Philosophy for Lunch

Philosophy for Lunch
  • 5.0 (4)
  • Philosophy
  • Updated Weekly

Ever wish someone would just explain philosophy in a way that actually connects to your real life? That's Philosophy for Lunch. Hosted by Shawn and Claire Spainhour, Philosophy for Lunch is a weekly podcast that makes the great ideas of philosophy, psychology, and the history of thought genuinely accessible — without dumbing them down. Each episode runs 25 to 35 minutes: long enough to go deep, short enough for a lunch break, a commute, or the end of your day. From Stoicism and Marcus Aurelius to Anna Freud's defense mechanisms, from Gödel's incompleteness theorems to the trolley problem — Shawn and Claire explore the ideas that matter most for understanding yourself, other people, and the world. No prior knowledge required. No lectures. Just two curious people thinking out loud together. If you enjoy Philosophize This!, The Partially Examined Life, or Hidden Brain — and want something warmer, shorter, and built around genuine conversation — this show is for you.

  1. 4h ago

    Episode #015 - William James and the Will to Believe

    Imagine you are standing at the edge of a chasm. You need to get to the other side. The leap is possible — just barely — but you cannot know in advance whether you will make it. Does believing you can make the leap make it more likely that you will? Most people's instinct is to say: the belief is irrelevant. The physics is the physics. What you believe about it does not change the distance. William James thought that was wrong — and not just for athletic feats but for a much broader and more important category of human decisions. In this episode, Shawn and Claire take on one of the most controversial and most practically useful arguments in the history of American philosophy. James's central claim is this: there is a class of decisions, forced, significant, and not resolvable by waiting for more evidence, where withholding belief until you have certainty is not the rational option. It is itself a choice. And in some cases, it is a choice that forecloses the very experience that could have confirmed the belief. They cover the pragmatist theory of truth, what it actually says, where it is strongest, and where its critics have a point, and the specific argument of The Will to Believe: that for certain live, forced, and momentous questions, the right epistemic posture is not suspended judgment but committed engagement. They also address W.K. Clifford's opposing principle that it is always wrong to believe anything on insufficient evidence and why James thought that position, taken seriously, leads somewhere both logically consistent and humanly impossible. James himself emerged from a period of severe depression and paralysis partly through a choice: to believe that his choices mattered before he had any certainty that they did. The philosophy came from that life. And it carries the weight of it. This is not a defense of wishful thinking. It is something harder and more honest than that: an argument that commitment is prior to certainty in the domains that matter most and that the examined life requires courage as well as rigor. Shawn and Claire together. No prior philosophy required. SHOW NOTES Primary Sources James, W. (1897). The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy. Longmans, Green.James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. Longmans, Green.James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology (2 vols.). Henry Holt.Works Referenced in This Episode Clifford, W. K. (1877). The ethics of belief. Contemporary Review, 29, 289–309.Peirce, C. S. (1992). The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings (Vol. 1, N. Houser & C. Kloesel, Eds.). Indiana University Press.Dewey, J. (1929). Experience and Nature (2nd ed.). Open Court.Biographical & Contextual Richardson, R. D. (2006). William James: In the Maelstrom of American Modernism. Houghton Mifflin.Accessible Starting Points Menand, L. (2001). The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. (One of the most readable histories of American intellectual life ever written — essential context for this episode.)Putnam, R. A. (Ed.). (1997). The Cambridge Companion to William James. Cambridge University Press.New episodes every Monday. Philosophy for Lunch · Big ideas. Human conversations.

    Episode #015 - William James and the Will to Believe

  2. Jul 13

    Episode #014 - Viktor Frankl and the Meaning Made from Suffering

    There is a question that arrives most forcefully when circumstances are at their worst. Not why is this happening in the causal sense, but the question underneath that one: what does this mean? Is there anything here worth enduring for? Is there a reason to keep going? Viktor Frankl spent three years inside the Nazi concentration camp system. He lost his parents, his brother, and his wife. He survived. And what he built from that experience — both the psychological framework and the life that followed — is one of the most personally tested contributions to the philosophy of suffering in the twentieth century. In this episode, Shawn and Claire work through Frankl's logotherapy and its central claim: that the primary human drive is not pleasure, as Freud argued, or power, as Adler argued, but meaning. The will to meaning. And that the capacity to find or make meaning, even in conditions designed to destroy it, is the one thing that cannot finally be taken from a human being. They cover Frankl's three pathways to meaning: through what you create, through what you experience and love, and — most difficult — through the attitude you choose toward suffering that cannot be avoided. They address the contemporary research on post-traumatic growth and what it actually shows: that suffering does not produce growth automatically, but that the meaning-making that follows suffering can. And they examine the distinction Frankl draws between meaning and happiness, why happiness cannot be pursued directly and why the person who pursues meaning tends to find that happiness arrives as a companion to it rather than a destination in itself. The episode also places Frankl in conversation with Camus and Sartre, and explains why his answer to the question of meaning, forged in conditions neither of them faced, is both quieter and harder than theirs. Shawn and Claire together. No prior philosophy required. SHOW NOTES Primary Sources Frankl, V. E. (2006). Man's Search for Meaning. Beacon Press. (Original work published 1946) (One of the most widely read books of the twentieth century — short, essential, and unlike almost anything else.)Frankl, V. E. (1988). The Will to Meaning: Foundations and Applications of Logotherapy. Meridian.Frankl, V. E. (1986). The Doctor and the Soul: From Psychotherapy to Logotherapy (R. & C. Winston, Trans.). Vintage.Works Referenced in This Episode Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1996). The posttraumatic growth inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9(3), 455–471.Yalom, I. D. (1980). Existential Psychotherapy. Basic Books.Nietzsche, F. (1998). Twilight of the Idols (D. Large, Trans.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1889)Philosophical Context Camus, A. (1991). The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays (J. O'Brien, Trans.). Vintage. (Original work published 1942)Sartre, J.-P. (2007). Existentialism Is a Humanism (C. Macomber, Trans.). Yale University Press. (Original work published 1946)If you are currently in crisis or need support, the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline is available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, by call or text: dial or text 988. New episodes every Monday. Philosophy for Lunch · Big ideas. Human conversations.

    Episode #014 - Viktor Frankl and the Meaning Made from Suffering

  3. Jul 6

    Episode #013 - What Does It Mean to Live Philosophically?

    Socrates said the unexamined life is not worth living. That sentence is probably the most quoted in the history of philosophy. But the popular interpretation — that you should think more and be more self-aware — is true but thin. What Socrates was describing was something more demanding and more specific than general self-reflection. He was describing a practice. A way of being oriented toward your own life that is different in kind from simply having opinions about it. In this episode, Shawn and Claire step back from individual thinkers and ask the question directly: what does it actually mean to live philosophically? Not to hold philosophical positions, but to practice philosophy as a daily orientation — to let it change something, not just inform something. They draw on the full arc of the season to address this: what Socrates actually meant at his trial, what the Stoic practice of self-examination looks like when it is not reduced to a productivity framework, what Jung's shadow work and Kahneman's cognitive bias research add to the picture of why clear seeing is genuinely hard, and what Arendt contributes when she argues that the refusal to think is not just a personal failure but a political one. The episode also clears away three versions of philosophy that do not work: philosophy as a collection of positions to defend, philosophy as self-improvement packaging, and philosophy as intellectual escape. What is left — the practice that remains when those are stripped away — is harder to describe but more honest. It is the willingness to keep returning to the questions that matter, to let the answers actually change something, and to live with the difficulty that honest thinking produces rather than resolving it prematurely into comfort. The examined life is not a more comfortable life. It is a more real one. Shawn and Claire together. No prior philosophy required. SHOW NOTES Primary Sources Plato. (2002). Five Dialogues: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno, Phaedo (G. M. A. Grube, Trans., 2nd ed.). Hackett Publishing.Hadot, P. (1995). Philosophy as a Way of Life (A. Davidson, Ed.; M. Chase, Trans.). Blackwell. (The essential text on ancient philosophy as practice rather than doctrine — directly foundational to this episode.)Marcus Aurelius. (2002). Meditations (G. Hays, Trans.). Modern Library.Works Referenced in This Episode Nussbaum, M. C. (1994). The Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics. Princeton University Press.Nehamas, A. (1998). The Art of Living: Socratic Reflections from Plato to Foucault. University of California Press.Foucault, M. (2005). The Hermeneutics of the Subject: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1981–1982 (F. Gros, Ed.; G. Burchell, Trans.). Palgrave Macmillan.Accessible Starting Points de Botton, A. (2000). The Consolations of Philosophy. Pantheon. (Accessible and humane — a good companion to this episode for the general reader.)Irvine, W. B. (2009). A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy. Oxford University Press.New episodes every Monday. Philosophy for Lunch · Big ideas. Human conversations.

    Episode #013 - What Does It Mean to Live Philosophically?

  4. Jun 29

    Episode #012 - Hannah Arendt: Power, Evil, and the Life of the Mind

    In 1961, a political philosopher traveled to Jerusalem to cover a trial for The New Yorker. The man on trial was Adolf Eichmann — one of the primary administrators of the Holocaust. She expected a monster. What she found was something she described as terrifyingly normal. A bureaucrat. A man who spoke in clichés, followed orders, and never acted out of personal malice. A man who was not evil in the way we usually imagine evil. He was thoughtless. Shallowly, bureaucratically, catastrophically thoughtless. The philosopher was Hannah Arendt. The phrase she coined — the banality of evil — became one of the most important and most debated ideas in twentieth-century political thought. And it is both more specific and more disturbing than the popular shorthand suggests. In this episode, Shawn and Claire take the full measure of Arendt's work — not just the Eichmann trial, but the broader political philosophy that surrounds it. They cover her distinction between power and violence (which are not the same thing and cannot substitute for each other), her analysis of totalitarianism and the conditions that make it possible, and her concept of the public realm — the space in which people appear as genuine individuals, capable of genuine political action, rather than as subjects or consumers. The episode also addresses Arendt's most practically urgent claim: that thinking itself is a political act. The refusal to think — the surrender of independent judgment to role, routine, and institutional compliance — is not just a personal failure. It is one of the primary conditions under which ordinary people participate in extraordinary harm without recognizing it as harm. Her analysis of the conditions that produce political catastrophe was not a description of a unique historical moment. It was a structural one. And the structures she identified are not confined to history. Shawn and Claire together. No prior philosophy required. SHOW NOTES Primary Sources Arendt, H. (1973). The Origins of Totalitarianism (new ed.). Harcourt. (Original work published 1951)Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. University of Chicago Press.Arendt, H. (1963). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Viking.Arendt, H. (1978). The Life of the Mind (2 vols.). Harcourt.Biographical & Contextual Young-Bruehl, E. (1982). Hannah Arendt: For Love of the World. Yale University Press.Lipstadt, D. E. (2011). The Eichmann Trial. Schocken Books.Works Referenced in This Episode Arendt, H. (1972). Crises of the Republic. Harcourt.Bernstein, R. J. (1996). Hannah Arendt and the Jewish Question. MIT Press.Villa, D. R. (1996). Arendt and Heidegger: The Fate of the Political. Princeton University Press.Accessible Starting Points Canovan, M. (1992). Hannah Arendt: A Reinterpretation of Her Political Thought. Cambridge University Press.Arendt, H. (1994). Essays in Understanding, 1930–1954 (J. Kohn, Ed.). Harcourt.New episodes every Sunday. Philosophy for Lunch · Big ideas. Human conversations.

    Episode #012 - Hannah Arendt: Power, Evil, and the Life of the Mind

  5. Jun 22

    Episode #011 - The Trolley Problem and the Architecture of Moral Thinking

    DESCRIPTION You have probably heard the trolley problem. A runaway trolley, five people on the tracks, a lever that will divert it — but kill one person instead. Most people say pull the lever. Then comes the bridge version: same trolley, same five people, but this time you have to push a man off a bridge to stop it. Same arithmetic. Almost everyone says no. That inconsistency is not a failure of reasoning. It is a window into the architecture of how moral thinking actually works. Shawn and Claire take the most famous thought experiment in moral philosophy seriously — not as a puzzle, but as a precise instrument for exposing the genuine conflict at the heart of moral judgment. Why does the same numerical outcome produce completely different verdicts depending on how the harm is caused? What does that reveal about the limits of utilitarian thinking? And what does it mean that brain imaging studies show different neural systems firing in each case — that the conflict is not just philosophical but physiological? The episode works through the two frameworks the trolley problem puts in direct conflict: utilitarianism, which says the right action is whatever produces the best outcomes; and deontological ethics, which says some actions are wrong regardless of consequences — that there are people you cannot use as means to an end, even a good one. Both capture something real. Neither wins cleanly. And why does any of this matter outside a seminar room? The conflict between maximizing outcomes and respecting individuals is not hypothetical. It is present in every serious question we face — in healthcare, in criminal justice, in how we think about future generations. The trolley problem strips the question down so you can see it clearly. The real-world versions are the same question with the complexity turned back up. Shawn and Claire together. No prior philosophy required. SHOW NOTES Primary Philosophical Texts Foot, P. (1967). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of double effect. Oxford Review, 5, 5–15.Thomson, J. J. (1985). The trolley problem. Yale Law Journal, 94(6), 1395–1415.Kant, I. (1998). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (M. Gregor, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1785)Mill, J. S. (1998). Utilitarianism (R. Crisp, Ed.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1863)Works Referenced in This Episode Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293(5537), 2105–2108.Ross, W. D. (1930). The Right and the Good. Oxford University Press.Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.Kamm, F. M. (2007). Intricate Ethics: Rights, Responsibilities, and Permissible Harm. Oxford University Press.Accessible Starting Points Sandel, M. J. (2009). Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? Farrar, Straus and Giroux. (The best popular entry point into utilitarian vs. deontological ethics — and the source of the most-watched philosophy lecture in history.)Singer, P. (1993). Practical Ethics (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.Greene, J. (2013). Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them. Penguin Press.New episodes every Sunday. Philosophy for Lunch · Big ideas. Human conversations.

    Episode #011 - The Trolley Problem and the Architecture of Moral Thinking

  6. Jun 14

    Episode #010 - Simone de Beauvoir and the Construction of Self

    You did not find yourself. You are making yourself. And the conditions under which that making is happening are not neutral. That is the core claim of Simone de Beauvoir's philosophy — and it reaches far beyond the question of gender it is most often associated with. It is a claim about what any self is, how it comes to be, and what it means to take responsibility for who you are becoming when the forces shaping you are largely invisible. In this solo episode, Claire takes the full measure of one of the twentieth century's most important and most underread thinkers. She covers what de Beauvoir's famous sentence — one is not born a woman, one becomes one — is actually arguing beneath the slogan; how de Beauvoir takes Sartre's existentialism and makes it philosophically stronger by insisting that freedom is always situated, always conditioned, never the unconstrained abstraction Sartre sometimes implied; and what the concept of bad faith looks like not as a theoretical failing but as a daily temptation — the comfort of letting your circumstances, your relationships, or your role define you so that you do not have to do the harder work of defining yourself. This episode also takes seriously something the popular reception of de Beauvoir often skips: the way her framework complicates moral judgment. If the self is always shaped by conditions the person did not fully choose, then understanding someone's choices requires attending to the conditions that constrained them — without dissolving personal responsibility entirely. Holding both at once is the philosophical work she is asking you to do. It is harder than either alternative, and more honest. The episode connects directly to last week's conversation on love — because if the self is always a project rather than a finished thing, then who you build a life with is not peripheral to the question of who you become. It is one of the most consequential philosophical decisions you will ever make. Claire solo. No prior philosophy required. SHOW NOTES Primary Sources de Beauvoir, S. (2011). The Second Sex (C. Borde & S. Malovany-Chevallier, Trans.). Knopf. (Original work published 1949) (The complete translation — dense but essential. Even reading Part One and the Introduction will change how you think.)de Beauvoir, S. (1948). The Ethics of Ambiguity (B. Frechtman, Trans.). Philosophical Library. (Shorter and more accessible than The Second Sex — the clearest statement of her own philosophical position.)Sartre, J.-P. (2007). Existentialism Is a Humanism (C. Macomber, Trans.). Yale University Press. (Original work published 1946) (The best short entry point into the existentialist framework de Beauvoir is building on and revising.)Biographical & Contextual Bair, D. (1990). Simone de Beauvoir: A Biography. Summit Books.Rowley, H. (2005). Tête-à-Tête: Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre. HarperCollins.Works Referenced in This Episode Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge.Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Harvard University Press.Hegel, G. W. F. (1977). Phenomenology of Spirit (A. V. Miller, Trans.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1807) New episodes every Sunday. Philosophy for Lunch · Big ideas. Human conversations.

    Episode #010 - Simone de Beauvoir and the Construction of Self

  7. Jun 7

    Episode #009 - The Philosophy of Love: What Are You Actually Looking For?

    Most people approach love with a list. Values they want shared, a lifestyle that fits, a feeling that arrives and confirms they have found the right person. Philosophy has a different question: what if the list is the wrong tool entirely? In this episode, Shawn and Claire take one of the most personal and least examined questions in everyday life and bring the full weight of philosophical tradition to bear on it — not to make love abstract, but to make it clearer. What is it that you are actually tracking when you feel drawn to someone? Is love something that happens to you, or something you develop? And what does it mean that the person you choose is not just a companion for the self you already have — but partly constitutive of the self you will become? They move through the major philosophical accounts: Plato's Symposium and the idea that love is a recognition of something real, not just a projection; Hume's correction that what you are tracking is partly a response in you, not just a property in them; and Erich Fromm's underread argument that contemporary culture has love almost entirely backwards — treating it as something to find rather than a capacity to develop, a skill that requires discipline, knowledge, and practice. The episode lands on a concept the pop-psychology conversation around relationships almost never reaches: philosophical compatibility. Not values alignment — something deeper. How does this person think? How do they handle not knowing? Who do they become under pressure? Those are the questions that predict whether a relationship can sustain a life, and they take longer to answer than any profile or first conversation allows. This episode also sets up next week's deep dive into Simone de Beauvoir — because if the self is always a project rather than a fixed thing, then choosing who you build a life with is not peripheral to the question of who you become. It is one of the most consequential philosophical decisions you will ever make. Shawn and Claire together. No prior philosophy required. SHOW NOTES Primary Sources Plato. (1989). Symposium (A. Nehamas & P. Woodruff, Trans.). Hackett Publishing. (Original work written c. 385–370 BCE)Hume, D. (1985). Of the standard of taste. In Essays: Moral, Political, and Literary (E. F. Miller, Ed.). Liberty Fund. (Original work published 1757)Kant, I. (2000). Critique of the Power of Judgment (P. Guyer & E. Matthews, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1790)Works Referenced in This Episode Nozick, R. (1989). Love's bond. In The Examined Life: Philosophical Meditations (pp. 68–86). Simon & Schuster.Fromm, E. (1956). The Art of Loving. Harper & Row. (Short, quietly radical, and still one of the best things written on this subject.)Accessible Starting Points Singer, I. (1984). The Nature of Love, Vol. 1: Plato to Luther. University of Chicago Press.Scruton, R. (1986). Sexual Desire: A Moral Philosophy of the Erotic. Free Press.New episodes every Sunday. Philosophy for Lunch · Big ideas. Human conversations.

    Episode #009 - The Philosophy of Love: What Are You Actually Looking For?

  8. May 31

    Episode #008 - Cognitive Bias: The Philosophy Behind the Shortcuts

    You think you know why you believe what you believe. You probably do not. Not because you are careless or unintelligent—but because the part of your mind doing most of the work is fast, automatic, and largely invisible to you. It forms judgments before you are aware of them, fills in gaps with whatever is most available, and produces confident outputs without flagging what it missed. And here is the uncomfortable part: learning about this does not reliably fix it. In this episode, Shawn and Claire open Block Two — How We Think — with the most practically disruptive idea in modern psychology. Drawing on Daniel Kahneman's and Amos Tversky's decades of research, they walk through the architecture of System 1 and System 2 thinking—not as a memorizable list of named errors, but as a philosophical framework for understanding why the mind works the way it does and what that means for how we should live. This episode goes further than the popular Kahneman summary. It asks the questions that the pop-psychology version leaves out: If our moral judgments about other people are shaped by biases we cannot see — by race, by attractiveness, by how a question is framed — what does that mean for ethics? If knowing about a bias does not protect you from it, what actually helps? And is there something right about the shortcuts, or are they simply errors in a system that should know better? They also cover the philosophical tension at the heart of nudge theory—the insight that you can improve decisions not by educating people but by changing the architecture of their choices and why that approach is both effective and deeply uncomfortable from the standpoint of human autonomy. The examined life is still the goal. But this episode shows just how much there is left to examine. Shawn and Claire together. No prior knowledge required. SHOW NOTES Primary Works Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.Works Referenced in This Episode Gigerenzer, G. (2007). Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious. Viking.Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2017). The Enigma of Reason. Harvard University Press.Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale University Press.Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480.Wason, P. C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20(3), 273–281.Accessible Starting Points Lewis, M. (2017). The Undoing Project: A Friendship That Changed Our Minds. Norton. (The story of Kahneman and Tversky's collaboration — reads like a thriller.)Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions. HarperCollins.New episodes every Sunday. Philosophy for Lunch · Big ideas. Human conversations.

    Episode #008 - Cognitive Bias: The Philosophy Behind the Shortcuts
See All (15)

Ratings & Reviews

5
out of 5
4 Ratings

About

Ever wish someone would just explain philosophy in a way that actually connects to your real life? That's Philosophy for Lunch. Hosted by Shawn and Claire Spainhour, Philosophy for Lunch is a weekly podcast that makes the great ideas of philosophy, psychology, and the history of thought genuinely accessible — without dumbing them down. Each episode runs 25 to 35 minutes: long enough to go deep, short enough for a lunch break, a commute, or the end of your day. From Stoicism and Marcus Aurelius to Anna Freud's defense mechanisms, from Gödel's incompleteness theorems to the trolley problem — Shawn and Claire explore the ideas that matter most for understanding yourself, other people, and the world. No prior knowledge required. No lectures. Just two curious people thinking out loud together. If you enjoy Philosophize This!, The Partially Examined Life, or Hidden Brain — and want something warmer, shorter, and built around genuine conversation — this show is for you.

Information

  • Creator
    Philosophy for Lunch
  • Years Active
    2026
  • Episodes
    15
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © 2026 Philosophy for Lunch. All rights reserved.
  • Show Website
    Philosophy for Lunch