Year-End Reflections On Teaching And Turbulence

A quiet return turns into a brisk tour through a semester of teaching, a new research chapter, and a philosophical lens for a turbulent public square. We start with the energy of the classroom in Washington, where corporate social responsibility moved from buzzword to practice: people, planet, and profit in real institutions with real constraints. That momentum carries into a fresh ABD milestone and a quantitative study on climate attitudes in the United States, designed to map how identity, trust, and media shape what people believe—and why scientific consensus so often misfires on impact.

From there, we open a door to Paul Franco’s framing of Rousseau and Nietzsche, two voices that keep echoing through American life. Rousseau’s social contract and commitment to equality under law collide with Nietzsche’s will to power and the creation of personal values in a secular age. Seen together, they sketch a live fault line in our politics: egalitarian rules versus exceptional self-authorization. We explore how this tension shows up in wealth concentration, leader worship, and the health of democratic norms, and we ask what it takes to steer passion back toward constitutional ground without losing vitality or courage.

The conversation widens to AI’s disruptive role in universities, the rise of social angst and violence, and the practical work of cultivating inner steadiness. Mindfulness isn’t a partisan answer, but it helps us pause, notice, and choose better. Teaching continues next term with storytelling, research advances, and the long arc of civic life remains open to the work we do together. If these themes resonate—CSR, climate communication, Rousseau versus Nietzsche, the rule of law, and the search for peace—tune in, subscribe, and share your take. Leave a review and tell us: where do you see equality and power colliding in your world?

Chapters

• 0:00 Return And Year-End Intent
• 1:34 Teaching Semester In D.C.
• 3:22 Corporate Social Responsibility Overview
• 4:05 PhD Milestones And Dissertation Plan
• 6:31 Culture, Belief, And Science Skepticism
• 8:09 Rousseau And Nietzsche Framed
• 11:05 Equality, Law, And Power
• 14:45 Trump, Elites, And Fascistic Tendencies
• 17:24 Dialectic And Democratic Tension
• 19:04 Future Topics, AI, And Social Strain
• 21:04 Peace, Mindfulness, And Closing

Transcript

Speaker: 0:26

Hi, Don Thompson here. I’ve been absent from podcasting for some time now, as I’ve been off doing other tasks and involved in other adventures. I wanted to do this podcast for a couple of reasons. One is simply to catch you up on what’s been going on with me, and the other is to make a few comments about the state of things as they exist. There’s been a lot going on in the world over the past year, and I thought I would reflect a bit on where we’re at as we head toward the end of the year. And of course, I want to wish you all a happy new year and happy holidays—depending on your religious persuasion, or your non-religious persuasion. Regardless, it is the holiday season. We’re ending one year and beginning a new one. So first, let me give you a recap of where I’ve been over the past few months. If you’ve been following the podcast, you know that I went off on a teaching assignment. I’ve been teaching in Washington, D.C., actually, for a university. It’s been a really interesting adventure—very enjoyable for me. They gave me a full teaching load for the past semester. I had three classes of the same course, taught on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. I was commuting in, teaching the class, and coming home each afternoon. Since it was the same course, I gave essentially the same lecture each day, but it was never exactly the same. Each day brought different thoughts, reflections from the previous day, and opportunities to alter, calibrate, or adjust the lecture. The students seemed to enjoy the class. I think they probably ranked me okay, at least that’s what I’m hearing so far. Many of them wanted to take pictures with me at the end, which I was happy to do. I think a lot of them appreciated the experience, and I certainly appreciated it as well. I really do love teaching and trying to convey interesting ideas. The class itself was about corporate social responsibility, also known as CSR. That topic could easily be a podcast in and of itself, so I won’t go into too much detail here. But essentially, CSR involves corporations taking responsibility for what’s often called the “triple bottom line”—people, planet, and profit. This is something we’ve been working with through the Center for Mindful Business and Heather Gwaltney. It’s a different way for organizations to think about their relationship to business and society. Overall, it’s been a real adventure. I’ll also be teaching another class starting next spring, focused on storytelling, which I’m sure will be another interesting experience. Alongside teaching, I’ve been continuing work on my PhD, as I’ve mentioned on previous podcasts. I’m now officially ABD—all but dissertation. I passed my oral defense for my comprehensive exams. There are a couple of major exam cycles in the process. One is candidacy, which involved a blue-book exam where you’re essentially locked in a room and write whatever you can recall related to the questions. The comprehensive exams were more open-book, but they culminated in an oral defense, where you have to explain and defend what you wrote and demonstrate that you know what you’re talking about. That process went well, and I passed the oral defense. Now I just need to complete my dissertation, and then I’ll be Dr. Thompson. Ironically, the PhD process has mostly taught me how much I don’t know. The universe of knowledge is vast. There are so many disciplines, theories, and conceptual frameworks that it’s impossible to understand it all. That’s why people specialize. I’m more of a generalist by nature, which makes specialization challenging, but I’ll focus enough to complete the dissertation. It will be a quantitative study—essentially a survey—focused on how people think about climate change, particularly in the United States. I’m interested in understanding why people hold the views they do, especially when scientific consensus doesn’t always seem to persuade public opinion. That situation is complicated and tied to American culture and history, including the founding of a democratic society that allows for a wide range of belief systems. Some of those belief systems—such as strong religious fundamentalism—may view science as just another perspective rather than a primary worldview. This reflects a postmodern tendency where everything becomes a matter of opinion, even science itself. We’ve discussed that in previous podcasts, so I won’t go into it further here. What I do want to focus on in this episode is a lecture I listened to recently by Dr. Paul Franco. He studied at the University of Chicago and is an expert on Rousseau and Nietzsche—Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Friedrich Nietzsche—two influential philosophers from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. They were very different thinkers, almost polar opposites in some respects. Professor Franco presented them together, and although he didn’t explicitly frame it this way, I sensed a subtext in his lecture—a dialogue between two fundamentally different views of human nature. This connects to questions we’ve discussed before: Are people inherently good, or is there something else at work in human nature? Rousseau believed that people are inherently good but corrupted by society and civilization. Nietzsche, on the other hand, viewed traditional morality as hypocritical and rejected the idea of a fundamental moral belief system. He emphasized the will to power and famously declared that “God is dead,” reflecting the decline of traditional religious values in the face of science and secularism. Nietzsche also rejected the idea of equality. He believed some people were superior and capable of exercising the will to power—the Übermensch or superman—individuals who create their own values and live authentically without reliance on divine order. This was his response to what he saw as the nihilism of modern life: a sense of meaninglessness and drift. Nihilism can lead to different reactions. One is a return to fundamentalism. Another is a more Machiavellian or even psychopathic path, where people do whatever they can to gain power or wealth at the expense of others. Reflecting on Franco’s lecture, I saw a parallel to modern American society. We live in a culture where the freedom to prosper within capitalism has produced a billionaire class. In a sense, this reflects a Nietzschean will to power—demonstrating inequality rather than equality. Rousseau, by contrast, was a strong proponent of the rule of law and the social contract. He believed that because people are equal, they should be equally subject to the law. This idea was foundational to democratic societies like France and the United States. The Übermensch, however, believes they can bend or transcend the law through sheer will. This tension seemed like an unspoken critique of where we are today, particularly under the current administration. President Trump, in many ways, reflects a Nietzschean posture—asserting his own authority, becoming the law through personal will. This runs counter to Rousseau’s ideals and to many of the principles underlying the founding of the United States: equality, egalitarianism, and the rule of law. Some have associated Nietzsche—rightly or wrongly—with fascistic tendencies, and you can see echoes of that worldview in certain political movements today, even as they’re tempered by Rousseauian democratic values. What emerges is an ongoing dialogue—a tension—between elites who control wealth and systems, and the broader population, which still holds power through the vote. Every person has an equal vote, and that egalitarian mechanism stands in contrast to economic inequality. This dialectic—this back-and-forth between opposing poles—is built into the structure of American society. Philosophy would suggest that through this tension, some form of synthesis may emerge over time. I know this gets a bit heady, so forgive me. I’ve been teaching, and maybe I’m slipping into a professorial mode. I appreciate you sticking with me. To end on a different note, I want to say that it’s been a pleasure doing these podcasts. I may return to a regular schedule at some point, but for now I’ll likely continue popping in periodically to share what’s on my mind. There’s been no shortage of topics this year—Trump, AI, and the significant impact both are having on universities and society. AI alone could fill multiple podcasts. It’s a fascinating and transformative moment, especially in academia. At the same time, we’re seeing tragic violence in the United States and abroad, including in Australia. There’s a sense of tension and underlying angst that sometimes erupts in terrible ways. It’s heartbreaking. Too often, people with opposing views turn to violence rather than dialogue. As we move through the holidays and into the new year, I hope we can reflect on the importance of peace. I’ve always been a proponent of peace—especially inner peace. From a mindful perspective, inner peace begins within the self, and from there it can express itself outwardly in positive ways. So I’ll leave it at that. Thank you so much for listening. I appreciate your time, as always. I may not be back regularly for now, but there’s a whole library of past episodes—over a hundred podcasts—covering many interesting topics if you’d like to explore them. With that, I’ll look forward to talking to you again sometime soon. Bye-bye.