When sexual topics are brought into a conversation via joke or interjection, a common response is “Get your mind out of the gutter!” Prevailing cultural attitudes discourage us from bringing up sexual topics unless they are given a substantial and specific context. What are some of the consequences of avoiding these topics and treating them as taboo? This week, we welcome Charneil Bush to examine the underlying meaning behind this common phrase and how dialogue could alter our perspectives on sexual topics. We explore how the absence of such conversations makes it more difficult to broach the subject. What does the current discourse, or lack thereof, indicate about our understandings of one another as sexual beings?
We often take a critical look at cultural elements or sections of our behavior and thinking. Is it possible to apply a similar lens to an entire culture? This week, we welcome Kendall Theroux to talk about reservations of claiming an American identity during her travels abroad in Germany. Are there fair ways to criticize and correct a culture? Is it even possible to conceptualize and properly address a nation of millions with so many subsections and intimate multitudes? Can one be concerned about or embarrassed by a national culture and still claim to be patriotic?
As technology advances at a rapid pace, many have pointed out its effects on our social, professional and personal lives. The intersection of technology and biology is often overlooked in these conversations, but it’s worth further examination. In the 2009 documentary Transcendent Man, futurist Ray Kurzweil plays a key role in describing this intersection. His central thesis leans upon “The Singularity,” in which humanity will merge with technology because of its accelerated pace and progress. He and various experts speak on memory, the possibility of immortality and other influences of such advanced technology. This week we welcome Tim Connolly to review the film’s main arguments and theories. What effect would technological immortality have on our society? How would this new threshold shift our definitions of humans and humanity?
Our interpretations and responses to circumstances and other people say a great deal about who we are. Do we respond with confusion, apathy, fear, delight or any number of other emotions? Time and again, a polarity emerges between those who greet circumstances in jest or solemnity. What does this "Funny/Serious divide," however nascent an idea, say about our personalities? We're joined this week by Yara Farahmand to explore the phenomenon and how it affects our perceptions of others and ourselves. How might our society prefer one of these two patterns of thought and behavior? What might each of these poles misjudge or presume about the other?
If you asked most people about their thought-processes, they probably wouldn't question their train of thought. We do not always think about thinking. Generally, we appear quite capable of finding and defending the logic behind our internal decisions. But we do not always envision others within this broad framework and often judge their reasoning through our mental schema and thinking habits. This week we welcome Taylor Scult to discuss an uncommon believe that all thoughts have a basis in rationale. How can we push ourselves to see the logic that others apply to their decisions and behavior? Why might we be more inclined to see the world in terms of black and white logic? Does a belief in truly illogical behavior encourage us to abandon thinking we do not understand?