything, we have to realize, to Kant, that for good things to be done in this world ever, it requires there being someone that has at least some shred of hope for a better future.
Think about it, Nussbaum says. When you think about a con artist that's robbing old people out of all their retirement money, or some bad actor anywhere, when you're thinking about that person sitting around planning whatever it is they're going to do, you
You would wish that they'd get to a point where they'd question themselves, get frustrated at the situation, and lose all hope. You would wish that the worst person in history was sitting around, disappointed about the way the world is and saying stuff like, "Meh, it's pointless. I'm a con artist. There's so much oversight out there. What can you do?"
Civil regulatory agencies are just gonna get me anyway. Why do anything? I guess I'll just sit around and do nothing. Yeah, sounds a lot like the inner monologue of a cynical cliche of postmodernism that would otherwise be doing a lot of good in the world. The importance of all this for Nussbaum is that if we have an obligation to do good in the world, then we also have an obligation to will ourselves to the kind of emotions that are gonna surge forward in the face of uncertainty.
Or as Nussbaum says very briefly, quote, "Good works need hope," end quote. Whether that's caring for a child where you have no idea how the child's ever going to turn out, but you have to show up every day and hope and do the work to engage in that process every day.
whether that's trying to make a relationship work. To continue her metaphor of the bad relationship from before, she says, imagine being in a marriage where every day you're just foreshadowing to the end of the marriage, saying, is the end of our marriage right around the corner? Find out when we ask again on the six o'clock news of this house. It's like being a member of a functioning democracy requires you to be someone who isn't fantasizing about being the harbinger of doom in a cheap horror movie all the time. We
We have to will ourselves every day to have the hope that's necessary to give the democratic process a chance and to sit around foreshadowing about the end of the world all the time. Again, it's great for cliques. It's great for a monarchy, but it's just plain bad for a democracy. And people will hear that and they'll say, yeah, I get it. All right. Politicians in the media stoke fear in people. This is 101 level media literacy. I get it.
But look, have you seen the news today? It actually is the end of the world this time. I swear this. I'm super serious, guys. Listen to me, you know, just endlessly getting played.
But to Martha Nussbaum, the world didn't end in 2020. It didn't end in 2016. It didn't end in 2012. This recency bias that the history of the world has somehow been this pristine paradise where nobody had any serious problems and now all the big problems are here. She goes through the last hundred years of crisis after crisis in the Western world. Every one of these were monumental challenges and definitely would have been used to stoke fear in the hearts of people all over the world today.
But nonetheless, somehow, we got through them each and every time. Talking about the end of the world all the time is not helping anybody in a democracy. In fact, it actually makes you an enemy to the democratic process for reasons we've already laid out. And we need to stop giving these people that spread unexamined fear so much respect. We have to raise our standards for what we allow people to say for the sake of their own self-promotion.
And just for clarity, what Martha Nussbaum's saying here is not simply that you need to be holding your politicians and media more accountable. Certainly that's part of it. But don't just stop and say, hey, hey, these people in government, these two parties are just living in fear of each other. They can't compromise. But come on, guys, let's get to work on some good old-fashioned bipartisan legislation. It's like, no, that's fine. But what she's talking about starts with us. In other words, consider the fact that you might be part of the problem.
Martha Nussbaum says it was tough accepting this about herself at first. It's tough in general. I mean, it's so tempting to just wallow in all these videos and articles that come up in your feed, you know, to find the most cartoonish example of the people that disagree with you and then to write a story where that's the people that are running this whole world off a cliff. You know, the work begins, though, with the way that we're treating each other.
As far as more solutions to this go, Martha Nussbaum thinks they lie in the areas that are the most effective at stimulating hope and a genuine understanding between different people. So for her, that's going to lie in things like critical thinking. It lies in religious faith that's centered around love and respect. It lies in things like the arts as a place where people can come into contact with the expression of other human beings that are entirely different from them as a way to further end this segregation.
She says, quote, "The arts offer bridges to seeing human diversity as joyful, funny, tragic, delightful, not as a horrible fate to be shunned," end quote. She says we need to have more public spaces for people to come into contact with other ideas and have conversations about them. Public libraries always come to my mind for some reason. I mean, they're publicly funded. Barely anybody ever uses them anymore. They're indoors. You're surrounded by books.
I mean, I would totally make time to go to a public library every week if there were people there whose wisdom I could glean just a little bit from. I mean, those kinds of conversations are something that I think a lot of people are seeking more of in their life in general. Why doesn't somebody out there do this, though? Anyway, all of this I think would be a welcome idea to explore at a Nussbaum.
Because ultimately, she compares what's needed here to the classic example of Socrates in the Athenian Agora. The people of Athens during the time of Socrates, she says. And ask yourself if this reminds you of any people you see around you today. But she says the people of Athens were, quote, "...careless, hasty, prone to overconfident boasting, and to substituting invective for argument. The result was, and is, that people don't know what they really believe. They have just not stopped to sort this out." End quote.
People today, in other words, don't often even know what they really believe. They barely think about it. They make fun of people who do think about it. And when they're forced to give an answer on their thoughts, when they're really pressed on it, they're often absolutely clueless about what to believe or why to believe it. See, because people can argue back to Nussbaum when she comes at you with this argument about hope. Okay, hope sounds good, but hope for what future in particular, Martha Nussbaum?
I mean, there's so many futures to choose from. And more than that, are we just supposed to sit around twiddling our thumbs, hoping all day that someone will come and save us from our problems? How does sitting around hoping accomplish anything there? That can start to seem just as bad as fear. But this is where Martha Nussbaum would want to make an important distinction about two different kinds of hope. There's idle hope, which is the kind of hope that hypothetical person was just talking about.
But then there's practical hope, where to her, hope becomes more of a syndrome than an emotion.
It's an orientation towards the world where hope, she says, is not only something that we need to will ourselves into feeling each and every day, but hope also becomes something that requires a quote, reasonably concrete picture of what we want the future to look like. After all, how can you hope for a future if you don't have any clue of what it's going to look like? And the only way that happens, she says, is if you do as the Athenians didn't during the time of Socrates. You need to be engaging with the issues of your democracy in such a way that
That if someone like a Socrates came up to you and asked you to define what you think about some important issue, and then he questioned you on it, and then he asked you to explain yourself further, that you wouldn't be annoyed by someone coming up to you like that. In fact, you'd maybe be excited to talk about it because you'd be coming from a place where being a citizen of a democracy is an important piece of your identity. This is how the problems get solved and the way that we do things.
Hope, done correctly then, requires a certain amount of practical knowledge and engagement. And I still think there's so much more to say here about Martha Nussbaum's capabilities approach that we talked about on the other episode, something that's been highly influential over the years when it comes to NGOs determining quality of life standards all around the world. But the capabilities approach is also something, she thinks, that can serve as a normative framework for measuring social justice in our own societies. What I mean is...
It can be so intimidating to think about trying to participate in the governance of the world around you. I mean, you could start to think, I know what's going to happen if I go down to City Hall and start talking to all these people. I'm going to get embarrassed. I'm going to open my mouth and I'm going to be quickly exposed to someone that doesn't really have a theoretical plan of my own to oppose theirs. Well, Martha Nussbaum's capabilities approach, he thinks, can be that theoretical companion for people that want to challenge the dominant economically focused metrics that are currently being used.
She asks, what if instead of just focusing on things like GDP or median income, what if instead we focused on what real capabilities people actually have in their lives? And then she lays out this capabilities approach that organizes these ideas into something that can challenge the ways of thinking that are currently dominating the corridors of power, as she puts it. I love the way she writes, by the way, corridors of power.
She's a big fan of literature. And every time I get to read Nussbaum, I always end up taking two or three different phrases from her writing and then saying them to the people in my life like I was the one that came up with them. I'm shameless about it. I'm shameless, but I do feel guilty.
Anyway, I hope you enjoyed the episode today. If you value the show as an educational resource, consider helping to keep it a thing on Patreon, patreon.com slash philosophizethis, or you can contribute on PayPal for the back catalog of the show at philosophizethis.org. Thanks for anything you can do in advance. Thanks for listening, and I'll talk to you next time.