来自路易斯安那州什里夫波特百年学院KSCL工作室的John和Ken加入了节目，讨论了一个令人困惑的情况:哲学和文学似乎是不同的。哲学围绕着真理、智力和文字的使用，而文学则专注于虚构、情感和隐喻语言。因此，哲学从不像某些文学那样让我们感动得流泪。然而，一些最近的文学理论家和哲学家认为，哲学和文学并没有那么大的不同，两者都可以用相同的文本来例证。该节目的嘉宾拉尼尔·安德森(Lanier Anderson)就是其中之一。他是斯坦福大学哲学系的教授，也是该校哲学与文学思想项目的共同创始人，该项目旨在打破与文学和哲学研究相关的学术学科之间的界限。

The show has three segments. The first concerns how philosophy can be done through literature. Paradigms of this feat are Plato's dialogues, Borges's short story "Pierre Menard, Autór del Quixote" investigating the notion of authorship, and Camus's novel The Plague investigating the notion of freedom. Anderson thinks there are distinctively literary methods for pursuing philosophy, which these implement. Via such methods, sometimes one makes more progress in a philosophical investigation than one could by approaching the investigation "straightforwardly". (The hosts and guests agree that here the 'sometimes' is an important qualification; literary methods are not in general superior to standard philosophical ones when it comes to answering tough questions.) One such method involves eliciting emotional reactions from the reader in order to inspire new philosophical insights. Another exploits that no fictional character need be the "mouthpiece" of the author: In such situations, when characters express different views, readers must reckon for themselves who is right.

The second segment concerns what philosophers have said about literature. Some have wondered whether we can learn truths about the real world by reading fiction. Ken is skeptical about this: Since laws of nature can be broken at will in fictional worlds, they would seem an unreliable source of information about the real world, which always obeys those laws. Other philosophers have wondered whether investigating how literature conveys messages and morals can help us understand the pragmatics of natural language. Does literature show truths, rather than say them? Third, some philosophers have pondered the notion of narrativity. For example, Sartre's Nausea suggests that having narrative structure in one's life is essential for developing one's sense of self. This seems plausible to Anderson and Ken, though they disagree whether the "narrative impulse" is part of our biological programming or is rather a cultural norm that we try to live up to without having evolved to do so. Finally, for decades a topic of hot philosophical debate has been why readers react emotionally to stories they know to be fictional. Why do I cry for Anna Karenina, or despise Iago? Answering this question will help shape our philosophical theories of emotion, empathy, and imagination.

The third segment of the show concerns how philosophy can be literature. Some philosophers, like Nietzsche and Wittgenstein, write in a dramatic "aphoristic" style. Some great pieces of philosophy, like Plato's Symposium, are also great pieces of literature. Some great pieces of literature, like Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, are also great pieces of philosophy. But, for the most part, contemporary Anglophone philosophers use dry, pedantic prose. (John, who sometimes writes dialogues, is a rare exception.) The precise quality of their prose is suited for building detailed theories, but Anderson thinks a vaguer style is better for teasing out the new philosophical problems to which such theories respond.

• Roving Philosophical Report(下午4:30):佐伊·科内利参加了一个由旧金山居民南希·沃特曼主办、经营了四十年的伟大书籍团体的会议。今天他们在她的客厅里，喝着酒，讨论着蒙田。他们阅读的作品之所以“伟大”，是因为它们既与当今世界有关，又与时代问题有关，而且它们可以反复阅读而不会变得无趣。这个小组的讨论方法很独特:假装(通常是已故的)作者在房间里，问他或她问题，让答案来自他或她书中的文字。一些团队成员认为这是一种研究哲学的方式，是一种探究基本问题的方式。对其他人来说，这只是一种不同寻常的讨论方式，在这种讨论中，每个人都对作者试图传达的内容提出自己的观点。不管怎样，每个人都觉得它很有趣!

• Conundrum(seek to 46:41): Jeff, who rides a commuter train every day, frequently gets told by fellow passengers not to talk on his cell phone on the train. They prefer a quiet ride, Jeff says, while he prefers make efficient use of his commute by getting some work done. Moreover, he observes, talking on his phone is no more disruptive than having a conversation with someone sitting next to him, but no one asks anyone to stop talking to their neighbors while on the train! His conundrum: Whose rights supersede in this situation---his or theirs? Ken and John think Jeff's conundrum reflects an ambiguity about social rules in public space. Some places (like libraries) ought to be totally quiet. Others (like restaurants) ought to be lively and loud. Perhaps by historical accident, it's unclear whether trains are more like libraries or restaurants. Ultimately it becomes clear that Jeff's girlfriend has the sagest advice of all: Learn to control yourself.