As we podcasters think about how to proceed, we welcome as always your feedback. Here are three live questions for us at the moment.
1. Does having guest participants help more than it distracts? There are many smart people out there, and we've tried to rope many of them to come be on the show with us, participating in an area where they may have more experience/interest than we do. Do you like this, or are we better able to focus on what we do best if we're not spending so much time engaging new people? Relatedly, does having five of us on there more confusing or negatively impactful in procuring your desired levels of particSethpation? (As a separate issue, do you like the celebrity philosopher interviews, or again, is that just a distraction from what we do best?)
2. Depth or breadth? Reading a shorter text means we can cover it more thoroughly and have time to go off on our own views. However, doing this consistently means we cover less ground, and there are plenty of important works that just aren't short or such that reading a small chunk of it would really do it justice. (Even the "short" works we choose often run 100+ pages.)
3. Are we getting harder to understand? As we get farther into some topics, we necessarily can't re-explain all the terminology and figures that we've repeatedly brought up. However, if the consensus is that we've gotten too fast and loose in explaining things in our recent episodes (like eps 51 and 52), then we can try spell things out a bit more. (It'll be hard to do this with the celebrity philosopher interviews, as we actually want to get at what they think, but hopefully we can make up for this with subsequent discussion.)