BullJive and Brilliance Podcast By Joshua Farris And Antonio T Smith Jr cover art

BullJive and Brilliance

BullJive and Brilliance

By: Joshua Farris And Antonio T Smith Jr
Listen for free

About this listen

Welcome to "BullJive and Brilliance," where deep thought meets daring honesty. Hosted by Dr. Joshua Farris and his PhD student, Antonio T. Smith Jr., this podcast dives into the complexities of modern issues with a refreshingly straightforward approach. Inspired by Harry Frankfurt’s seminal work, "On Bullshit," building on the notion of humbug from Max Black, our hosts engage in discussions that cut through the noise of everyday discourse, striving to uncover the objective truths beneath.

Dr. Joshua Farris, a seasoned scholar with a profound grasp on theological anthropology and the philosophy of mind, brings nearly a decade of academic rigor to the table. His expertise is complemented by Antonio T. Smith Jr., a prominent business leader and tech innovator, whose groundbreaking work spans from AI advancements to philosophical inquiries about reality and human consciousness.

"BullJive and Brilliance" is not your ordinary talk show. Here, the spirit of Frankfurt's analysis of humbug guides our discourse. We tackle topics from politics to philosophy, religion to science, challenging ourselves and our listeners to think critically about the pervasive 'bulljive' of our times. This podcast is for those who are not just content with easy answers but are eager to dissect the layers of pretension and misrepresentation that cloud public discourse.

Join us as we navigate the treacherous waters of misleading statements and half-truths, guided by our commitment to sincerity and intellectual integrity. Whether you're a thinker, a skeptic, or simply curious, "BullJive and Brilliance" offers a space to explore the important questions with clarity and insight. Tune in, as we peel back the layers of complexity on the quest for truth in an often misleading world.

All rights reserved, Spiritually Driven Leadership Philosophy Science Social Sciences Spirituality
Episodes
  • Why Philosophy Should Be Funded Less And The Universities They Belong To

    Why Philosophy Should Be Funded Less And The Universities They Belong To
    Jul 4 2024
    BullJive And Brilliance Show NotesEpisode Summary: This episode explores the charged political atmosphere surrounding Donald Trump and the complex dynamics of truth and manipulation in political discourse. With a mix of serious analysis and lighthearted anecdotes, the discussion explores the pervasive nature of "BullJive" in politics, the role of authority in public perception, and the implications of these factors on the legal and moral landscapes.Follow Dr. Farris here:https://www.linkedin.com/in/joshua-farris-ph-d-csm-cspo-50b9a958/https://www.facebook.com/joshua.r.farrishttps://www.facebook.com/groups/378640331838790https://spirituallydrivenleadership.comhttps://www.amazon.com/stores/Joshua%20R.%20Farris/author/B088KV4X2HFollow Antonio Here:https://www.facebook.com/theatsjrhttps://www.amazon.com/stores/Antonio-T.-Smith-Jr/author/B00M3MPVJ8https://www.linkedin.com/in/antoniotsmithjrhttps://antoniotsmithjr.comhttps://www.instagram.com/theatsjrIntroduction:Dr. Farris kicks off the discussion, diving right into his area of expertise.Host praises Dr. Farris, emphasizing his incredible depth of knowledge in philosophy, which far surpasses the host's own understanding.Reminder that understanding philosophy doesn't automatically make one a philosopher—Socrates and Aristotle would likely agree.Setting the Scene:It’s July 4th, and there's talk of lighting cigars to celebrate.The conversation shifts to a provocative article by Jimmy Alfonso Laken, criticizing funding for philosophy despite his background in the field.Article Discussion:Dr. Farris intends to fairly represent Laken's arguments, noting the article made him question his own views on philosophy.Laken argues that philosophy departments should receive less funding because many philosophers produce subpar work or work that doesn't justify the financial cost.Broader Educational Impact:Dr. Farris points out that cuts in liberal arts are not new, with some universities phasing out these departments entirely.The discussion extends to what education aims to achieve and whether philosophy aligns with these goals.Deep Dive into the Article:Laken's article, featuring a poignant quote by Thomas Nagel, suggests that non-exceptional philosophical work is often unoriginal and incorrect, questioning the value of funding the discipline.Dr. Farris and the host explore how these ideas reflect broader attitudes towards liberal arts.Philosophical Funding Debate:Mention of a substantial donation to the philosophy department at John Hopkins, challenging Laken's viewpoint.Dr. Farris debates the immediate vs. long-term benefits of investing in philosophy, suggesting that it cultivates critical societal qualities.Practical Considerations:Discussion on the effectiveness of donations and the challenge of ensuring they are well-spent.Dr. Farris touches on pragmatism in American education, focusing on the functionality and direct outcomes over abstract thinking.Philosophical Values and Society:Debate over the role of philosophy in shaping societal values and whether it should be prioritized over more directly impactful disciplines.Dr. Farris argues that dismissing philosophy might overlook its broader benefits to society and culture.Setting the Scene:Discussion around the controversial article by Jimmy Alfonso Laken about funding philosophy.Dr. Farris notes the criticisms within the article, mentioning that much of philosophical work is considered unoriginal or incorrect.In-Depth Analysis:Dr. Farris engages with the idea that philosophical work often does not lead to direct societal benefits.He references notable figures like Noam Chomsky and Frederick Douglass to discuss the broader implications of education systems and philosophical thought.Philosophical and Practical Considerations:Conversation shifts to the role of education and how it should foster independence and critical thinking, as opposed to merely producing "good slaves to the system."Dr. Farris argues that philosophy is crucial for a well-rounded education and understanding of the world.Concluding Thoughts:Dr. Farris wraps up by discussing the limitations of focusing too narrowly on specialized tasks without a broader understanding provided by philosophy.Emphasizes the importance of integrating different types of knowledge—descriptive, acquaintance, and practical—to achieve a comprehensive understanding.Engagement with Audience:The host and Dr. Farris encourage the audience to think about the value of philosophy beyond immediate practical outcomes.They discuss the need for a balance between specialized knowledge and a broader philosophical perspective to truly educate and enlighten individuals.Opening Discussion:Dr. Farris addresses the practical training in education that gears individuals toward becoming technicians or service-oriented workers, like electricians.He notes the current trend in education is producing workers suited for immediate job roles but questions if this is the complete goal of ...
    Show more Show less
    2 hrs and 24 mins
  • Circus or Strategy? Unpacking the Theater of The First Presidential Debate of 2024

    Circus or Strategy? Unpacking the Theater of The First Presidential Debate of 2024
    Jun 28 2024
    Episode Summary: In this episode, Dr. Farris initiates a rich dialogue reflecting on an eventful political debate, critiquing the performances and strategies of Donald Trump and his opponent. The discussion delves into Trump’s commanding debate presence, portraying him as a master of political theater with a strong, albeit controversial, command over public and political narratives. Trump's foreign policy acumen is highlighted as exceptionally skillful, contrasting sharply with critiques of Biden's handling of various policies, notably the Afghan withdrawal. Additionally, the discourse explores the broader implications of political leadership on black communities, economic policies, and the societal roles of political parties. The episode not only scrutinizes the effectiveness of the moderators and the structure of the debate but also raises profound questions about the ethical and legal ramifications of Trump's potential presidency amid ongoing legal challenges. Dr. Farris and his interlocutor navigate these complex themes with a blend of critical analysis and personal insights, providing a nuanced perspective on the dynamics of modern American politics.Follow Dr. Farris here:https://www.linkedin.com/in/joshua-farris-ph-d-csm-cspo-50b9a958/https://www.facebook.com/joshua.r.farrishttps://www.facebook.com/groups/378640331838790https://spirituallydrivenleadership.comhttps://www.amazon.com/stores/Joshua%20R.%20Farris/author/B088KV4X2HFollow Antonio Here:https://www.facebook.com/theatsjrhttps://www.amazon.com/stores/Antonio-T.-Smith-Jr/author/B00M3MPVJ8https://www.linkedin.com/in/antoniotsmithjrhttps://antoniotsmithjr.comhttps://www.instagram.com/theatsjrFull Show NotesDr. Farris and Opening RemarksDr. Farris is referred to as a great mentor.The conversation begins with a reflection on the recent eventful night, described as humorous despite expected media reactions and controversy.Media and Public ReactionThe media's typical response to the event is noted, with an acknowledgment of public frustration and the humor found in the situation.The discourse was anticipated to be contentious, indicating that the public should not have been surprised by the events.Political Commentary and ThemesDiscussion of the American political situation being likened to a circus, though with fewer theatrics this time, suggesting a more mature but still flawed execution.Various themes are proposed for the conversation, including the seriousness of the debate, the humorous aspects, and the broader political implications.Reflections on Political Figures and the DebateComments on the debate highlight the lack of clarity and substance in the statements made by the political figures involved, suggesting both sides were not straightforward.Donald Trump is noted for his clearer communication compared to his opponent, with a specific mention of his handling of certain topics during the debate.Political Bias and Personal StanceThe speaker declares a non-partisan but conservative stance, identifying as far right and expressing disillusionment with both major political parties.Concerns about the qualifications of the political candidates to lead the country are voiced, with a critique of the current political leadership.Analysis of Debate PerformanceTrump's performance is highlighted as effective, particularly in how he managed to present himself as a strong leader, contrasting with his opponent's less effective communication.The debate is characterized as more of a performance or "show" rather than a substantive discussion on policy.Critique of Democratic PartyThe Democratic Party is criticized for lacking strong, assertive leadership during debates, with a historical perspective on their performance in national debates.The conversation touches on the need for strong leadership qualities in politics, which the speaker feels Democrats generally lack compared to Republicans.Trump's Foreign Policy MasteryThe speaker describes Donald Trump's foreign policy abilities as "God-like mastery," particularly noting his unique interactions with North Korea and Russia without compromising secrets.Trump is credited with a significant foreign policy achievement by promising to end the Ukraine war even before officially taking office, asserting this during a debate.Debate HighlightsA specific moment from the debate is highlighted where Trump promises to end the Ukraine war before his presidency begins, showcasing his assertiveness and confidence.This moment is described as the most impactful "mic drop" moment of the debate, emphasizing Trump's alpha demeanor.Analysis of Trump's Political ApproachTrump's approach is described as masterful, particularly in how he manages foreign policy without starting wars, contrasting with previous administrations' more aggressive policies.The discussion acknowledges that Trump's style breaks from traditional approaches, making a comparison to Obama's quieter method of withdrawing troops.Critique of Biden's ...
    Show more Show less
    2 hrs and 10 mins
  • The Trial or Witch Hunt of President Trump

    The Trial or Witch Hunt of President Trump
    Jun 13 2024
    Episode Summary: This episode explores the charged political atmosphere surrounding Donald Trump and the complex dynamics of truth and manipulation in political discourse. With a mix of serious analysis and lighthearted anecdotes, the discussion explores the pervasive nature of "BullJive" in politics, the role of authority in public perception, and the implications of these factors on the legal and moral landscapes.Follow Dr. Farris here:https://www.linkedin.com/in/joshua-farris-ph-d-csm-cspo-50b9a958/https://www.facebook.com/joshua.r.farrishttps://www.facebook.com/groups/378640331838790https://spirituallydrivenleadership.comhttps://www.amazon.com/stores/Joshua%20R.%20Farris/author/B088KV4X2HFollow Antonio Here:https://www.facebook.com/theatsjrhttps://www.amazon.com/stores/Antonio-T.-Smith-Jr/author/B00M3MPVJ8https://www.linkedin.com/in/antoniotsmithjrhttps://antoniotsmithjr.comhttps://www.instagram.com/theatsjrQuick Introduction and Set-Up:Introduction: Brief mention of the episode's controversial topics involving Donald Trump and a 34-time felon.Title Reveal: Introduction of the show's name, "Bull Jive and Brilliance," with a humorous lead-in to the topic.Discussion on the Concept of "Bull Jive":Philosophical Background: Discussion of Harry Frankfurt's definition of "bull jive" as discourse unconcerned with truth.Relevance to Politics: Emphasis on how common "bull jive" is in politics, using humor to illustrate the point, such as Dallas Cowboys fans claiming their team is the best.Broader Context and Insights:Perspective-Laden Conversations: Exploration of how most political and everyday conversations are laden with personal biases and perspectives, influencing the discourse.Power Games in Politics: Discussion on how politics has become a game of power rather than a pursuit of truth, with politicians often engaging in manipulative tactics.Humorous and Insightful Anecdotes:Humor in Perspective: Use of humor to discuss serious topics like political bias and manipulation, making the conversation engaging and relatable.Cultural References: Casual mentions of cultural elements, like homeowners associations, to draw parallels with governance and control in politics.Truth or No Truth:Reflection on Discourse and Truth: A reflective note on the nature of discourse in society, emphasizing the need for awareness of how perspectives shape our understanding of truth.Call for Thoughtfulness: Encouraging listeners to be mindful of the information they consume and to question the underlying intentions of political and media narratives.Introduction to the Topic:Introduction to a controversial topic involving Donald Trump and a 34-time felon.Mention of the risk of discussing such a charged subject, with the anticipation of strong reactions.Discussion on Authority and Critique:Authority in the Legal System: Discusses engaging critically with a Pope’s work, highlighting the sensitivity around criticizing authoritative figures.Cultural Observations on Criticism: Comparison of the freedom to criticize in different contexts, especially within religious and academic settings.Social Media Dynamics: Mention of how individuals can become their own authoritative voice on social media platforms.Political and Social Commentary:Politics as a Game of Power: Discusses the nature of political discourse as not primarily concerned with truth but with winning and manipulation.Historical Perspective: Reference to historical shifts in political dynamics, particularly noting changes since the 2000 U.S. presidential election.Media’s Role: Discussion on how media shapes public perception of political figures and events.Personal Reflections and Broader Implications:Personal Experiences with Authority: Shares a personal anecdote about giving a talk in Croatia and the reactions to criticizing a Pope’s work.Reflection on Social Media as a Platform for Personal Authority: Commentary on how social media allows individuals to craft and control their own narrative and authority.Complexities:Complexity of Discussing Authority: Acknowledges the complexities and potential repercussions of critically discussing figures of authority.Interplay Between Personal Authority and Public Perception: Suggests that personal assertions on social constructs like media can shape broader public discourse and perception.Experience with Legality and Morality:Personal Experience: Discusses a troubling personal incident involving a traffic ticket loaded with additional accusations.Legal vs. Moral Guidance: A friend who is a newly minted lawyer took the case pro bono, emphasizing the distinction between legality and morality and reassuring that the issue would likely be dismissed.Broader Lessons and Reflections:Learning from Experience: Highlighted the importance of understanding the difference between legal issues and moral judgments.Mentorship and Advice: The lawyer friend used this opportunity to educate about the nuances of law and its application, separate from...
    Show more Show less
    1 hr and 52 mins
adbl_web_global_use_to_activate_T1_webcro805_stickypopup
No reviews yet