The Panpsycast Philosophy Podcast (Jack Symes | Andrew Horton, Oliver Marley, and Rose de Castellane)

Currently Visiting Professor of Science and Religion at Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York, Robert Wright’s work in journalism, psychology and philosophy has been deeply influential. Robert is the author of many best-selling books including ‘The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology’, ‘Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny’, ‘The Evolution of God’, and most recently, ‘Why Buddhism is True: The Science and Philosophy of Meditation and Enlightenment’.

Our focus for this episode is Robert Wright’s latest book, Why Buddhism is True. In a word, Wright defends the Buddhist view that ‘the reason we suffer is because we don’t see the world clearly’. The reason we don’t see the world clearly, says Buddhism, is because our perception of our own minds and ‘the outside world’ is impaired by illusions. Viewing Buddhism through the lens of evolutionary psychology, Wright argues that we have good reason to think that this Buddhist claim (that suffering is caused by illusion) is true, and that Buddhism also holds the answer to how we can alleviate ourselves from illusion and suffering.

Part I. Why Buddhism is True.

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion.

Our sensory experiences make up the fabric of our worlds. It’s a fabric that keeps us warm; a fabric that makes the world worth living in. If you couldn’t hear the cry of your new-born child, if you couldn’t taste your grandfather’s famous brussels sprouts at Christmas, or feel the embrace of your lifelong partner, then your life wouldn’t just include less experiences, but less meaning. Given the value we place on our sensory experiences, it seems important that we understand the nature of them. What is happening, exactly, when we hear, taste, and feel? What are sensory experiences made of?

In this episode, we’ll be exploring the nature of sensory phenomenology with Dr Laura Gow, Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Liverpool. Formerly of Warwick University, Cambridge University, and the University of Antwerp, Dr Gow – whose work focuses on the philosophy of perception and the metaphysics of consciousness – is one of the UK’s leading phenomenologists. From hallucinations and colour to empty space and silence, Laura’s research covers a broad range of topics, but in this episode we’ll be focusing on transparency.

According to the transparency view, when we undergo a perceptual experience, the only properties we’re aware of are located externally. There are no perceptual properties, says Gow, inside of us – despite what it may seem.

No book can teach you how to tame the raging river of fortune, for it has many plans contrary to ambitious minds. Yet to submit powerlessly to fate with lamentation, as if God has not instilled you with freedom of the will, is a sign of disrespect and the ultimate folly of our kind. For the river splits into many paths and those that appear to drag us towards the abyss, may, in the end, lead us to glory if only we persist in our efforts.

That is not to say that fortune always favours the brave. The acts of life should be understood as drama rather than science, and sometimes the heroes lose. Nevertheless, if it just so happens that you wish to play the role of the Prince or Princess, and be responsible for guiding others to a better future, there is wisdom you can learn from your time and through history to aid your cause.

Before we go any further, however, I must warn you that the practicalities of ruling come with demands that are not for the faint-of-heart. Human nature dictates that at times, you will need to adopt the methods of the Fox and the Lion.

You must be like the Fox in order to spot the traps laid by those who wish to see you fail and you must be like the Lion so that those same people will never try too hard for fear of the repercussions.

This might sound harsh, but let me remind you that the road to hell is often pathed with good intentions and that sometimes to be good you must learn… to be cruel.

Introduction

I am Ixion, strapped to the burning wheel of fire in the underworld that is my life. A bleak assessment to be sure, but I put it to you that it is the truth. For what is life if not an ever-swinging pendulum of pain and boredom, kept in motion by the insatiable will? I constantly strive for the things that I want, but what I want is never enough; long-term satisfaction is tedium elegantly veiled. This alone is a cruel trick to the individual, but in a world of many, it is the ultimate tragedy.

The wills of the multitude cannot avoid the inevitable conflict, as one will’s ends treats another as its means. The tiger feasts on the wild dog, who feasts on the baby turtle, all to propagate life so that future generations can play out this tragic scene ad infinitum. In human life - save rare moments of true compassion - we are little better. Yet, there is a hint of salvation. 

What if we all realised that, at our core, we are the same will? What if we could make the wheel of Ixion stand still, if only for a moment? Would it be possible to see beauty? Would it be possible to see to fellow sufferers rather than fellow egos? I suspect it might, but I am afraid that I, and many others, are easily fooled. ‘The Will’ will do as it pleases, and not what pleases us.

Introduction

Hinduism is the world’s oldest living religion, and it won’t be disappearing any time soon. This ancient worldview currently boasts over one billion devotees, making it the third most popular religion in the world. Despite its popularity, scholarship in philosophy of religion continues to ignore its influence, with academic papers on the Abrahamic faiths vastly outnumbering those devoted to Hinduism. Our classrooms don’t paint a prettier picture. In UK schools, Hinduism is scarcely taught in comparison to the other major world religions, with reports showing that educators lack the confidence and subject knowledge to teach Hinduism properly. Fortunately, thanks to the work of scholars such as Jessica Frazier, things are changing.

Jessica Frazier is Lecturer in Theology and Religion at Trinity College, Oxford and Fellow of the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies. Frazier is one of the world’s leading experts on Hindu philosophy, reshaping and globalising philosophy of religion for the 21st century. As well as being the founding editor of the Journal of Hindu Studies, she is best known for her books Reality, Religion and Passion, The Bloomsbury Companion to Hindu Studies, and most recently, Hindu Worldviews: Theories of Self, Ritual and Reality. Far from your ivory tower academic, Jessica is a committed public philosopher, broadening the horizons of academics and the general public through her captivating writing style and regular media appearances. 

As we will see, Frazier’s work demonstrates Hinduism's rich and insightful philosophical tradition; a tradition that can shed light on life’s greatest questions: from the nature of life, god and suffering, to the fundamental structure of reality.

Imagine you are in an open field which stretches in every direction, further than your eyes can see. Since there is nothing of interest in your immediate surroundings, you set your sights on the horizon. You begin to walk with purpose; long strides eventually break into a run until you are sprinting as fast as you can. After a while, you begin to slow down. Not just because of a lack of breath, but because something doesn’t quite feel right.

Your steps relax to a strolling pace as you turn back to glance at where you started — but it isn’t clear how far you’ve come. You continue walking; at first for hours, then days, and then weeks. Eventually, although the anxiety set in days ago, you come to a stop. No matter how many steps you had taken, the horizon never came any closer. The goal was never realised, regardless of your efforts.

This short passage might tell you something about your own life, or at least a way of thinking which has occupied your mind at one time or another. The horizon in the story is an analogy for instrumental goods. Instrumental goods are those things in life that you want because you believe them to be necessary for your well-being or happiness. A new job or a trip that you’ve always wanted to take, for example.

We think that once we meet these goals, we will somehow achieve happiness as if it was some state which could be reached and maintained forever. But these ideas are sorely misguided. We cannot find and maintain happiness by seeking it in instrumental goods. You see, permanent, unchanging happiness is like the horizon in the story. No matter how hard you work for it, no matter how many promotions you achieve, how many new trips you take, you simply cannot find happiness in this way.

Contents

Part I. The Context and Life of Epictetus.

Part II. The Discourses and The Enchiridion.

Part III. Modern Stoicism.

Part IV. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy.

Part V. Further Analysis and Discussion.

Links

How to Be Free: An Ancient Guide to the Stoic Life, A. A. Long (Amazon).

A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy, William Irvine (Amazon).

Discourses and Selected Writings, Epictetus (Amazon).

Psychotherapy: A Very Short Introduction, Tom Burns and Eva Burns-Lundgren (Amazon).

Meditations, Marcus Aurelius (Amazon).

A Handbook for New Stoics: How to Thrive in a World Out of Your Control, Massimo Pigliucci (Amazon).

How To Be A Stoic: Ancient Wisdom for Modern Living, Massimo Pigliucci (Amazon).

The Happiness Hypothesis: Putting Ancient Wisdom to the Test of Modern Science, Jonathan Haidt (Amazon).

Classical Philosophy: A history of philosophy without any gaps, Volume 1, Peter Adamson (Amazon).

The Partially Examine Life, Episode 124: The Stoic Life with Epictetus (Podcast).

Introduction

Imagine the smile on your parent’s face as you rush to meet them at the school gates, the soft heat of the sand between your toes on a first holiday, waking up in the haze of a late afternoon after dancing all night, the drop in your stomach when you realize you’ll never hear their voice again. These are conscious experiences. Without them, what is there to life? In this sense, we all know what consciousness is – there’s nothing we know more intimately – yet it remains one of life’s greatest mysteries. Despite the incredible advances made in physical science, it doesn’t seem like we’re any closer to an explanation of where consciousness comes from. How is it, exactly, that the brain’s 86 billion neurons give rise to conscious experience? As we’ll see, our answer to this question will not only shape our understanding of the human mind, but the fabric of reality itself. – Extract from Philosophers on Consciousness

Introduction

'I was sold a story about the modern world. I was told that I could connect with friends for free and that I could have everything conveniently tailored to my tastes. I was also promised I’d be kept safe from those who wished to attack me and my values. All in all, I was told I would be empowered to live my life as I saw fit.

In time, I began to hear another story. I started to hear that what I had shared with friends was actually a product that social media sold to others. I was told that some of my wants and desires were, in reality, the wants and desires of people whom I had never met. I was made aware that the promise of safety came at a cost which appears never to have been proven worthwhile.

The power, as it turns out, was not really with me – it was with those who sold me the original story. The choices I made when I knew no better helped them understand me and others like me better. They could do this because they were watching. When I wanted them to stop watching, they told me that if I had nothing to hide, then I had nothing to fear.'

Rick Lewis took his first degree in physics and philosophy of science at the University of Manchester, and later an MA in philosophy at the University of York. 

Making philosophy accessible and encouraging the person on the street to engage in philosophy in their everyday life was, and is, hugely important to Rick. That’s why in 1991 Rick founded the magazine Philosophy Now, of which, he has been the editor ever since. Soon after launching the magazine, Philosophy Now became the first philosophy title to appear on UK news-stands. 

This episode Jack, Andy, Olly and Rick will be discussing ‘the role of philosophy in everyday life’. For many, philosophy is something which can not only enrich our own lives but the lives of our fellow humans. For many others, philosophy is a waste of a life, something that diminishes, something which fails to enrich...

• Part I. Philosophy in Everyday Life.
• Part II. Philosophy Now, Further Analysis and Discussion.

Two people can encounter the same state of affairs – a crime, a book, a building – and yet their attention, interests, and emotional responses can be radically different. The perspectives of others are closed off from us, and our perspectives are closed off from them … that is until we share our stories. In recent years, social and political movements have utilised the power of storytelling by encouraging the sharing of first-personal accounts. For example, the #MeToo movement and #ShoutYourAbortion campaign encouraged women to share their experiences of sexual violence, harassment, and abortion in order to challenge the ideologies that allow sexism and misogyny to exist. According to Dr Rachel Fraser, these narratives play an indispensable role that can never be performed by theory and statistics.

In this episode, we’ll be speaking to Dr Fraser, Associate Professor at the University of Oxford, about how personal narratives allow us to challenge social scripts, refocus our attention, and alter the perspectives that, ultimately, shape our lives and institutions. For Fraser – who specialises in a range of fields, including epistemology, aesthetics, philosophy of language, and social and political philosophy – narratives offer a window into our lives and reveal moral truths that serve to critique dangerous ideologies and overcome injustice. Silencing ourselves and others is a surefire way to perpetuate inequality; if we want to bring about a better world, then we must learn to speak and listen.

Introduction

If we want to improve our public discourse, we must aim to be as objective as possible. When we raise our consciousness and work towards clearing our minds of personal interests, political affiliations, and the sophistry of art, we grow closer to rationality and knowledge. Art, on the other hand, is nothing more than the overly excited offspring of objectivity: films, paintings, music, and dance contribute nothing unique to our understanding of the world. At worst, art muddies the waters of our discourse; at best, it merely reflects the insights of political philosophy and science.

Opposing this view – and championing the cognitive advantages of artworks as political discourse – is Dr Vid Simoniti, Lecturer in Philosophy of Art at the University of Liverpool. As well as being a rising star in the worlds of academic philosophy and art history, Dr Simoniti’s work as a BBC New Generation Thinker – and his collaborations with public-facing projects such as the Liverpool bi-annual – is bringing conversations about art and philosophy into the public square.

When we enjoy a play at the theatre, rock our heads to a song on the radio, or wiggle the joysticks on our PlayStation controllers: does it leave us more attuned to how the world is? For Simoniti, in the context of art as political discourse, the answer is unequivocally ‘yes’.

Introduction

I am Ixion, strapped to the burning wheel of fire in the underworld that is my life. A bleak assessment to be sure, but I put it to you that it is the truth. For what is life if not an ever-swinging pendulum of pain and boredom, kept in motion by the insatiable will? I constantly strive for the things that I want, but what I want is never enough; long-term satisfaction is tedium elegantly veiled. This alone is a cruel trick to the individual, but in a world of many, it is the ultimate tragedy.

The wills of the multitude cannot avoid the inevitable conflict, as one will’s ends treats another as its means. The tiger feasts on the wild dog, who feasts on the baby turtle, all to propagate life so that future generations can play out this tragic scene ad infinitum. In human life - save rare moments of true compassion - we are little better. Yet, there is a hint of salvation. 

What if we all realised that, at our core, we are the same will? What if we could make the wheel of Ixion stand still, if only for a moment? Would it be possible to see beauty? Would it be possible to see to fellow sufferers rather than fellow egos? I suspect it might, but I am afraid that I, and many others, are easily fooled. ‘The Will’ will do as it pleases, and not what pleases us.

Introduction

I write this in secret, hoping that these notes be passed on outside Russia. The author of the diary and the diary itself may, of course, be imaginary. Nevertheless, it is clear that such persons as the Underground Man do exist in our society.

We have tried to expose him to the public but so far there has been no luck. If only people knew of the power of the Underground. He is one of the representatives of a generation still living, a generation waiting patiently for the right moment. His notes were discovered long after his passing, written on tatty paper in cheap ink, covered in cigarette burns and dust….

Don’t listen to the ants who would rather slave over the anthill than accept the truth. These notes are yours now, spread them to every corner of the globe. Long live the Underground!

Currently Visiting Professor of Science and Religion at Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York, Robert Wright’s work in journalism, psychology and philosophy has been deeply influential. Robert is the author of many best-selling books including ‘The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology’, ‘Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny’, ‘The Evolution of God’, and most recently, ‘Why Buddhism is True: The Science and Philosophy of Meditation and Enlightenment’.

Our focus for this episode is Robert Wright’s latest book, Why Buddhism is True. In a word, Wright defends the Buddhist view that ‘the reason we suffer is because we don’t see the world clearly’. The reason we don’t see the world clearly, says Buddhism, is because our perception of our own minds and ‘the outside world’ is impaired by illusions. Viewing Buddhism through the lens of evolutionary psychology, Wright argues that we have good reason to think that this Buddhist claim (that suffering is caused by illusion) is true, and that Buddhism also holds the answer to how we can alleviate ourselves from illusion and suffering.

Part I. Why Buddhism is True.

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion.

Imagine you are in an open field which stretches in every direction, further than your eyes can see. Since there is nothing of interest in your immediate surroundings, you set your sights on the horizon. You begin to walk with purpose; long strides eventually break into a run until you are sprinting as fast as you can. After a while, you begin to slow down. Not just because of a lack of breath, but because something doesn’t quite feel right.

Your steps relax to a strolling pace as you turn back to glance at where you started — but it isn’t clear how far you’ve come. You continue walking; at first for hours, then days, and then weeks. Eventually, although the anxiety set in days ago, you come to a stop. No matter how many steps you had taken, the horizon never came any closer. The goal was never realised, regardless of your efforts.

This short passage might tell you something about your own life, or at least a way of thinking which has occupied your mind at one time or another. The horizon in the story is an analogy for instrumental goods. Instrumental goods are those things in life that you want because you believe them to be necessary for your well-being or happiness. A new job or a trip that you’ve always wanted to take, for example.

We think that once we meet these goals, we will somehow achieve happiness as if it was some state which could be reached and maintained forever. But these ideas are sorely misguided. We cannot find and maintain happiness by seeking it in instrumental goods. You see, permanent, unchanging happiness is like the horizon in the story. No matter how hard you work for it, no matter how many promotions you achieve, how many new trips you take, you simply cannot find happiness in this way.

Contents

Part I. The Context and Life of Epictetus.

Part II. The Discourses and The Enchiridion.

Part III. Modern Stoicism.

Part IV. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy.

Part V. Further Analysis and Discussion.

Links

How to Be Free: An Ancient Guide to the Stoic Life, A. A. Long (Amazon).

A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy, William Irvine (Amazon).

Discourses and Selected Writings, Epictetus (Amazon).

Psychotherapy: A Very Short Introduction, Tom Burns and Eva Burns-Lundgren (Amazon).

Meditations, Marcus Aurelius (Amazon).

A Handbook for New Stoics: How to Thrive in a World Out of Your Control, Massimo Pigliucci (Amazon).

How To Be A Stoic: Ancient Wisdom for Modern Living, Massimo Pigliucci (Amazon).

The Happiness Hypothesis: Putting Ancient Wisdom to the Test of Modern Science, Jonathan Haidt (Amazon).

Classical Philosophy: A history of philosophy without any gaps, Volume 1, Peter Adamson (Amazon).

The Partially Examine Life, Episode 124: The Stoic Life with Epictetus (Podcast).

Alongside life and liberty, the Declaration of Independence marked the pursuit of happiness as the foundation of American democracy. Yet, as the history of philosophy has taught us, understanding happiness is no easy task. Pursuing happiness as the cessation of desire, a feeling of perpetual pleasure, or as a state of human flourishing are very different projects…so, which conception of happiness did America’s Founding Fathers take to be an ‘inalienable right’?

In this episode, we’ll be exploring the nature of happiness with Professor Jeffrey Rosen, President and CEO of the National Constitution Center. According to Rosen, in tracing the Founding Fathers’ intellectual development – inspired by Greek and Roman philosophy – we see that the Founders understood happiness as a pursuit of moral excellence rather than immediate gratification.

No doubt, Western understandings of happiness have shifted…today, happiness means something closer to feeling good than being good. Our question is whether this cultural shift was a mistake. In carving out our futures, ought we look to the past? In defining the purpose of our lives and the destination of our states, should we turn to America’s Founding Fathers and their ancient teachers?

For Judaism, it is practice over theology. The most important aspect of one’s faith is not philosophical reflection on God, but the rules and actions of the faithful. After all, according to Maimonides – arguably the most significant philosopher in the history of Jewish thought – we can never know God’s nature, and, therefore, there is more to be gained from what we do than trying to know what God is like. For Maimonides, ‘We are only able to apprehend that He is.’ This raises a problem, however, for if we cannot learn about, come to build a relationship, or increase our knowledge of God, then what is the point of religious observance?

In this episode, we’ll be discussing Judaism, knowledge, understanding and the rationality of theism with Professor Silvia Jonas of the University of Bamberg and the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy. According to Jonas, Maimonides’s insights are valuable; yet he misses a crucial piece of the puzzle – a distinction between knowledge and understanding.

Beyond understanding the ineffable, Jonas argues that theism shouldn’t try to compete with modern science. That doesn’t mean, however, that questions of God aren’t important. For Jonas, God is a worthy object of philosophical investigation, not because God completes our grand ‘theory of everything’, but because God shapes people’s everyday lives.

Introduction

Western civilisation is the most successful in history. Built on the shoulders of science, industry and democracy, enlightenment philosophy gave birth to the scientific revolution that has increased the quality of life for millions. The Western political drive for democracy has given rise to the largest political representation of people in history, and supranational bodies like the United Nations ensure that inequality and injustice are a thing of the past. Shortly, a Green New Deal and universal basic income will solve the remaining of society’s problems.

For Kehinde Andrews, Professor of Black Studies at Birmingham City University, nothing could be further from the truth. In his eyes, Western civilisation is built not on Enlightenment ideals, but on the shoulders of genocide, slavery and colonialism. Since 1492, when Columbus sailed the ocean blue, the West has systematically murdered, exploited, and hoarded the wealth of black and brown nations.

Unfortunately, this is not a thing of the past. Today we live not only with the legacy of Empire, but firmly within it! The age of Empire is alive and well, and its colonial, racist, white supremacist logic shapes every part of our lives today. Although the prospects look bleak, a revolution is possible. As Andrews says, Malcolm X was right: ‘the ballot or the bullet, liberty or death, freedom for everybody or freedom for nobody’.

Rebecca Roache is a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at Royal Holloway, University of London. Dr Roache specialises in practical ethics, logic, philosophy of mind, philosophy of psychiatry and early modern philosophy, but in this episode, we’ll be speaking to Rebecca specifically about the philosophy of language and swearing. 

In the words of Rebecca Roache:

"With a little imagination, we can find limitless and powerful ways to offend people if that’s what we want to do. We don’t need to give a f*ck about whether our favourite swear words are declining in their capacity to shock." (Ethics Centre,2015  - click for full article)

This interview is produced ‘in association with The Institute of Art and Ideas and the Philosophy for Our Times podcast’. A very special thank you to everybody at the Institute of Art and Ideas for making this interview possible.

*We apologise for the audio quality of this episode. We recorded the interview at How the Light Gets In Festival, and although the rain had stopped for us momentarily, you’ll be able to hear festival-goers celebrating the outbreak of sunshine in the background. We’ll be back in the studio after this episode. Thank you, we hope you enjoy the show!

Football is the most popular sport on the planet. This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who’s experienced the excitement of matchday. It’s hard to remain indifferent when thousands of tightly packed fans, each patriotically sporting the colours of their team, sing, cheer and heckle in unison. The thrill of a crunching challenge, a derby victory, or a last-minute winner will undoubtedly elicit excitement. 

For the sceptic, there is nothing beyond this superficial appeal. Fool-ball is simply a game of chance, in which the sport’s novelty appeal is only sustained through blind patriotism. Football is push-pin, and it is not to be confused with poetry.

Durham University’s Stephen Mumford defends football in the face of this attack. For Mumford, football has an intellectual depth that rewards more detailed consideration. When we watch football through a philosophical lens, we are called to deliberate a great wealth of ideas; from categories of aesthetic virtue, and the role of chance, control and victory, to the nature of a team, and the persistence of a ‘club’ throughout time.

__

Contents

Part I. The Philosophy Behind the Game.

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion.

All my life, I have been fed apples from that tree. I was told it was the only tree worth eating from. Every day, whether it was in school or in the church, someone would arrive with a basket, and I would take what they offered. Today a similar basket lays in front of me, full of apples I've been saving so to take a closer inspection.

Check those apples for me would you? Why so worried? Surely if they are good, there is nothing to worry about. You've heard of the Italian who was punished for checking, you say? I understand. I will do it myself.

There are too many in there to check one by one. I shall take them all out and only place back in the basket the ones that are certifiably good! I think the Italian might have been onto something, they all look rotten! I must check closer. I refuse to accept that they are all bad!

Ah, there is one. That will do. Perhaps the seeds can be used to grow more good apples...

In Plato’s ideal state, the wisest amongst the populous would be selected to rule. These rulers, who could see beyond the shadows to glimpse the light of truth, would be trusted to make choices to the benefit of all. The gender of these leaders, said Plato, was not to matter – despite him labelling them ‘the philosopher kings’.

That ideal was never realised but the conversation started by Plato and his contemporaries inspired what many think of as the birth of ‘Western Philosophy’. The central tenets being: the nature of reality, truth and knowledge, how to live the good life, and most importantly, the practice of prudence and the pursuit of justice.

To the Ancient Greeks, Prudence and Justice were personified as females. The term ‘philosophy’ itself contains the Greek word ‘Sophia’ meaning wisdom – which was also personified in the female form. Thus, it is a great irony that much of the history of philosophy has focused on the achievements of men: at its lowest points using its own intellectualising to oppress women. Prudence and justice seemed only to exist for men.

However, there have always been women concerning themselves with the big questions, seeing beyond the darkness and shadows that kept their societies stuck in male-centric thinking. Now more than ever, there are people dedicated to pointing the spotlight on women’s ideas, women’s lives, and women’s achievements. Rebecca Buxton and Lisa Whiting call them, ‘the philosopher queens’.

Emily Thomas is an Assistant Professor in Philosophy at Durham University; whose work focuses primarily on the history of metaphysics and the metaphysics of space and time. Thomas’ work in these areas has had a great impact, most notably, through her 2018 books Absolute Time: Rifts in Early Modern British Metaphysics and Early Modern Women on Metaphysics.

In this episode, we’ll be discussing Emily Thomas’ forthcoming work on The Idealism and Pantheism of May Sinclair. Born in 1863, May Sinclair was a prolific novelist, as well as a deeply influential poet, translator, critic and philosopher. It Is this last field, philosophy, which perhaps she is least well known for her work. Amongst her many great novels, short stories and poems, May Sinclair published her philosophical treatise in A Defence of Idealism in 1917, and The New Idealism in 1922, which both form the focus of today’s discussion. Sinclair’s unusual take on questions concerning space and time, god, and classic philosophical problems such as Zeno’s paradox, provide us with a refreshing and exciting approach to our understanding of the universe. Combined with her great passion, wit, and her breathtaking writing style, it is no stretch to say that May Sinclair is one of the 20th-centuries most underrated philosophers.

Football is the most popular sport on the planet. This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who’s experienced the excitement of matchday. It’s hard to remain indifferent when thousands of tightly packed fans, each patriotically sporting the colours of their team, sing, cheer and heckle in unison. The thrill of a crunching challenge, a derby victory, or a last-minute winner will undoubtedly elicit excitement. 

For the sceptic, there is nothing beyond this superficial appeal. Fool-ball is simply a game of chance, in which the sport’s novelty appeal is only sustained through blind patriotism. Football is push-pin, and it is not to be confused with poetry.

Durham University’s Stephen Mumford defends football in the face of this attack. For Mumford, football has an intellectual depth that rewards more detailed consideration. When we watch football through a philosophical lens, we are called to deliberate a great wealth of ideas; from categories of aesthetic virtue, and the role of chance, control and victory, to the nature of a team, and the persistence of a ‘club’ throughout time.

__

Contents

Part I. The Philosophy Behind the Game.

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion.

In this episode, you’ll be treated to a live performance of The Panpsycast. The event took place at Liverpool’s beautiful Tung Auditorium on 20th May 2022. Over three hundred of you purchased tickets to the event, with some of our most loyal patrons travelling thousands of miles to be with us in person.

Before you listen to the audio, we just wanted to say a huge thank you to those who came along, as well as all of our wonderful panellists – Rowan Williams, Anil Seth, Laura Gow, and Philip Goff – for participating in the debate.

A special thank you to Q Quartet, The Department of Philosophy at Liverpool University, and Premier Christian Radio for making this episode possible – as well as all of our incredible patrons. Thank you again for your support; we hope you enjoy the show.

Two people can encounter the same state of affairs – a crime, a book, a building – and yet their attention, interests, and emotional responses can be radically different. The perspectives of others are closed off from us, and our perspectives are closed off from them … that is until we share our stories. In recent years, social and political movements have utilised the power of storytelling by encouraging the sharing of first-personal accounts. For example, the #MeToo movement and #ShoutYourAbortion campaign encouraged women to share their experiences of sexual violence, harassment, and abortion in order to challenge the ideologies that allow sexism and misogyny to exist. According to Dr Rachel Fraser, these narratives play an indispensable role that can never be performed by theory and statistics.

In this episode, we’ll be speaking to Dr Fraser, Associate Professor at the University of Oxford, about how personal narratives allow us to challenge social scripts, refocus our attention, and alter the perspectives that, ultimately, shape our lives and institutions. For Fraser – who specialises in a range of fields, including epistemology, aesthetics, philosophy of language, and social and political philosophy – narratives offer a window into our lives and reveal moral truths that serve to critique dangerous ideologies and overcome injustice. Silencing ourselves and others is a surefire way to perpetuate inequality; if we want to bring about a better world, then we must learn to speak and listen.

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), a man who suffered greatly from bodily ills, considered himself somewhat of a physician. Yet, his remedies were not aimed towards physical conditions of the body, but rather the personal and societal ills of his time. Nietzsche, often poetically and rhetorically, dissected what he perceived to be the root of the suffering or apathy many of his contemporaries were facing.

His diagnosis focussed primarily on the human tendency to deny life. Life denying, for Nietzsche, came in many ways: the asceticism of the Buddha or Arthur Schopenhauer, the herd-like mentality of what Nietzsche called “the Last Man”, and most famously – the otherworldly illusions of Christianity. To him, these were all attempts to cower in the face of an objectively indifferent reality.

Nietzsche’s prognosis? To stand in the face of this indifference and shout yes! To affirm life and strive for personal excellence. How he envisioned this is subject to much scholarly debate but Nietzsche provides certain clear themes over his prolific authorship.

His masterwork Thus Spoke Zarathustra suggests we should look forward to the “Ubermensch” or “Superman”, a spiritually healthier individual who approaches the world in an honest and fearless way. Similarly, continuing his claim from The Gay Science, Thus Spoke Zarathustra also reminds the reader that “God is dead”. Nietzsche wanted people to recognise the void in values left by God’s absence and the responsibility we have been given to create our own meaning.

Nietzsche’s legacy is an interesting one. Thus Spoke Zarathustra, along with the Bible, ironically, were given to German soldiers during the First World War. He also, after his death, was accused of being a proto-Nazi due to his sister’s influence over his final posthumous works.

Nietzsche’s thoughts on his own works are remarkable in their irony and grandiosity. He hoped his messages would strike a chord with people and force them to look deep into their own intentions and actions. He also hoped they would provide a basis for personal change.

A passage from Ecce Homo gives us an insight into his style and desired effect:

“I know my fate. One day my name will be associated with the memory of something tremendous — a crisis without equal on earth, the most profound collision of conscience, a decision that was conjured up against everything that had been believed, demanded, hallowed so far. I am no man, I am dynamite.”

What is the underlying nature of reality? For Thales, the essence of the world was water; for the Stoics, it was Logos; for Heraclitus, the universe consisted, fundamentally, of fire, life-energy, or the ‘thinking faculty’. The search for the building blocks of our world has a rich philosophical history and, today is intertwined with cutting-edge research in the physical sciences. In this episode, we’ll be focusing on those who defend the idea of substances. According to this view, at the heart of our cosmos exist simple, independent, ungrounded entities (called ‘substances’) from which everything else in the world is made and sustained. Perhaps these are particles, strings, or space–time; maybe they’re consciousness, selves, or gods.

Our guide to substances and the nature of reality is Dr Donnchadh O’Conaill, post-doctoral researcher at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland. Dr O’Conaill – currently working on the Swiss National Science Foundation project, The Subject of Experiences – has made several important contributions to the literature, including through his recent book, Substance, published by Cambridge University Press.

As we shall see, Dr O’Conaill is a leading scholar on the role and nature of substances, as well as the contentious question of their existence. Ultimately, that’s our focus: whether the world depends on independent, ungrounded entities and what these hidden entities might look like.

I was told not to think too much about love. Obsess over it, let it dye the very fabric of my being: but do not think about it. Why, after all, would I want to overanalyse the magic and mystery? Would this not reduce a storybook to words and pages?

I was told that I was incomplete and was to search for another who would make me whole. This search, I was promised, would lead me to a partner I would love and be happy with forever. And are love and happiness not required for a good life?

Yet, these demands, these stories, and these questions feel restrictive and misleading. Why must I not think about what you say is so important? Why must I believe a story I have seen end in tears countless time?

It is time we started taking control of love rather than letting love control us. There is no one size fits all approach given to us by nature: not everyone finds ‘the one’, not everyone wants to find the one, and not all relationships need to last.

Imagine the lives we could craft if we loved proactively, with honesty and freedom. If we all did this together, we could choose what we wanted and not be pressured into what we’ve been told is good. And given the importance of love, is this not worth a try, even if the magic fades?

Birds sing joyfully, dogs smile as they fetch their sticks, and philosophers laugh at their own jokes on podcasts. It is a happy world after all. In fact, if we ponder upon such delights for long enough, it is possible to infer – even during our darkest days – that these are gifts bestowed by a benevolent creator, for these are not necessary for our survival but are gratuitous goods.

Yet, says another, what if these delights are no more proof of a benevolent creator than they are a malevolent one? What if these goods are given just to amplify our suffering when they are inevitably taken from us? And, what if, for every reason given for believing in a good-god, there was room for an evil-god to just as easily take his place?

In this episode, we’ll be exploring the evil-god challenge with Dr Jack Symes, teacher and researcher at Durham University and editor Bloomsbury’s popular book series, Talking about Philosophy. According to Symes, whilst the evil-god challenge has its merits, we should be sceptical about its attempts to draw parallel arguments to those in favour of god’s goodness. Ultimately, for Symes, there are enough asymmetries in these parallel arguments that we should consider the evil-god challenge defeated.

Introduction

Hinduism is the world’s oldest living religion, and it won’t be disappearing any time soon. This ancient worldview currently boasts over one billion devotees, making it the third most popular religion in the world. Despite its popularity, scholarship in philosophy of religion continues to ignore its influence, with academic papers on the Abrahamic faiths vastly outnumbering those devoted to Hinduism. Our classrooms don’t paint a prettier picture. In UK schools, Hinduism is scarcely taught in comparison to the other major world religions, with reports showing that educators lack the confidence and subject knowledge to teach Hinduism properly. Fortunately, thanks to the work of scholars such as Jessica Frazier, things are changing.

Jessica Frazier is Lecturer in Theology and Religion at Trinity College, Oxford and Fellow of the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies. Frazier is one of the world’s leading experts on Hindu philosophy, reshaping and globalising philosophy of religion for the 21st century. As well as being the founding editor of the Journal of Hindu Studies, she is best known for her books Reality, Religion and Passion, The Bloomsbury Companion to Hindu Studies, and most recently, Hindu Worldviews: Theories of Self, Ritual and Reality. Far from your ivory tower academic, Jessica is a committed public philosopher, broadening the horizons of academics and the general public through her captivating writing style and regular media appearances. 

As we will see, Frazier’s work demonstrates Hinduism's rich and insightful philosophical tradition; a tradition that can shed light on life’s greatest questions: from the nature of life, god and suffering, to the fundamental structure of reality.

For religious believers, considering the questions that surround the nature or attributes of God, is important in their attempt to form a coherent understanding of their creator.

In the Summa Theologica, shortly after arguing for the existence of God, Saint Thomas Aquinas writes the following: “Having recognised that a certain thing exists, we have still to investigate the way in which it exists, that we may come to understand what it is that exists.” This seems like a peculiar thing to state. I know that there exists something, but I have no idea as to what this thing is. As Brian Davies points out in his book Philosophy of Religion: A Guide and Anthology, this not such an odd statement after all. Suppose I attempt to open a door, and something stops it from opening. I might say, ‘well something is certainly in the way’. If it makes sense to make this statement, it also makes sense to ask, 'what is it'?

 Report: March 2nd 

 After the successes we have had with Algernon, and with much deliberation, I have officially chosen our first research subject. Charlie Gordon, 32, was recommended to us by Alice Kinian from the Beekman School for Retarded Adults and she has assured us of his desire to increase his intellect. 

 I have scheduled for Charlie to come to the lab over the next few days where Burt Selden will run some preliminary psych tests. We are also going to test his mental flexibility with a few maze puzzles with Algernon. All that remains is the consent of a family member to grant permission for the operation. According to Alice Kinian, his sister Norma might be the most appropriate person to seek out.  

 Providing there are no warning signs during the testing, and consent is provided, we will be on the cusp of something truly ground-breaking. All these years of hard work will be vindicated and the trust of my wife and those who fund me will have been justified. Dare I say it, I might be remembered amongst the pantheon of great scientists. 

 Strauss has insisted that we keep a close eye on his mental state and emotional growth. I am inclined to agree but feel we cannot be held fully accountable for the man’s personality. The success or failure of this experiment will rest on his increased intelligence, or lack thereof.  

 One thing is certain, if the experiment works, Charlie Gordon’s life will change forever. 

 Professor Harold Nemur

 

There was once a wise farmer named Oliver who, enjoying the evening’s sun at the end of a summer’s day, watched on as one of his prized horses escaped from his farm. That evening, having heard the news, Jack and Andrew came to Oliver’s farm to express their sympathies. Oliver turned to his neighbours upon their arrival and said, “maybe.”

The next day the horse returned, but brought with it six wild horses. Jack and Andrew, seeing the horses from their homes, ran to Oliver’s exclaiming his good fortune. Olly turned to the men and said, “maybe.”

The following day, Oliver tried to saddle and ride one of the wild horses. He was thrown off the horse’s back and broke his leg. Jack and Andrew came to offer their condolences for the misfortune. Sat upright in his bed, without a wince, Oliver spoke clearly to the men once more, “maybe.” 

The day after that, conscription officers came to the village to recruit soldiers for the army, but because of his broken leg, Oliver was rejected. 

Relieved, Jack and Andrew came to Oliver to proclaim how fortunately everything had turned out. Olly turned to them and answered, “maybe.”

Co-founder of Humanity+, formerly known as the World Transhumanist Association, David Pearce is a leading figure of the transhumanist movement. David is perhaps best known for his 1995 manifesto, The Hedonistic Imperative, in which he argues that we can, and will, abolish suffering throughout the living world. Following The Hedonistic Imperative, David has published extensively on topics surrounding utilitarianism, veganism, abolitionism and transhumanism; culminating in his most recent 2017 collection of essays, Can Biotechnology Abolish Suffering?

Alongside his careful philosophical thinking, David’s captivating writing-style has inspired philosophers across the world to look forward into the ‘philosophy of the future’. A world as David hopes, that is free from suffering, ageing and stupidity.

Contents

Part I. Transhumanism.

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion.

 Report: March 2nd 

 After the successes we have had with Algernon, and with much deliberation, I have officially chosen our first research subject. Charlie Gordon, 32, was recommended to us by Alice Kinian from the Beekman School for Retarded Adults and she has assured us of his desire to increase his intellect. 

 I have scheduled for Charlie to come to the lab over the next few days where Burt Selden will run some preliminary psych tests. We are also going to test his mental flexibility with a few maze puzzles with Algernon. All that remains is the consent of a family member to grant permission for the operation. According to Alice Kinian, his sister Norma might be the most appropriate person to seek out.  

 Providing there are no warning signs during the testing, and consent is provided, we will be on the cusp of something truly ground-breaking. All these years of hard work will be vindicated and the trust of my wife and those who fund me will have been justified. Dare I say it, I might be remembered amongst the pantheon of great scientists. 

 Strauss has insisted that we keep a close eye on his mental state and emotional growth. I am inclined to agree but feel we cannot be held fully accountable for the man’s personality. The success or failure of this experiment will rest on his increased intelligence, or lack thereof.  

 One thing is certain, if the experiment works, Charlie Gordon’s life will change forever. 

 Professor Harold Nemur

 

Let me tell you about the day Socrates drank the poison. You must be aware of his trial and apology? The Athenians have not stopped talking about it since Meletus and the others condemned him. Do not worry, he did not die in fear and nor is he truly gone. He argued his case much like he always had. He died the philosopher’s death, having practiced for it his entire life.

What does this mean? Socrates spoke persuasively about matters concerning the immortality of the soul. He said the life of a true philosopher helps the prisoner, chained hand and foot in their body, to escape from the dark cave of ignorance and into the light of wisdom. This, in turn, provides the soul with the perfect means to release itself from the body after death.

When the hour arrived, and Socrates finally took the hemlock, he did not flinch. Those of us who bore witness could not help but shed a tear – we were not as brave as the wise man who lay before us. What? You would like to hear more? Are you not convinced of the immortality that Socrates proposed? Come, take a seat, I will tell you the full story…

Contents

Part I. The Soul and Body

Part II. Arguments for the Soul’s Immortality

Part III. In Defence of Immortality

Part IV. The Death of Socrates, Further Analysis and Discussion

Introduction

'I was sold a story about the modern world. I was told that I could connect with friends for free and that I could have everything conveniently tailored to my tastes. I was also promised I’d be kept safe from those who wished to attack me and my values. All in all, I was told I would be empowered to live my life as I saw fit.

In time, I began to hear another story. I started to hear that what I had shared with friends was actually a product that social media sold to others. I was told that some of my wants and desires were, in reality, the wants and desires of people whom I had never met. I was made aware that the promise of safety came at a cost which appears never to have been proven worthwhile.

The power, as it turns out, was not really with me – it was with those who sold me the original story. The choices I made when I knew no better helped them understand me and others like me better. They could do this because they were watching. When I wanted them to stop watching, they told me that if I had nothing to hide, then I had nothing to fear.'

Days grow shorter, rain turns to sleet, and nature’s creatures are forced into hibernation. Winter is here; when the world wages war on us, through darkness, danger, and impending depression. But from the clouds of winter’s despair, therein shines a light: gatherings among families and friends, spirits of fellowship and forgiveness, and scenes of feasts and festivities.

It is Christmas, who shepherds us together – when we would otherwise be apart – and spares us from the cold, and into loving arms. As we shall see, the festival of Christmas has snowballed with the passing of many winters – from the early celebrations of the Romans and Vikings to the Christian nativity and commercialisation – but what has held this snowball together?

Let us burn candles, logs, and line our homes with dancing lights; let us bring in trees and celebrate the hope of new life; and let us give generously and extend goodwill to our neighbours here, and around the world.

Introduction

Jack was walking down a street. It was a day like any other. As ever, his mind was a flurry of thoughts, worries, and anxieties, stimulated by coffee and the bright light of his phone. In a bid to relieve his stress, he put his phone in his pocket, and tried to notice the details he would usually ignore. 

As he walked past the pharmacy, he saw a sick man coughing and spluttering; he was throwing medication back to stop his disease from decaying his body. Jack kept walking and came across an old woman waiting at a bus stop. She was fragile, crooked, and anxious; clearly age had taken much from her. Crossing the road away from the bus stop, he waited for the traffic to pass. Driving slowly past him was a hearse: a coffin on full display, surrounded by flowers, proceeded by a stream of weeping mourners. 

Jack fell to his knees, overwhelmed with despair, “we all get sick, we all age, and we all die. We cannot escape this fate!” His head against the pavement, he didn’t move for almost an hour. When he got up, he was approached by a homeless man, to whom he said, “sorry, I don’t have any change.” The man replied, “It is you who needs a little change, young monk. I know why you fall to your knees in despair: the inescapable suffering of life weighs on us all. Let me tell you of someone who was once like you, who tried to remove suffering from our minds… let me tell you the story of Siddhartha Gotama, The Buddha.”

On August 6, 1945, an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, instantly killing up to 80,000 civilians, with another 40,000 dying soon after from burns and radiation poisoning. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki led to the surrender of the Japanese Army, marking the end of the most destructive war in history.

War has been a constant throughout history. Since the dawn of agriculture, humans have waged war against one another. Some argue that war is ingrained in human nature, from our ancestors battling over resources and empires seeking expansion, to biblical genocides and acts of human sacrifice—Homo sapiens are seemingly insatiable for conflict. Others, however, believe war is not inevitable and that we have the capacity for humility, justice, and kindness without resorting to armed conflict.

We must remember that explaining war is not the same as justifying it. While pacifism, as exemplified by Jesus and Gandhi, is often seen as noble, is non-violence truly effective against regimes intent on ethnic cleansing? If not, how do we determine when war is justified and what defines proportional force? Can the killing of innocent civilians ever be justified? And, if not, how do they differ from innocent combatants? War, huh, good god, what is it good for?

Links

A.C. Grayling, War: An Enquiry (book)

Richard Overy, Why War? (book)

Jeff Mcmahan, Killing in War (book)

Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars (book)

Carl von Clausewitz, On War (book)

War, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Reflecting on the experiences we value most, many that come to mind are those we share with others. Consider the strangers we sit alongside at the football, the romantic partners who share (or endure) our favourite television shows, the friends with whom we dance through the early morning hours. Despite the growing ease of on-demand, private aesthetic experiences, we find ourselves carving out time for public ones. But why?

In this episode, we’ll be discussing the nature of interpersonal aesthetic experience with Dr Harry Drummond, Teacher in the Department of Continuing Education at the University of Liverpool. Co-editor of the British Society of Aesthetics’ journal Debates in Aesthetics, and editorial assistant for the British Journal of Aesthetics, Dr Drummond’s work sits at the intersection of aesthetics, psychology, and the philosophy of mind.

For Drummond, the presence of others amplifies, redirects, and even unlocks experiences that wouldn’t be available to us alone. We read each other’s cues, share reactions, and create meaning together in ways that are subtle but profound. The silence of a cinema, the synchronised movement of a dance floor, the shared laughter at a comedy show – these are not just personal experiences but collective ones, shaped and enriched by the presence of others.

Links

Dr Harry Drummond, PhilPapers

H Drummond (2024), Aesthetic Experiences with Others: An Enactive Account (paper)

H Drummond (forthcoming) Enactive Aesthetics: Insights Through AI – link will be added upon publication

Introduction

It cannot have escaped your attention that there is a small contingent of our nation that poses a threat to our way of life.

They want us to stop farming our most prized delicacy on the grounds of their ‘moral concerns’. We must not let them push us around. As you well know, it has always been an important part of our culture. Why should we assume that this small group of radicals have got it right and that our ancestors have all been wrong? Think of all the memories we’ve shared when eating the meat around the table with our families. It is a wonderful thing.

Secondly, I have yet to come across anyone who doesn’t gain great satisfaction from the delicious taste of the meat. Whether it is in patties, ground mince or slices, it is enjoyed by billions every day. Imagine the backlash if we showed sympathy to the radicals! Think about all the businesses that rely on meat for their income. It would be political suicide.

Finally, and most importantly, we must always remember the natural order of things. We are top of the food chain, and it is our right to exercise our dominion. Every test we have conducted on the creatures have proven them to be inferior, be it intelligence, strength, or a capacity to live what we’d all say is a fulfilling life.

I know that you must feel the same; all I ask is for permission to deal with the radicals. Eating human meat should never be up for debate.

Contents

Part I. History

Part II. Fellow Creatures

Part III. Mere Instruments

Part IV. Further Analysis and Discussion

Links

Carl Cohen, ‘Why Animals Have No Rights’.

David DeGrazia, Animal Rights: A Very Short Introduction.

Jonathan Safran Foer, Eating Animals.

Lori Gruen, Entangled Empathy: An Alternative Ethic for Our Relationships with Animals.

Christine M. Korsgaard, Fellow Creatures: Our Obligations to the Other Animals.

Philip Lymbery, Farmageddon in Pictures: The True Cost of Cheap Meat.

Mary Midgley, Animals and Why They Matter.

Matthieu Ricard, A Plea for the Animals: The Moral, Philosophical, and Evolutionary Imperative to Treat All Beings with Compassion.

Peter Singer, Animal Liberation.

Dr Skye Cleary is a philosopher and author, best known for her work in the field of existentialism. As well as teaching at Columbia, Barnard College and the City College of New York, Skye is also the associate director of the Center for New Narratives in Philosophy at Columbia University.

Skye’s contribution to the world of public philosophy has been extensive, writing for a wealth of publications, including The Paris Review, TED-Ed, the Los Angeles Review of Books, Aeon, Business Insider, The Independent and New Philosopher magazine. Skye is also the editor of the American Philosophical Association blog and the author of our focus for this episode, her 2015 book, Existentialism and Romantic Love.

We’re going to be discussing with Skye the idea of romantic love, and what we can learn about love from existentialist philosophers such as Max Stirner, Soren Kierkegaard, Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir and Friedrich Nietzsche. In a world of romantic cinema, novels, love songs, dating apps, and self-help books, the dream of romantic love has been sold to many of us, but Skye Cleary thinks we need to take a step back. The worry, is that we might blindly sacrifice our freedom, offload our happiness onto another person, or use them as a means to our own ends. Existentialism teaches us that we should aim to live authentically and embrace our freedom. Our question for this episode, is whether or not our current understanding of romantic love is compatible with such a view. Can Jack meet Jill fall in love, and not fall down the hill? Should we, can we, and why, should we love?

A prick of the skin; the sorrow of grief; the inevitability of change; our dependence on the whim of the cosmos. Suffering bleeds into every aspect of our existence and, according to Siddhārtha Gautama (the Buddha), the anguish of our misfortune stems from our ignorance and confusion. If we were to see the world for how it really is – a place of impermanence, interdependence, and emptiness – then, according to Buddhism, we might free ourselves from illusion and discover the path to liberation and enlightenment. Today, this insight is shared by over half a billion people. Yet, most philosophy departments in Europe and America offer no courses in Buddhist philosophy and (within the leading journals) academic papers focusing on the central tenets of Buddhist philosophy of religion are vastly outweighed by their Abrahamic (and predominantly Christian) counterparts.

Professor Jay Garfield, our guest for this episode, is the exception to this rule. Championing the globalisation of philosophy and reshaping perceptions of Buddhist scholarship, Professor Garfield is Chair of Philosophy at Smith College in Massachusetts, Visiting Professor at Harvard Divinity School, Professor at Melbourne University, and adjunct Professor at the Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies. Named amongst the 50 most influential philosophers of the past decade – with over 30 books and over 200 publications – it is safe to say that Professor Garfield is one of the leading exponents of Buddhist philosophy in contemporary academia.

For Garfield, if philosophy won’t diversify, then let’s call it out for what it is: a colonial discipline that ignores the rich and relevant insights of non-Western thought. As philosophers, we cannot afford to ignore the metaphysical, ethical, epistemological, and existential insights of Buddhist scholarship. It’s time to engage with Buddhism, and rid ourselves of our prejudices, ignorance, and confusion. Buddhism is a philosophy of the present, not a philosophy of the past, and it’s time we treated it that way.

For religious believers, considering the questions that surround the nature or attributes of God, is important in their attempt to form a coherent understanding of their creator.

In the Summa Theologica, shortly after arguing for the existence of God, Saint Thomas Aquinas writes the following: “Having recognised that a certain thing exists, we have still to investigate the way in which it exists, that we may come to understand what it is that exists.” This seems like a peculiar thing to state. I know that there exists something, but I have no idea as to what this thing is. As Brian Davies points out in his book Philosophy of Religion: A Guide and Anthology, this not such an odd statement after all. Suppose I attempt to open a door, and something stops it from opening. I might say, ‘well something is certainly in the way’. If it makes sense to make this statement, it also makes sense to ask, 'what is it'?

Introduction

The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience. How do 100 billion neurons come together to bring about a unified, conscious mind, and the rich tapestry of qualities that make up our world? This might be the most difficult problem in philosophy and science. No matter how rich our description of the brain, it seems that we’ll still be left with this same question: where does consciousness come from and what is its place in nature?

Having coined the term ‘the hard problem’ in 1994, today, David Chalmers finds himself ranked amongst the world’s most prominent thinkers. David is currently Professor of Philosophy and Neural Science at New York University, co-director of the Center for Mind, Brain, and Consciousness, Honorary Professor of Philosophy at the Australian National University, and co-director of the academic database PhilPapers. Amongst his many contributions, David is the author of The Conscious Mind, The Character of Consciousness, and Constructing the World. David’s hundreds of papers, interviews, and talks, make up some of the most influential contributions to the field, breathing new life into the debate and inspiring a new wave of scholarship.

For many, the problem of consciousness goes beyond the dusty chalkboards of seminar rooms and into our day-to-day lives. Consciousness may well be the determining factor of what constitutes a worthwhile existence, or whether or not a being deserves our moral consideration. 

The stakes are higher than the nature of the world itself. It’s time to wake up and smell the roses… how can we explain consciousness?

For religious believers, considering the questions that surround the nature or attributes of God, is important in their attempt to form a coherent understanding of their creator.

In the Summa Theologica, shortly after arguing for the existence of God, Saint Thomas Aquinas writes the following: “Having recognised that a certain thing exists, we have still to investigate the way in which it exists, that we may come to understand what it is that exists.” This seems like a peculiar thing to state. I know that there exists something, but I have no idea as to what this thing is. As Brian Davies points out in his book Philosophy of Religion: A Guide and Anthology, this not such an odd statement after all. Suppose I attempt to open a door, and something stops it from opening. I might say, ‘well something is certainly in the way’. If it makes sense to make this statement, it also makes sense to ask, 'what is it'?

A Christmas party is where humanity’s deepest truths can be revealed. It’s a space where profound questions like "How much gravy is too much gravy?" “What is partridge doing in a pear tree?” mingle seamlessly with "What is the meaning of life?" The very act of gathering to celebrate is a tribute to our existential longing for connection, love, joy, and embarrassing drunken dance moves. Plato might have envisioned it as a quest for wisdom, but let’s be honest, sometimes the real enlightenment happens while debating who gets the last Brussels sprout.

Today, we're stepping into one of the most intriguing parties in philosophy — Plato’s Symposium. A gathering of Ancient Athens’ most brilliant minds, lounging on couches, wine flowing freely, engaging in an intense yet playful exchange about the nature of love. But make no mistake, this is no ordinary party. Hosted at the home of the tragic playwright Agathon, this gathering is filled with laughter, drama and impassioned speeches. A celebration of intellect and pleasure, a blend of wit, wisdom, and revelry. As the night goes on, the conversation turns from the playful to the profound. What insights do our guests discover? What, indeed, is love? So, grab a seat at the table—because in Plato’s Symposium, the ideas are nearly as intoxicating … as the wine.

On August 6, 1945, an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, instantly killing up to 80,000 civilians, with another 40,000 dying soon after from burns and radiation poisoning. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki led to the surrender of the Japanese Army, marking the end of the most destructive war in history.

War has been a constant throughout history. Since the dawn of agriculture, humans have waged war against one another. Some argue that war is ingrained in human nature, from our ancestors battling over resources and empires seeking expansion, to biblical genocides and acts of human sacrifice—Homo sapiens are seemingly insatiable for conflict. Others, however, believe war is not inevitable and that we have the capacity for humility, justice, and kindness without resorting to armed conflict.

We must remember that explaining war is not the same as justifying it. While pacifism, as exemplified by Jesus and Gandhi, is often seen as noble, is non-violence truly effective against regimes intent on ethnic cleansing? If not, how do we determine when war is justified and what defines proportional force? Can the killing of innocent civilians ever be justified? And, if not, how do they differ from innocent combatants? War, huh, good god, what is it good for?

Links

A.C. Grayling, War: An Enquiry (book)

Richard Overy, Why War? (book)

Jeff Mcmahan, Killing in War (book)

Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars (book)

Carl von Clausewitz, On War (book)

War, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Introduction

Over a year has passed since COVID-19 forced the world to shut its doors. Millions of lives have been lost, and millions more have undergone radical change. At times, many of us have wished to see loved ones, friends, and colleagues; we’ve longed to play sports, attend shows, and travel the world. We’ve hoped that everything can return to normal. But should they?

What if this pandemic has highlighted issues in our societies that have been ignored or marginalised for too long? What if normal made the pandemic worse than it needed to be, and what if normal is part of the problem? According to philosopher Vittorio Bufacchi, this is precisely the case: everything must change.

Vittorio Bufacchi is a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at University College Cork, specialising in questions concerning social injustice, human rights, and political violence. As we shall see, Bufacchi’s work demonstrates that philosophy can and should engage with the most pressing social issues of our time. Philosophy, says Bufacchi, can navigate us towards better ideas and a better world; and it is during times of crisis that we need it most.

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), a man who suffered greatly from bodily ills, considered himself somewhat of a physician. Yet, his remedies were not aimed towards physical conditions of the body, but rather the personal and societal ills of his time. Nietzsche, often poetically and rhetorically, dissected what he perceived to be the root of the suffering or apathy many of his contemporaries were facing.

His diagnosis focussed primarily on the human tendency to deny life. Life denying, for Nietzsche, came in many ways: the asceticism of the Buddha or Arthur Schopenhauer, the herd-like mentality of what Nietzsche called “the Last Man”, and most famously – the otherworldly illusions of Christianity. To him, these were all attempts to cower in the face of an objectively indifferent reality.

Nietzsche’s prognosis? To stand in the face of this indifference and shout yes! To affirm life and strive for personal excellence. How he envisioned this is subject to much scholarly debate but Nietzsche provides certain clear themes over his prolific authorship.

His masterwork Thus Spoke Zarathustra suggests we should look forward to the “Ubermensch” or “Superman”, a spiritually healthier individual who approaches the world in an honest and fearless way. Similarly, continuing his claim from The Gay Science, Thus Spoke Zarathustra also reminds the reader that “God is dead”. Nietzsche wanted people to recognise the void in values left by God’s absence and the responsibility we have been given to create our own meaning.

Nietzsche’s legacy is an interesting one. Thus Spoke Zarathustra, along with the Bible, ironically, were given to German soldiers during the First World War. He also, after his death, was accused of being a proto-Nazi due to his sister’s influence over his final posthumous works.

Nietzsche’s thoughts on his own works are remarkable in their irony and grandiosity. He hoped his messages would strike a chord with people and force them to look deep into their own intentions and actions. He also hoped they would provide a basis for personal change.

A passage from Ecce Homo gives us an insight into his style and desired effect:

“I know my fate. One day my name will be associated with the memory of something tremendous — a crisis without equal on earth, the most profound collision of conscience, a decision that was conjured up against everything that had been believed, demanded, hallowed so far. I am no man, I am dynamite.”

Introduction

One day when Jack, Olly, and Andy were accompanying Confucius, Confucius said: “Why don’t each of you tell me what you have your mind set on.”

Andy was the first to reply, he said he wanted to be as profitable and the prestigious as the Duke of Zhou. Once he had profit and prestige, he could have all things his heart desired. 

 Jack, having suspected that Andy had given a poor response, said he wished to cultivate humanness by helping others to help themselves. He wanted to allow others to see how their selfishness prevented them from becoming truly human and from experiencing true joy. 

 Finally, Olly simply responded that he wished not to make any promises he couldn’t keep but that he hoped to learn from the ancients, respect the roles he had been assigned, and care for his friends and family. 

 Confucius sat quietly for a moment and then said: “Andy, you have mistaken what made the Duke of Zhou so well pleased. Jack, you have said the right words but for the wrong reason. Olly, you can learn from the ancients but also from your less capable friends, see if you share any of their qualities.”

Introduction

Jack was walking down a street. It was a day like any other. As ever, his mind was a flurry of thoughts, worries, and anxieties, stimulated by coffee and the bright light of his phone. In a bid to relieve his stress, he put his phone in his pocket, and tried to notice the details he would usually ignore. 

As he walked past the pharmacy, he saw a sick man coughing and spluttering; he was throwing medication back to stop his disease from decaying his body. Jack kept walking and came across an old woman waiting at a bus stop. She was fragile, crooked, and anxious; clearly age had taken much from her. Crossing the road away from the bus stop, he waited for the traffic to pass. Driving slowly past him was a hearse: a coffin on full display, surrounded by flowers, proceeded by a stream of weeping mourners. 

Jack fell to his knees, overwhelmed with despair, “we all get sick, we all age, and we all die. We cannot escape this fate!” His head against the pavement, he didn’t move for almost an hour. When he got up, he was approached by a homeless man, to whom he said, “sorry, I don’t have any change.” The man replied, “It is you who needs a little change, young monk. I know why you fall to your knees in despair: the inescapable suffering of life weighs on us all. Let me tell you of someone who was once like you, who tried to remove suffering from our minds… let me tell you the story of Siddhartha Gotama, The Buddha.”

Specialising in philosophy of mind, Sam Coleman is a reader in philosophy at the University of Hertfordshire. Coleman’s main work centres around questions concerning consciousness, predominantly, on what has come to be known as ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. To paraphrase Colin McGinn, the problem can be summarised as follows: how does soggy grey matter give rise to vivid technicolour experience?

In this episode, we’re going to be focusing on Coleman’s views concerning ‘Personhood, Consciousness and God’, specifically relating to pantheism. In a word, pantheism is the view that God is identical with the universe, as the pantheist slogan goes, “God is everything and everything is God.” If we are to think of personal identity as a stream of uninterrupted consciousness, Coleman argues that pantheism runs into significant problems. Instead, Coleman suggests an alternative theory of personhood which leaves open the possibility of a personal God, which is identical with the universe. As we will find, Coleman’s view bridges fascinating philosophical questions concerning personal identity, metaphysics of consciousness and God, into an original and exciting pantheist theory.

Believe it or not, humans have been debating questions concerning God for as long as couples have been discussing what they fancy for dinner. Does God exist? Is God all-power, all-knowing and all-loving? Shall we try that new Mexican restaurant on Bold Street?

In this episode, we’re going to be discussing the existence of God in relation to the problem of evil, more specifically, on what has come to be known as ‘the evil-god challenge’. Roughly stated, our question is as follows: why is belief in a good-god significantly more reasonable than belief in an evil-god?

Contents

Part I. For God’s Sake: Paradise and the Snake.

Part II. Weighing the Scales of Evil: How Heavy is God’s Heart?

Part III. Audience Questions, Further Analysis and Discussion.

Olivia Coombes is a philosopher and teacher at the University of Edinburgh whose research focuses on issues about the possibility of time travel, the paradoxes involved in time travel, and how these topics relate to the question of free-will. In addition to this, Liv is also the co-host of the Edinburgh-based podcast Two Philosophers: One Podcast, No Problems.

Since the philosopher David Lewis, and before, philosophers, scientists, movie fans (pretty much everybody), have deliberated the possibility of time travel. People have asked questions like: What is the order of time? If we could build a powerful enough machine, would we be able to travel through time? Causation goes forwards in time, but is there anything stopping it going backwards? And, if it could, can we have causal loops in time?

In this episode we’re going to be focusing on the grandfather paradox, which is one instance of the question: can time travellers change the past? This paradox asks us whether or not we could go back in time and kill our own grandfathers. Many people say no: it is logically impossible, like squaring circles, or making something from nothing. However, Olivia Coombes thinks differently. She thinks that we can kill our grandfathers, and that we are able to change the past.

Hello good sir! If you do not mind me saying, you look as if you’re in limbo.

Lost? It might please you to know that most of the tourists, and the locals for that matter, don’t know where they’re heading in these parts.

If I could be so bold as to make an assessment, I would take you for the sophisticated type but with a little bit of an edge? Your smile says it all. Nothing wrong with indulging in the simple things in life every now and then.

Do you see that bar over there? Yes, the one with the peculiar name. Mexico City, here in Amsterdam. You’ll likely find one or two characters in that place; the brute who runs the place for instance. On a good night, you can end up in the type of conversation which only drunken stranger can have – putting the world to rights. On an even better night, you might learn something about yourself.

Intrigued? I knew you were an adventurous sort the moment I lay eyes on you. Enjoy your time here in Amsterdam. No better place in the world for a bit of escapism! The only problem some have is not being able to escape the thought of it after they visit! What? Oh, I meant nothing by it. A slip of the tongue.

Before you leave, can I make one final suggestion? I’d take the coat off if I were you. This place can get a lot hotter than limbo if you catch my drift…

In this episode, you’ll be treated to a live performance of The Panpsycast. The event took place at Liverpool’s beautiful Tung Auditorium on 20th May 2022. Over three hundred of you purchased tickets to the event, with some of our most loyal patrons travelling thousands of miles to be with us in person.

Before you listen to the audio, we just wanted to say a huge thank you to those who came along, as well as all of our wonderful panellists – Rowan Williams, Anil Seth, Laura Gow, and Philip Goff – for participating in the debate.

A special thank you to Q Quartet, The Department of Philosophy at Liverpool University, and Premier Christian Radio for making this episode possible – as well as all of our incredible patrons. Thank you again for your support; we hope you enjoy the show.

Introduction

I write this in secret, hoping that these notes be passed on outside Russia. The author of the diary and the diary itself may, of course, be imaginary. Nevertheless, it is clear that such persons as the Underground Man do exist in our society.

We have tried to expose him to the public but so far there has been no luck. If only people knew of the power of the Underground. He is one of the representatives of a generation still living, a generation waiting patiently for the right moment. His notes were discovered long after his passing, written on tatty paper in cheap ink, covered in cigarette burns and dust….

Don’t listen to the ants who would rather slave over the anthill than accept the truth. These notes are yours now, spread them to every corner of the globe. Long live the Underground!

Introduction

If I told you I was a proud and angry person, what would you think of me? Would you conjure up the image of an entitled, arrogant aggressor? The devil’s turn from God was born of pride after all. What if you thought of a person with standards, a person with integrity who wants the best for themselves and others? Would that be a fair assumption?

What I’m asking is: are pride and anger virtues or vices? In the right light, emotions seem to lead to a better life… or perhaps they just create that impression until we realise we’ve become something we’d rather not admit. These two emotions govern our self-worth, they shape our relationships with others, and they determine how we bring about a better world. In short, how we think about these two emotions matters and it’s imperative that we understand their nature.

Introduction

Resting on our shoulders is the most complex object in the known universe: 86 billion neurons, each connected to 10,000 others. From Plato to Descartes, to the modern-day, philosophers have largely been ignorant of the workings of the brain, despite many questions in philosophy seeming to be intimately linked with its nature. Questions like: What are the origins of our moral intuitions, our conscience? What is the nature of decision-making? And how does the brain produce consciousness? 

Following the recent upsurge of interest and research into neuroscience (reaching full steam in the 1970s), Patricia Churchland describes the emergence of neurophilosophy as ‘inevitable’, coining the term in her now classic book, Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind-Brain in 1986. Alongside Neurophilosophy, Patricia Churchland is best known for her books Touching a Nerve, Braintrust, and most recently Conscience, which (together with hundreds of other publications, interviews, public talks, and awards) have led her to be considered one of, if not the, world’s leading neurophilosopher. 

Currently Professor Emerita in Philosophy at the University of California, San Diego, Patricia Churchland has knocked down the wall between science and philosophy, inspiring a new wave of thinking about life’s most challenging questions.

For some, however, the wall was there for a reason: questions of philosophy should not be confused with questions of science. After all, what can neuroscience tell us about the origin of consciousness or the nature of morality? Our topics for this episode...

Our sensory experiences make up the fabric of our worlds. It’s a fabric that keeps us warm; a fabric that makes the world worth living in. If you couldn’t hear the cry of your new-born child, if you couldn’t taste your grandfather’s famous brussels sprouts at Christmas, or feel the embrace of your lifelong partner, then your life wouldn’t just include less experiences, but less meaning. Given the value we place on our sensory experiences, it seems important that we understand the nature of them. What is happening, exactly, when we hear, taste, and feel? What are sensory experiences made of?

In this episode, we’ll be exploring the nature of sensory phenomenology with Dr Laura Gow, Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Liverpool. Formerly of Warwick University, Cambridge University, and the University of Antwerp, Dr Gow – whose work focuses on the philosophy of perception and the metaphysics of consciousness – is one of the UK’s leading phenomenologists. From hallucinations and colour to empty space and silence, Laura’s research covers a broad range of topics, but in this episode we’ll be focusing on transparency.

According to the transparency view, when we undergo a perceptual experience, the only properties we’re aware of are located externally. There are no perceptual properties, says Gow, inside of us – despite what it may seem.

Hedda Hassel Mørch is a philosopher and post-doc at the University of Oslo, previously at The Center for Mind, Brain, and Consciousness at New York University. Dr Mørch’s research focuses on panpsychism, neutral monism and liberal conceptions of physicalism. More specifically, how such views can respond to problems in philosophy of mind and metaphysics, such as the hard problem of consciousness (namely, how does soggy grey matter give rise to technicolour experience), the problem of mental causation (how can the mind interact the world), and the metaphysics of causation (what does it really mean for one event to ‘cause’ another).

In this episode, we’re going to be discussing these topics with Hedda, but focus more specifically, on her views on consciousness and Integrated Information Theory. In Hedda’s own words:

"The nature of consciousness seems to be unique among scientific puzzles. Not only do neuroscientists have no fundamental explanation for how it arises from physical states of the brain, we are not even sure whether we ever will."

---

Contents

Part I. Integrated Information Theory.

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion.

 

Introduction

Enjoying a holiday in a small coastal village, a New York banker finds herself walking along a tranquil pier when she comes across a fisherman in a small, wooden boat. Inside the boat she spotted several rainbow-coloured fish. ‘Congratulations on a fine score. How long did it take you to catch them?’

‘Only a little while,’ the fisherman replied. ‘That’s great,’ said the banker, ‘so, why don’t you stay out longer and catch a few more?’ The fisherman explained that he only caught what he needed to put fish on the table and a roof over his family’s heads. ‘But’, the puzzled banker enquired, ‘what do you do with the rest of your time?’ The fisherman smiled: ‘I sleep in late, I read books, I go dancing with my wife, and I write jokes about Adam Sandler.’

The banker scoffed, ‘You know, I could offer you my assistance with your fishing business.’ The fisherman raised his eyebrows. ‘If you spent more time fishing, you could sell more fish and buy a bigger boat. You’d catch more fish, buy more boats, and soon enough you could buy a fleet! Instead of selling your catch to a middleman, you would sell directly to the processor, and eventually open a cannery.’ The fisherman paused for a moment… ‘Right, but how long will this all take?’ The banker replied: ‘Ten to fifteen years?’ 

‘But what then?’ asked the fisherman. The banker looked confused, ‘Then you could enjoy some time off: sleep in late, read books, go dancing with your wife, and write jokes about Adam Sandler.’

The fisherman smiled, ‘I suggest you stick around for a while. Have you been fishing before? Ha! Why don’t you climb aboard?’

You’re going to a party, but you don’t care if the other guests will like your dress. You pull onto your drive; you don’t consider what your neighbours will think of your car. You sell books that you’ve written, share photographs that you’ve taken, and post your thoughts on the world to any internet user who will listen – yet, you are unmoved and unmotivated by the popularity of your work.

Imagine if you didn’t have to worry about your career, your fame, or wealth. Imagine if you didn’t have to fret about falling in love or maintaining that love once you’ve found it. Imagine never feeling daunted by the fact you’re going to die, and that something may or may not be waiting for you beyond the grave. If you could free yourself from these anxieties, do you think you would be happy? Well, isn’t happiness the goal of life, after all?

According to the Epicureans, we should answer these questions with a resounding ‘yes’. For his followers, Epicurus worked out exactly how we can achieve this state of happiness and tranquillity, and the good news is that it is within reach for all of us. All we need to do is follow one principle: pursue pleasure and avoid pain. It’s just that simple.

Introduction

Enjoying a holiday in a small coastal village, a New York banker finds herself walking along a tranquil pier when she comes across a fisherman in a small, wooden boat. Inside the boat she spotted several rainbow-coloured fish. ‘Congratulations on a fine score. How long did it take you to catch them?’

‘Only a little while,’ the fisherman replied. ‘That’s great,’ said the banker, ‘so, why don’t you stay out longer and catch a few more?’ The fisherman explained that he only caught what he needed to put fish on the table and a roof over his family’s heads. ‘But’, the puzzled banker enquired, ‘what do you do with the rest of your time?’ The fisherman smiled: ‘I sleep in late, I read books, I go dancing with my wife, and I write jokes about Adam Sandler.’

The banker scoffed, ‘You know, I could offer you my assistance with your fishing business.’ The fisherman raised his eyebrows. ‘If you spent more time fishing, you could sell more fish and buy a bigger boat. You’d catch more fish, buy more boats, and soon enough you could buy a fleet! Instead of selling your catch to a middleman, you would sell directly to the processor, and eventually open a cannery.’ The fisherman paused for a moment… ‘Right, but how long will this all take?’ The banker replied: ‘Ten to fifteen years?’ 

‘But what then?’ asked the fisherman. The banker looked confused, ‘Then you could enjoy some time off: sleep in late, read books, go dancing with your wife, and write jokes about Adam Sandler.’

The fisherman smiled, ‘I suggest you stick around for a while. Have you been fishing before? Ha! Why don’t you climb aboard?’

Did you hear the news of Socrates? He’s finally to answer for his sophistry! At last, the great lampooning, moral gadfly is to stand before the Court of Athens and answer for his crimes. To think, one could have the audacity to trade in talentless talk and lies, to lead our youth astray, and deny our gods, only to play the fool once more, and plead ignorance when his number is called.

Oh, magnificent Socrates, ‘the great rhetorician’ - his followers are deluded. A more fitting label? ‘Socrates, the great casuist clown!’ Lacking all reason and logic, he makes a mockery of our institutions. Like the fool who claims others cannot see, because he himself is blind, Socrates has only ever opened his mouth to appease his own lack of wisdom. Justly, he now finds himself in a tricky dilemma; may the gods have mercy on his impious soul.

Introduction

It cannot have escaped your attention that there is a small contingent of our nation that poses a threat to our way of life.

They want us to stop farming our most prized delicacy on the grounds of their ‘moral concerns’. We must not let them push us around. As you well know, it has always been an important part of our culture. Why should we assume that this small group of radicals have got it right and that our ancestors have all been wrong? Think of all the memories we’ve shared when eating the meat around the table with our families. It is a wonderful thing.

Secondly, I have yet to come across anyone who doesn’t gain great satisfaction from the delicious taste of the meat. Whether it is in patties, ground mince or slices, it is enjoyed by billions every day. Imagine the backlash if we showed sympathy to the radicals! Think about all the businesses that rely on meat for their income. It would be political suicide.

Finally, and most importantly, we must always remember the natural order of things. We are top of the food chain, and it is our right to exercise our dominion. Every test we have conducted on the creatures have proven them to be inferior, be it intelligence, strength, or a capacity to live what we’d all say is a fulfilling life.

I know that you must feel the same; all I ask is for permission to deal with the radicals. Eating human meat should never be up for debate.

Contents

Part I. History

Part II. Fellow Creatures

Part III. Mere Instruments

Part IV. Further Analysis and Discussion

Links

Carl Cohen, ‘Why Animals Have No Rights’.

David DeGrazia, Animal Rights: A Very Short Introduction.

Jonathan Safran Foer, Eating Animals.

Lori Gruen, Entangled Empathy: An Alternative Ethic for Our Relationships with Animals.

Christine M. Korsgaard, Fellow Creatures: Our Obligations to the Other Animals.

Philip Lymbery, Farmageddon in Pictures: The True Cost of Cheap Meat.

Mary Midgley, Animals and Why They Matter.

Matthieu Ricard, A Plea for the Animals: The Moral, Philosophical, and Evolutionary Imperative to Treat All Beings with Compassion.

Peter Singer, Animal Liberation.

Introduction

Art is created by people, but people are fallible. When the art we love is tainted by the brush of an artist’s biography, we must ask whether the shift in our aesthetic experience is reasonable. One might also wonder whether artworks can do wrong in and of themselves. If artworks can be intended as conveyers of truth, can they convey falsehoods or – more awkwardly – lies? These aren’t just conceptual problems. If artworks lie and immoral artists are inseparable from their artworks, how should we respond? Should we censor all art, some art, or no art at all?

In this episode, we’ll be discussing the ethics of art with Cambridge University’s Dr Daisy Dixon. Dixon’s work, which explores the nature of (and responses to) unethical art, invites us to place art within its context – to consider artworks in relation to their artists, truth-functionality in relation to an artwork’s surroundings, and dangerous artworks in relation to their curation. If we do so, says Dixon, we’ll not only gain a better understanding of art but how we can bring about a better world.

Let me tell you about the day Socrates drank the poison. You must be aware of his trial and apology? The Athenians have not stopped talking about it since Meletus and the others condemned him. Do not worry, he did not die in fear and nor is he truly gone. He argued his case much like he always had. He died the philosopher’s death, having practiced for it his entire life.

What does this mean? Socrates spoke persuasively about matters concerning the immortality of the soul. He said the life of a true philosopher helps the prisoner, chained hand and foot in their body, to escape from the dark cave of ignorance and into the light of wisdom. This, in turn, provides the soul with the perfect means to release itself from the body after death.

When the hour arrived, and Socrates finally took the hemlock, he did not flinch. Those of us who bore witness could not help but shed a tear – we were not as brave as the wise man who lay before us. What? You would like to hear more? Are you not convinced of the immortality that Socrates proposed? Come, take a seat, I will tell you the full story…

Contents

Part I. The Soul and Body

Part II. Arguments for the Soul’s Immortality

Part III. In Defence of Immortality

Part IV. The Death of Socrates, Further Analysis and Discussion

Imagine you are in an open field which stretches in every direction, further than your eyes can see. Since there is nothing of interest in your immediate surroundings, you set your sights on the horizon. You begin to walk with purpose; long strides eventually break into a run until you are sprinting as fast as you can. After a while, you begin to slow down. Not just because of a lack of breath, but because something doesn’t quite feel right.

Your steps relax to a strolling pace as you turn back to glance at where you started — but it isn’t clear how far you’ve come. You continue walking; at first for hours, then days, and then weeks. Eventually, although the anxiety set in days ago, you come to a stop. No matter how many steps you had taken, the horizon never came any closer. The goal was never realised, regardless of your efforts.

This short passage might tell you something about your own life, or at least a way of thinking which has occupied your mind at one time or another. The horizon in the story is an analogy for instrumental goods. Instrumental goods are those things in life that you want because you believe them to be necessary for your well-being or happiness. A new job or a trip that you’ve always wanted to take, for example.

We think that once we meet these goals, we will somehow achieve happiness as if it was some state which could be reached and maintained forever. But these ideas are sorely misguided. We cannot find and maintain happiness by seeking it in instrumental goods. You see, permanent, unchanging happiness is like the horizon in the story. No matter how hard you work for it, no matter how many promotions you achieve, how many new trips you take, you simply cannot find happiness in this way.

Contents

Part I. The Context and Life of Epictetus.

Part II. The Discourses and The Enchiridion.

Part III. Modern Stoicism.

Part IV. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy.

Part V. Further Analysis and Discussion.

Links

How to Be Free: An Ancient Guide to the Stoic Life, A. A. Long (Amazon).

A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy, William Irvine (Amazon).

Discourses and Selected Writings, Epictetus (Amazon).

Psychotherapy: A Very Short Introduction, Tom Burns and Eva Burns-Lundgren (Amazon).

Meditations, Marcus Aurelius (Amazon).

A Handbook for New Stoics: How to Thrive in a World Out of Your Control, Massimo Pigliucci (Amazon).

How To Be A Stoic: Ancient Wisdom for Modern Living, Massimo Pigliucci (Amazon).

The Happiness Hypothesis: Putting Ancient Wisdom to the Test of Modern Science, Jonathan Haidt (Amazon).

Classical Philosophy: A history of philosophy without any gaps, Volume 1, Peter Adamson (Amazon).

The Partially Examine Life, Episode 124: The Stoic Life with Epictetus (Podcast).

 Report: March 2nd 

 After the successes we have had with Algernon, and with much deliberation, I have officially chosen our first research subject. Charlie Gordon, 32, was recommended to us by Alice Kinian from the Beekman School for Retarded Adults and she has assured us of his desire to increase his intellect. 

 I have scheduled for Charlie to come to the lab over the next few days where Burt Selden will run some preliminary psych tests. We are also going to test his mental flexibility with a few maze puzzles with Algernon. All that remains is the consent of a family member to grant permission for the operation. According to Alice Kinian, his sister Norma might be the most appropriate person to seek out.  

 Providing there are no warning signs during the testing, and consent is provided, we will be on the cusp of something truly ground-breaking. All these years of hard work will be vindicated and the trust of my wife and those who fund me will have been justified. Dare I say it, I might be remembered amongst the pantheon of great scientists. 

 Strauss has insisted that we keep a close eye on his mental state and emotional growth. I am inclined to agree but feel we cannot be held fully accountable for the man’s personality. The success or failure of this experiment will rest on his increased intelligence, or lack thereof.  

 One thing is certain, if the experiment works, Charlie Gordon’s life will change forever. 

 Professor Harold Nemur

 

Imagine two possible worlds. In the first world, Andrew is driving home from an intimate dinner party with Olly and Jack. He has been enjoying a range of delicious cheeses and wines, despite being the designated driver. With the exception of Andrew’s singing, the drive is uneventful, and the party arrives home, safe and sound. In the second world, the same initial conditions apply. Andrew has enjoyed a plethora of gastronomic delights, and finds himself behind the wheel, singing without reservation. Driving through the familiar country roads, where sadly it has been known for deer to meet the paths of oncoming traffic, Andrew sees an unknown shape ahead. Too slow to react, the car strikes the figure, and Andrew feels the crunch of the object beneath his wheels. The following morning, Andrew switches on Radio 4: ‘Police are requesting any information the public might have relating to a hit and run on Country Road yesterday evening, where a 6-year-old boy unfortunately lost his life. Anybody with information relating to the event, believed to have occurred in the hours in which one could be expected to be travelling home from an intimate dinner party, should contact their local police station immediately’. Andrew realises that it was not a deer he hit with his car, and turns himself in to the police station.

For Bernard Williams and Thomas Nagel, this is a classic case of moral luck. In both possible worlds, Andrew’s actions and intentions were the same. In the first, Andrew wakes up and continues with his life. In the second, we expect him to face up to fourteen years in prison. Our question: should we judge Andrew’s moral character any more harshly in the second case than the first - do they not deserve the same punishment?

Days grow shorter, rain turns to sleet, and nature’s creatures are forced into hibernation. Winter is here; when the world wages war on us, through darkness, danger, and impending depression. But from the clouds of winter’s despair, therein shines a light: gatherings among families and friends, spirits of fellowship and forgiveness, and scenes of feasts and festivities.

It is Christmas, who shepherds us together – when we would otherwise be apart – and spares us from the cold, and into loving arms. As we shall see, the festival of Christmas has snowballed with the passing of many winters – from the early celebrations of the Romans and Vikings to the Christian nativity and commercialisation – but what has held this snowball together?

Let us burn candles, logs, and line our homes with dancing lights; let us bring in trees and celebrate the hope of new life; and let us give generously and extend goodwill to our neighbours here, and around the world.

Introduction

I write this in secret, hoping that these notes be passed on outside Russia. The author of the diary and the diary itself may, of course, be imaginary. Nevertheless, it is clear that such persons as the Underground Man do exist in our society.

We have tried to expose him to the public but so far there has been no luck. If only people knew of the power of the Underground. He is one of the representatives of a generation still living, a generation waiting patiently for the right moment. His notes were discovered long after his passing, written on tatty paper in cheap ink, covered in cigarette burns and dust….

Don’t listen to the ants who would rather slave over the anthill than accept the truth. These notes are yours now, spread them to every corner of the globe. Long live the Underground!

This is a live recording from our recent show at The Royal Institution Theatre in London.

The panel includes returning guests Philip Goff (professor of philosophy at Durham) and Rowan Williams (former Archbishop of Canterbury), as well as two new panellists, Elizabeth Oldfield (the popular writer) and Alex O’Connor (the popular YouTuber).

It’s a very warm and good-spirited debate exploring the problems with traditional religion and atheism. The main arguments discussed are the argument for God from design and the argument against God from evil. Veteran listeners will be familiar with these arguments; still, in each case, it’s fascinating to hear the responses from both sides of the aisle on what their opponents take to be the strongest objections to their view.

Without further ado, here’s the audio from our live show…we hope you enjoy the conversation.

Episode 1 - caves, slaves and coffee cups. The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/escapes the cave. This episode has been rerecorded. The original now exists in the realm of the forms. Just kidding, it was terrible. Enjoy the new recording. Links to all the reading can be found at www.thepanpsycast.com. Part I. The Allegory of the Cave (2:00), Part II. The Doctrine of the Forms (17:00), Part III. The reasons and reasoning behind the Cave (28:35), Part IV. Criticisms and Analysis (50:35).

Episode 2 - science, plates of coffee and nipples. The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/fulfils its telos. This episode fulfils the function of tackling Aristotle's basic philosophies. Special thanks to the prime mover for your help in the production of this recording. Links to all the reading can be found at www.thepanpsychist.com/panpsycast. Part I. Aristotle and Teleology (3:30) Part II. The Four Causes (20:15) Part III. The Prime Mover (40:30) Part IV. Aristotle and Plato (54:15).

Episode 3 - fifty shades of brain scientists. The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/interacts with physical properties. In this episode, we wrap up our discussion on Plato and Aristotle. We jump forward to some more contemporary philosophy, looking into materialism and dualism. Links to all the reading can be found at www.thepanpsychist.com/panpsycast. Part I. Aristotle and Plato on the Soul (1:22), Part II. Cartesian Dualism (17:40), Part III. Materialism (37:00), Part IV. Further Discussion (53:30).

Part I: Masturbation, peasants and pineapples… The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/becomes one with God. In this two-part special, we take a look at St Thomas Aquinas and natural law. Links to all the reading can be found at www.thepanpsychist.com/panpsycast. Sections: I. Aquinas and Teleology (Part I: 8:55) II. Four Tiers of Law (Part I: 26:10), III. The Precepts (Part I: 43:35), IV. Further discussion and Analysis (Part II: 19:00). The voices in this episode are owned by Jack Symes, Andrew Horton and Ollie Marley. Apologies for the low quality of the audio in sections of this podcast; we has serious production issues with this one. Rather than rerecording the entire episode, we thought it would be best to fix it up to the best of our abilities and distribute it. Thank you again for all of your support.

Part II: Masturbation, peasants and pineapples… The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/becomes one with God. In this two-part special, we take a look at St Thomas Aquinas and natural law. Links to all the reading can be found at www.thepanpsychist.com/panpsycast. Sections: I. Aquinas and Teleology (Part I: 8:55) II. Four Tiers of Law (Part I: 26:10), III. The Precepts (Part I: 43:35), IV. Further discussion and Analysis (Part II: 19:00). The voices in this episode are owned by Jack Symes, Andrew Horton and Ollie Marley. Apologies for the low quality of the audio in sections of this podcast; we had serious production issues with this one. Rather than rerecording the entire episode, we thought it would be best to fix it up to the best of our abilities and distribute it. Thank you again for all of your support.

Bentham, Mill and banter… The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/measures the pleasure and pain it may cause. In this three-part special, we take an insightful and fun-filled look at Utilitarianism. Follow us on Twitter at www.twitter.com/thepanpsychist. Links to all the reading can be found at www.thepanpsychist.com/panpsycast. Part I. Bentham and Utilitarianism (start of EP1) Part II. John Stuart Mill and Utilitarianism (start of EP2), Part III. Preference Utilitarianism (EP2, 43:15), Part IV. Further discussion and analysis (start of EP3). The voices in this episode are owned by Jack Symes, Andrew Horton and Ollie Marley. Thank you again for all of your support.

Bentham, Mill and banter… The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/measures the pleasure and pain it may cause. In this three-part special, we take an insightful and fun-filled look at Utilitarianism. Follow us on Twitter at www.twitter.com/thepanpsychist. Links to all the reading can be found at www.thepanpsychist.com/panpsycast. Part I. Bentham and Utilitarianism (start of EP1) Part II. John Stuart Mill and Utilitarianism (start of EP2), Part III. Preference Utilitarianism (EP2, 43:15), Part IV. Further discussion and analysis (start of EP3). The voices in this episode are owned by Jack Symes, Andrew Horton and Ollie Marley. Thank you again for all of your support.

Bentham, Mill and banter… The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/measures the pleasure and pain it may cause. In this three-part special, we take an insightful and fun-filled look at Utilitarianism. Follow us on Twitter at www.twitter.com/thepanpsychist. Links to all the reading can be found at www.thepanpsychist.com/panpsycast. Part I. Bentham and Utilitarianism (start of EP1) Part II. John Stuart Mill and Utilitarianism (start of EP2), Part III. Preference Utilitarianism (EP2, 43:15), Part IV. Further discussion and analysis (start of EP3). The voices in this episode are owned by Jack Symes, Andrew Horton and Ollie Marley. Thank you again for all of your support.

Kant, Pirates and the fantastic institute that is ‘the Wimpy’… The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/uncovers a priori moral truths. In this three-part special, we take an insightful and fun-filled look at Kantian Ethics. Follow us on Twitter at www.twitter.com/thepanpsychist. Links to all the reading can be found at www.thepanpsychist.com/panpsycast. Part I.  Duty and the Hypothetical Imperative (in Part I): 11:18, Part II. The Categorical Imperative and its Three Formulations (in Part II): 00:16, Part III. The Three Postulates and Application (in Part II): 27:05, Part IV. Further Discussion and Analysis (in Part III): 00:05. Thank you again for all of your support.

Kant, Pirates and the fantastic institute that is ‘the Wimpy’… The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/uncovers a priori moral truths. In this three-part special, we take an insightful and fun-filled look at Kantian Ethics. Follow us on Twitter at www.twitter.com/thepanpsychist. Links to all the reading can be found at www.thepanpsychist.com/panpsycast. Part I.  Duty and the Hypothetical Imperative (in Part I): 11:18, Part II. The Categorical Imperative and its Three Formulations (in Part II): 00:16, Part III. The Three Postulates and Application (in Part II): 27:05, Part IV. Further Discussion and Analysis (in Part III): 00:05. Thank you again for all of your support.

Kant, Pirates and the fantastic institute that is ‘the Wimpy’… The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/uncovers a priori moral truths. In this three-part special, we take an insightful and fun-filled look at Kantian Ethics. Follow us on Twitter at www.twitter.com/thepanpsychist. Links to all the reading can be found at www.thepanpsychist.com/panpsycast. Part I.  Duty and the Hypothetical Imperative (in Part I): 11:18, Part II. The Categorical Imperative and its Three Formulations (in Part II): 00:16, Part III. The Three Postulates and Application (in Part II): 27:05, Part IV. Further Discussion and Analysis (in Part III): 00:05. Thank you again for all of your support.

Flying through space on a magic unicorn… eating ice-cream. The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/proves the existence of God a priori. In this two-part episode, we take an insightful and fun-filled look at St. Anselm of Canterbury and the ontological argument. Tweet us your thoughts www.twitter.com/thepanpsycast. Part I. Anselm and the Argument (12:00), Part II. Gaunilo and the island (28:15), Part III. General criticisms (00:30 in Part II), Part IV. Further analysis and discussion (28:10 in Part II). You can find links to all the reading at www.thepanpsychist.com/panpsycast. Make sure you’ve subscribed to us on iTunes to get new episodes as and when they’re released! Thank you, we hope you enjoy the episode!

Flying through space on a magic unicorn… eating ice-cream. The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/proves the existence of God a priori. In this two-part episode, we take an insightful and fun-filled look at St. Anselm of Canterbury and the ontological argument. Tweet us your thoughts www.twitter.com/thepanpsycast. Part I. Anselm and the Argument (12:00), Part II. Gaunilo and the island (28:15), Part III. General criticisms (00:30 in Part II), Part IV. Further analysis and discussion (28:10 in Part II). You can find links to all the reading at www.thepanpsychist.com/panpsycast. Make sure you’ve subscribed to us on iTunes to get new episodes as and when they’re released! Thank you, we hope you enjoy the episode!

Watch out! Time’s ticking as the boys go bowling in part one of our wicked awesome super mega two-part special on the teleological argument! The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/proves the existence of God a posteriori. Tweet us your thoughts www.twitter.com/thepanpsycast. Part I. William Paley (4:45), Part II. St. Thomas Aquinas (51:50), Part III. Other Formulations (00:00 in Part II), Part IV. Further Analysis and Discussion (12:06 in Part II). You can find links to all the reading at www.thepanpsychist.com/panpsycast. Make sure you’ve subscribed to us on iTunes to get new episodes as and when they’re released! Thank you, we hope you enjoy the episode!

Watch out! It’s Part II/II on the Teleological Argument! Are things that appear to be designed, actually designed? Is the world made for us? Who will win philosophical ultimatum? The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/proves the existence of God a posteriori. Tweet us your thoughts www.twitter.com/thepanpsycast. Part I. William Paley (4:45), Part II. St. Thomas Aquinas (51:50), Part III. Other Formulations (00:00 in Part II), Part IV. Further Analysis and Discussion (12:06 in Part II). You can find links to all the reading at www.thepanpsychist.com/panpsycast. Make sure you’ve subscribed to us on iTunes to get new episodes as and when they’re released! Thank you, we hope you enjoy the episode!

You best get prime moving! Moving house? Visiting a hotel? Returning a book to the library? This is the podcast for you! Tweet us your thoughts www.twitter.com/thepanpsycast. Part I. St. Thomas Aquinas 5:10, Part II. Leibniz 34:50, Part III. Criticisms of the Cosmological Argument 00:05 (in Part II), Part IV. Further Discussion and Analysis 11:34 (in Part II). You can find links to all the reading at www.thepanpsychist.com/panpsycast. Make sure you’ve subscribed to us on iTunes to get new episodes as and when they’re released! Thank you, we hope you enjoy the episode!

You best get prime moving! Moving house? Visiting a hotel? Returning a book to the library? This is the podcast for you! Tweet us your thoughts www.twitter.com/thepanpsycast. Part I. St. Thomas Aquinas 5:10, Part II. Leibniz 34:50, Part III. Criticisms of the Cosmological Argument 00:05 (in Part II), Part IV. Further Discussion and Analysis 11:34 (in Part II). You can find links to all the reading at www.thepanpsychist.com/panpsycast. Make sure you’ve subscribed to us on iTunes to get new episodes as and when they’re released! Thank you, we hope you enjoy the episode!

In this first instalment, we focus on Mackie's logical problem and Rowe's evidential problem. You can find links to all the reading at www.thepanpsychist.com/panpsycast. Make sure you’ve subscribed to us on iTunes to get new episodes as and when they’re released! Thank you, we hope you enjoy the episode! Part I. The Problem of Evil (start of Episode 10, (Part I)), Part II. Theodicies (start of Episode 10, (Part II)), Part III. The Free Will Defence (34:00 in Episode 10, (Part II)), Part IV. Further Analysis and Discussion (start of Episode 10, (Part III)).

You can find links to all the reading at www.thepanpsychist.com/panpsycast. Make sure you’ve subscribed to us on iTunes to get new episodes as and when they’re released! Thank you, we hope you enjoy the episode! Part I. The Problem of Evil (start of Episode 10, (Part I)), Part II. Theodicies (start of Episode 10, (Part II)), Part III. The Free Will Defence (34:00 in Episode 10, (Part II)), Part IV. Further Analysis and Discussion (start of Episode 10, (Part III)).

You can find links to all the reading at www.thepanpsychist.com/panpsycast. Make sure you’ve subscribed to us on iTunes to get new episodes as and when they’re released! Thank you, we hope you enjoy the episode! Part I. The Problem of Evil (start of Episode 10, (Part I)), Part II. Theodicies (start of Episode 10, (Part II)), Part III. The Free Will Defence (34:00 in Episode 10, (Part II)), Part IV. Further Analysis and Discussion (start of Episode 10, (Part III)).

You can find links to all the reading at www.thepanpsychist.com/panpsycast. Make sure you’ve subscribed to us on iTunes to get new episodes as and when they’re released! Thank you, we hope you enjoy the episode! Part I. Plantinga’s Reformed Epistemology (Episode 11, Part I). Part II. Analysis and discussion (Episode 11, Part II).

You can find links to all the reading at www.thepanpsychist.com/panpsycast. Make sure you’ve subscribed to us on iTunes to get new episodes as and when they’re released! Thank you, we hope you enjoy the episode! Part I. Plantinga’s Reformed Epistemology (Episode 11, Part I). Part II. Analysis and discussion (Episode 11, Part II).