Episode 136, ‘A World Unmade’ with Peter Hitchens (Part I - The Rage Against God)

Welcome to ‘Episode 136 (Part I of II)’, where we’ll be discussing the rise of secular society with Peter Hitchens.

The Western world faces a tidal wave of secularisation, which shows no signs of receding. In the UK, Christian self-identification has plummeted – dropping, for example, from 72% in 2001 to 47% in 2021. The secularists argue that this trend reflects a shift towards an inclusive and intellectually progressive society; their critics, however, warn that the decline of faith erodes our moral foundations and frays our social ties. “The secular flood isn’t just about church attendance,” they say, “but strikes at the heart of our nation’s identity and stability.”

For many conservatives, nowhere is this betrayal of our values more evident than our education system. In the UK, the 1944 Education Act introduced free secondary education to all children for the first time – with grammar schools said to offer exceptional educations to our most talented students. Today, grammar schools are in decline, and the founding of new ones prohibited. It was argued that these schools favoured the middle classes and perpetuated social divisions; others, however, believe that closing these pathways has reduced educational and social opportunities. Like the Christian identity of the nation, grammar schools are at risk of being confined to history books.

In this episode, we’ll be speaking with Peter Hitchens – British journalist, author, and social critic – about what religious and educational changes mean for the soul of Britain. Together, we’ll explore whether this shift marks the dawn of a more inclusive era – or the washing away of a once Great Britain.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/lowers its standards

Episode 135, ‘The Philosophy of Headphones’ with Jacob Kingsbury Downs (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 135 (Part II of II)’, where we’ll be discussing headphone violence with Dr Jacob Kingsbury Downs.

Listening to a podcast on the morning commute, drowning out the office noise with your favourite album, getting lost in an audiobook as you walk home – for many of us, navigating the world through headphones is second nature. But is there more to these everyday experiences than listening to our favourite content? Is there more to headphone listening than meets our ears?

In this episode, we’ll be exploring the philosophy and psychology of sound and headphone listening with Dr Jacob Kingsbury Downs, Departmental Lecturer in Music at the University of Oxford. Named as one of 2024’s BBC New Generation Thinkers, Jacob’s research takes place at the intersection between sound studies and continental philosophy, and seeks to reveal how headphone use shapes our minds and the fabric of society.

According to Downs, headphones do more than play our favourite sounds. They transport us into sensory shelters – intimate spaces of comfort and focus – and our own private theatres. Headphone listening, he argues, is about safety, control, and reconnecting with feelings of home. Yet, not all sounds are soothing; as we shall see, sometimes our intimate sonic spaces can be exploited as a means of torture, brainwashing, and corrupting our sense of self.

Don’t worry, though; you’re safe with us. Plug in your headphones; it’s time to relax. After all, there’s no place like home.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/warms up your headphones

Episode 135, ‘The Philosophy of Headphones’ with Jacob Kingsbury Downs (Part I - There’s No Sound Like Home)

Welcome to ‘Episode 135 (Part I of II)’, where we’ll be discussing the phenomenology of headphone listening.

Listening to a podcast on the morning commute, drowning out the office noise with your favourite album, getting lost in an audiobook as you walk home – for many of us, navigating the world through headphones is second nature. But is there more to these everyday experiences than listening to our favourite content? Is there more to headphone listening than meets our ears?

In this episode, we’ll be exploring the philosophy and psychology of sound and headphone listening with Dr Jacob Kingsbury Downs, Departmental Lecturer in Music at the University of Oxford. Named as one of 2024’s BBC New Generation Thinkers, Jacob’s research takes place at the intersection between sound studies and continental philosophy, and seeks to reveal how headphone use shapes our minds and the fabric of society.

According to Downs, headphones do more than play our favourite sounds. They transport us into sensory shelters – intimate spaces of comfort and focus – and our own private theatres. Headphone listening, he argues, is about safety, control, and reconnecting with feelings of home. Yet, not all sounds are soothing; as we shall see, sometimes our intimate sonic spaces can be exploited as a means of torture, brainwashing, and corrupting our sense of self.

Don’t worry, though; you’re safe with us. Plug in your headphones; it’s time to relax. After all, there’s no place like home.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/warms up your headphones

Episode 134, The Philosophy of War (Part III - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to the final instalment of Episode 134, in which we examine moral justifications for war and ethics within conflict.

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?

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/speeds away on a charriot

Episode 134, The Philosophy of War (Part II - In Pursuit of Power)

Welcome to our second instalment of Episode 134; in this instalment, we explore the sociological and cultural causes of war.

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?

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/speeds away on a charriot

Episode 134, The Philosophy of War (Part I - The Human Condition)

Welcome to the first instalment of Episode 134, where we explore the nature of war and the possibility of its evolutionary origins.

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?

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/speeds away on a charriot

Episode 133, 'Vulture Capitalism' with Grace Blakeley: Live at Glastonbury Festival

Welcome to Episode 133, where Jack speaks to returning guest Grace Blakeley about her new book, Vulture Capitalism, live from Glastonbury Festival.

They say money can’t buy happiness, but it can buy power, freedom, and security. The one per cent – who control nearly half of the world’s wealth – understand this better than anyone. In capitalist democracies, corporations spend billions on political donations and lobbying to influence economic policies in line with their own interests. The trillions spent by governments in propping up the banks following the 2008 financial crash – and the bailing out of the largest corporations through the Covid Corporate Financing Facility – speak volumes: the state and the economy are not separate entities. The goal of the state is clear: “Steady the ship and maintain course.”

Corporations don’t just pose a threat to our economic freedoms, but the future of the natural world. Just a handful of firms are responsible for over seventy per cent of carbon emissions, and despite public pressure, corporate action on the climate crisis has been largely ineffective. We shouldn’t be surprised; after all, industry holds the power, and turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/seizes the means of production

Episode 132, ‘The Concept of Beastliness’ with Ellie Robson (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 132 (Part II of II)’, where we’ll be analysing the ethics and meta-philosophy of Mary Midgley with Dr Ellie Robson.

Philosophy is about concepts – what it is to be moral, to be in love, or belong to the human species – and these concepts pervade every aspect of our lives. Yet, what images come to mind when you think of Immanuel Kant, David Hume, or René Descartes? For many of us, we imagine Descartes in his armchair, Hume at his desk, and Kant on one of his solitary walks. We certainly don’t imagine these figures, wearing boiler suits…

For Mary Midgley, the image of a philosopher withdrawn from the realities of everyday affairs represents precisely where philosophy has gone wrong. For Midgley, philosophy is best understood – not as an exercise of self-indulgent scholarship – but as a sort of plumbing. Our concepts run through our societies like the pipes through our homes, and it’s the job of the philosopher – that is, the plumber – to examine the pipes and keep the water from swamping the kitchen floor. For Midgley, we need philosophy, just as we need plumbing…philosophy’s not a luxury; it’s a necessity.

Joining us to discuss the philosophy of Mary Midgley is Dr Ellie Robson. Dr Robson is a British Society for the History of Philosophy Postdoctoral Fellow and Teaching Associate at Nottingham University. Ellie – whose work primarily focuses on the history of philosophy and meta-ethics – is one of the leading scholars of philosophy on Mary Midgley’s life and work. In this episode, she’ll illustrate Midgley’s meta-philosophy and meta-ethics through her analysis of the concept of beastliness.

Let’s dig up the floorboards and see what’s leaking.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/becomes a beast

Contents

Part I. The Roots of Human Nature

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 132, ‘The Concept of Beastliness’ with Ellie Robson (Part I - The Roots of Human Nature)

Welcome to ‘Episode 132 (Part I of II)’, where we’ll be discussing the philosophy of Mary Midgley with Dr Ellie Robson.

Philosophy is about concepts – what it is to be moral, to be in love, or belong to the human species – and these concepts pervade every aspect of our lives. Yet, what images come to mind when you think of Immanuel Kant, David Hume, or René Descartes? For many of us, we imagine Descartes in his armchair, Hume at his desk, and Kant on one of his solitary walks. We certainly don’t imagine these figures, wearing boiler suits…

For Mary Midgley, the image of a philosopher withdrawn from the realities of everyday affairs represents precisely where philosophy has gone wrong. For Midgley, philosophy is best understood – not as an exercise of self-indulgent scholarship – but as a sort of plumbing. Our concepts run through our societies like the pipes through our homes, and it’s the job of the philosopher – that is, the plumber – to examine the pipes and keep the water from swamping the kitchen floor. For Midgley, we need philosophy, just as we need plumbing…philosophy’s not a luxury; it’s a necessity.

Joining us to discuss the philosophy of Mary Midgley is Dr Ellie Robson. Dr Robson is a British Society for the History of Philosophy Postdoctoral Fellow and Teaching Associate at Nottingham University. Ellie – whose work primarily focuses on the history of philosophy and meta-ethics – is one of the leading scholars of philosophy on Mary Midgley’s life and work. In this episode, she’ll illustrate Midgley’s meta-philosophy and meta-ethics through her analysis of the concept of beastliness.

Let’s dig up the floorboards and see what’s leaking.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/becomes a beast

Contents

Part I. The Roots of Human Nature

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 131, 'In Defence of God's Goodness' with Jack Symes (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 131 (Part II of II)’, where we’ll be continuting, and concluding, our discussion on the evil-god challenge.

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.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/reduces itself to absurdity

Contents

Part I. Defeating the Evil-God Challenge

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 131, 'In Defence of God's Goodness' with Jack Symes (Part I - Defeating the Evil-God Challenge)

Welcome to ‘Episode 131 (Part I of II)’, where we’ll be speaking to Jack Symes about his new book, Defeating the Evil-God Challenge.

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.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/reduces itself to absurdity

Contents

Part I. Defeating the Evil-God Challenge

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 130, ‘The Dialectics of Nothingness’ with Gregory S. Moss and Takeshi Morisato (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 130 (Part II of II)’, where we’ll be continuing our discussion of Tanabe’s philosophy with Gregory Moss and Takeshi Morisato.

In the early part of the twentieth century, three thinkers – Nishida Kitarō, Tanabe Hajime, and Nishitani Keiji – founded the Kyoto School of Philosophy, a group of scholars working at the intersection of Japanese and European thought. The Kyoto School, deeply influenced by the German tradition, wrote extensively on the works of Kant, Hegel, and Heidegger exploring themes such as the limits of our reason and the nature of nothingness. Tanabe, himself a student of Heidegger, explored such topics at length, building on the rich body of thought and – as we shall see – igniting his own philosophy.

In this episode, we’ll be investigating the profound insights of Tanabe’s philosophy with two of the world’s leading Tanabe scholars: Associate Professor of Philosophy at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Gregory S. Moss and Lecturer in Non-Western Philosophy at the University of Edinburgh, Takeshi Morisato.

As we explore Tanabe’s work, we’ll see Japan’s, Kyoto School’s, and Tanabe’s histories, unique philosophical paths, and the many questions they illuminate along the way. As we do so, we’ll uncover the invaluable insights of their work and the legacy they left behind.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/contradicts itself

Contents

Part I. The Kyoto School

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 130, ‘The Dialectics of Nothingness’ with Gregory S. Moss and Takeshi Morisato (Part I - The Kyoto School)

Welcome to ‘Episode 130 (Part I of II)’, where we’ll be discussing early twentieth-century Japanese philosophy.

In the early part of the twentieth century, three thinkers – Nishida Kitarō, Tanabe Hajime, and Nishitani Keiji – founded the Kyoto School of Philosophy, a group of scholars working at the intersection of Japanese and European thought. The Kyoto School, deeply influenced by the German tradition, wrote extensively on the works of Kant, Hegel, and Heidegger exploring themes such as the limits of our reason and the nature of nothingness. Tanabe, himself a student of Heidegger, explored such topics at length, building on the rich body of thought and – as we shall see – igniting his own philosophy.

In this episode, we’ll be investigating the profound insights of Tanabe’s philosophy with two of the world’s leading Tanabe scholars: Associate Professor of Philosophy at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Gregory S. Moss and Lecturer in Non-Western Philosophy at the University of Edinburgh, Takeshi Morisato.

As we explore Tanabe’s work, we’ll see Japan’s, Kyoto School’s, and Tanabe’s histories, unique philosophical paths, and the many questions they illuminate along the way. As we do so, we’ll uncover the invaluable insights of their work and the legacy they left behind.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/contradicts itself

Contents

Part I. The Kyoto School

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 129, Talking about Existence (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 129 (Part II of II)’, where we’ll be continuing (and concluding) our discussion of Philosophers on God.

‘The clouds are grey, the sun obscured and you are walking through the countryside in the overcast of winter. Passing from field to woodland, the trees shed coats of frosty bark to celebrate the passing of another icy season. It feels too early for spring, but echoes of swallows in the canopies sing songs of new beginnings. You pause to catch a glimpse of your woodland companions. With effortless precision, your eyes track the birds as they zip between empty branches and, combining countless neurons, you forecast the birds’ trajectory each time they fall out of view.

You walk on, emerging from the trees, and return to the open fields. You look back, appreciate the woods and see a river flowing into the trees from the east. Where does the river begin? Escaping the clouds, the sun will soon be free of the sky altogether; if you want to discover the river’s source, you had better get walking.’

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/comes into existence

Contents

Part I. Out of Nothing

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 129, Talking about Existence (Part I - Out of Nothing)

Welcome to ‘Episode 129 (Part I of II)’, where we’ll be discussing our new book, Philosophers on God: Talking about Existence.

‘The clouds are grey, the sun obscured and you are walking through the countryside in the overcast of winter. Passing from field to woodland, the trees shed coats of frosty bark to celebrate the passing of another icy season. It feels too early for spring, but echoes of swallows in the canopies sing songs of new beginnings. You pause to catch a glimpse of your woodland companions. With effortless precision, your eyes track the birds as they zip between empty branches and, combining countless neurons, you forecast the birds’ trajectory each time they fall out of view.

You walk on, emerging from the trees, and return to the open fields. You look back, appreciate the woods and see a river flowing into the trees from the east. Where does the river begin? Escaping the clouds, the sun will soon be free of the sky altogether; if you want to discover the river’s source, you had better get walking.’

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/comes into existence

Contents

Part I. Out of Nothing

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 128, ‘Domestic Labour’ with Paulina Sliwa & Tom McClelland (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 128 (Part II of II)’, where we’ll be analysing the role and relevance of gendered affordance perception.

‘The kitchen needs cleaning, but only one of us seems to notice. I mean, he looked straight at the dishes in the sink…and just stacked his dish on top of them. How high does this precarious tower of crockery have to be until he decides to wash the dishes or, more likely, they collapse into an unrepairable heap? I suppose I’ll have to wash them. They won’t get washed otherwise, and I’d rather get them off my mind.’

The unequal distribution of household labour is a familiar concern amongst feminists. Despite the progress in women’s rights and freedoms, women across the world continue to bear the responsibility of domestic chores and childcare. This raises an important question: why do women in monogamous, opposite-sex relationships continue to shoulder a disproportionate amount of housework work despite their political gains?

In this episode, we’ll be exploring this question with two outstanding philosophers of morality and mind: Paulina Sliwa (Professor of Philosophy at the University of Vienna) and Thomas McClelland (Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Cambridge). 

According to Paulina and Tom, our disparities and perception of domestic labour are determined by our feelings, beliefs, and social norms. In other words, the way we perceive the world is radically different. The dishes don’t call out to some – in need of cleaning – in a moment of perception, as they do to others. So what can we do to change this disparity…that is, if it’s in need of changing at all.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/takes out the trash

Contents

Part I. Affordance Perception

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 128, ‘Domestic Labour’ with Paulina Sliwa & Tom McClelland (Part I - Affordance Perception)

Welcome to ‘Episode 128 (Part I of II)’, where we’ll be discussing philosophy of mind and domestic labour.

‘The kitchen needs cleaning, but only one of us seems to notice. I mean, he looked straight at the dishes in the sink…and just stacked his dish on top of them. How high does this precarious tower of crockery have to be until he decides to wash the dishes or, more likely, they collapse into an unrepairable heap? I suppose I’ll have to wash them. They won’t get washed otherwise, and I’d rather get them off my mind.’

The unequal distribution of household labour is a familiar concern amongst feminists. Despite the progress in women’s rights and freedoms, women across the world continue to bear the responsibility of domestic chores and childcare. This raises an important question: why do women in monogamous, opposite-sex relationships continue to shoulder a disproportionate amount of housework work despite their political gains?

In this episode, we’ll be exploring this question with two outstanding philosophers of morality and mind: Paulina Sliwa (Professor of Philosophy at the University of Vienna) and Thomas McClelland (Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Cambridge). 

According to Paulina and Tom, our disparities and perception of domestic labour are determined by our feelings, beliefs, and social norms. In other words, the way we perceive the world is radically different. The dishes don’t call out to some – in need of cleaning – in a moment of perception, as they do to others. So what can we do to change this disparity…that is, if it’s in need of changing at all.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/takes out the trash

Contents

Part I. Affordance Perception

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 127, ‘The Pursuit of Happiness’ with Jeffrey Rosen (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 127 (Part II of II)’, where we’ll be analysing the role of virtue and the lives of the Founding Fathers.

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?

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/strives for happiness

Contents

Part I. The Founding Fathers

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 127, ‘The Pursuit of Happiness’ with Jeffrey Rosen (Part I - The Founding Fathers)

Welcome to ‘Episode 127 (Part I of II)’, where we’ll be discussing the lives and philosophies of Founding Fathers.

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?

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/strives for happiness

Contents

Part I. The Founding Fathers

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 126, ‘Playfulness Versus Epistemic Traps’ with C. Thi Nguyen (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 126 (Part II of II)’, where we’ll be discussing the ethics and aesthetics of gameplay.

There’s great pleasure to be found in make-believe. Instantly shifting our perspectives and belief systems gives rise to new possibilities – possibilities that are unavailable to the serious and sober-minded. Yet, as time passes, so does our desire to play. Adults – and, perhaps more so, philosophers – are instructed to ‘grow up’, to build their lives and views on sensible grounds, and leave their disposition for laughter, disruption, and mischief in the playground. For C. T Nguyen – Professor of Philosophy at the University of Utah – this is a foolish mistake.

C. T Nguyen is one of the most innovative aestheticians of our time. As well as being published across philosophy’s leading journals, Nguyen’s work – which focuses on art, games, and agency – has earned him several notable prizes, including the American Philosophical Association 2021 Award, for his book Games: Agency as Art.

In this episode, we’ll be speaking to Nguyen about intellectual playfulness. For Nguyen, playfulness should be understood as a virtue and not a vice. When we explore philosophical ideas through our usual perspectives, we close ourselves off from a rich set of alternative possibilities, and risk re-directing good-faith inquiry into bad-faith results. Playfulness, however, allows us to escape these traps in our thinking, and open ourselves up to the possibility of creativity.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/strives to play

This episode is produced in partnership with the Aesthetics and Political Epistemology Project at the University of Liverpool, led by Katherine Furman, Robin McKenna, and Vid Simoniti and funded by the British Society of Aesthetics.

Contents

Part I. The Ideal Thinker

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion