What is this tangled concept map? And what does it show?
Associating topics with episodes is easy and uncontroversial, but applying philosophical perspectives is another question entirely.
The concept map shows how I consider a thinker to be leaning in regards to the topics we discuss in their episode. It’s subjective.
It does not purport to show how the thinkers would categorize themselves or how their perspectives lean regarding other topics or at different times. For instance, Carolyn Raffensperger’s conversation leans towards solving environmental problems in a centralized manner (through the law), but she might favor a localized approach to issues outside the scope of our conversation. The concept map only shows the former.
Another caveat about the concept map: it doesn’t show the degree to which a thinker leans towards a perspective. Both Robert Zubrin and Chris McKay end up categorized as leaning towards anthropocentrism even though they place radically different values on nonhuman life. Yet binary pairs show us something. However different Zubrin and McKay are from each other, both are in a distinct camp from the wide spectrum of biocentrists.
That aside, there is a lot we can get out of the concept map. Even if we are only looking at a subjective interpretation of how thinkers leaned within their conversations, we now have a tool to see patterns too large to notice through memory and audio alone.
If quantizing philosophical conversations threatens to move us away from the spirit of this project, it also promises to bring us closer to that spirit by revealing commonalities hidden beneath differences.
If you feel some of the perspectives or topics should be changed, please drop me an email at info@the URL. Even better if you include timecode.
Now, back to the concept map!