Episode 84, The Patricia Churchland Interview (Part II - The Conscience)

Panpsycast Logo 2020.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 84 (Part II of II)’ where we’ll be discussing the origins of our moral intuitions with Patricia Churchland.

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...

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/hornswoggles you into a humdinger

Contents

Part I. The Hornswoggle Problem

Part II. The Conscience

Episode 78, Moral Luck (Part III - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 78 (Part III of III)', where we’ll be discussing the psychology of moral luck and engaging in some further analysis and discussion.

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? 

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/is held morally responsible for something outside of its control

Contents

Part I. Bernard Williams

Part II. Thomas Nagel

Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 78, Moral Luck (Part II - Thomas Nagel)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 78 (Part II of III)', where we’ll be discussing Thomas Nagel’s Moral Luck.

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? 

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/is held morally responsible for something outside of its control

Contents

Part I. Bernard Williams

Part II. Thomas Nagel

Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 78, Moral Luck (Part I - Bernard Williams)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 78 (Part I of III)', where we’ll be discussing Bernard Williams’ Moral Luck.

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? 

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/is held morally responsible for something outside of its control

Contents

Part I. Bernard Williams

Part II. Thomas Nagel

Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 75, ‘Christian Animal Ethics’ with David Clough (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 75 (Part II of II)', where we’ll be continuing our discussion with David Clough on Christian animal ethics.

With the dominance of humankind has come a new age, an age of global warming, ecological collapse, and sixth mass extinction. In 2018, it was reported that of all the Earth’s mammals, 96% are humans and livestock. Our overpopulation, overconsumption, and exploitation have caused a climate catastrophe, but we are not our only victims. Each year, over 70 billion land creatures and 7 trillion sea animals are killed for food, and despite growth in public awareness, the overwhelming majority of these animals continue to endure unimaginable suffering throughout their lives. 

The religions of ancient India - Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism - are no strangers to practicing ahimsa and vegetarianism. Their Abrahamic cousins have a very different past. For the advocate of animal rights, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have a long and dark history in their treatment of our fellow creatures. A history, many theologians, want to condemn to the history books.

One such theologian is David Clough, professor of theological ethics at the University of Chester. Through his systematic theology On Animals, Professor Clough has inspired a new wave of scholarship on Christian attitudes towards our fellow creatures, and the Earth as a whole, calling Christians to unshackle themselves from Aristotelian ways of thinking and embrace Darwinian theories of the natural world.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/lives on bread alone

Contents

Part I. The Rise of the Vegangelicals.

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion.

Episode 75, ‘Christian Animal Ethics’ with David Clough (Part I - The Rise of the Vegangelicals)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 75 (Part I of II)', where we'll be discussing Christian animal ethics with David Clough.

With the dominance of humankind has come a new age, an age of global warming, ecological collapse, and sixth mass extinction. In 2018, it was reported that of all the Earth’s mammals, 96% are humans and livestock. Our overpopulation, overconsumption, and exploitation have caused a climate catastrophe, but we are not our only victims. Each year, over 70 billion land creatures and 7 trillion sea animals are killed for food, and despite growth in public awareness, the overwhelming majority of these animals continue to endure unimaginable suffering throughout their lives. 

The religions of ancient India - Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism - are no strangers to practicing ahimsa and vegetarianism. Their Abrahamic cousins have a very different past. For the advocate of animal rights, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have a long and dark history in their treatment of our fellow creatures. A history, many theologians, want to condemn to the history books.

One such theologian is David Clough, professor of theological ethics at the University of Chester. Through his systematic theology On Animals, Professor Clough has inspired a new wave of scholarship on Christian attitudes towards our fellow creatures, and the Earth as a whole, calling Christians to unshackle themselves from Aristotelian ways of thinking and embrace Darwinian theories of the natural world.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/lives on bread alone

Contents

Part I. The Rise of the Vegangelicals.

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion.

Episode 72, Plato’s Crito: Socrates in Prison (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 72 (Part II of II)', where we'll be engaging in some further analysis and discussion.

Have you ever considered the invisible power of the law? How a contract is signed without ever putting pen to paper? Do not underestimate the importance of that which cannot be seen or grasped, since you unknowingly benefit from its presence and would suffer greatly in its absence. Therefore, if the law has kept you safe for all your best years, should you look to criticise it the moment it accuses?

Be careful not to pull too hard at that thread, for the social fabric appears tightly woven but is actually patched over the ages by many inadequate tailors. If you decide that the law doesn’t suit you now, are you not making yourself a special case? Isn’t everyone a special case? Would not everyone be pardoned?

So, what will it be: accept the law and therefore your fate, or set a precedent that demonstrates the contract is in fact as real as it is visible?

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/watches you sleep

Contents

Part I. The Dialogue

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 72, Plato’s Crito: Socrates in Prison (Part I - The Dialogue)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 72 (Part I of II)', where we'll be reading Plato’s Crito.

Have you ever considered the invisible power of the law? How a contract is signed without ever putting pen to paper? Do not underestimate the importance of that which cannot be seen or grasped, since you unknowingly benefit from its presence and would suffer greatly in its absence. Therefore, if the law has kept you safe for all your best years, should you look to criticise it the moment it accuses?

Be careful not to pull too hard at that thread, for the social fabric appears tightly woven but is actually patched over the ages by many inadequate tailors. If you decide that the law doesn’t suit you now, are you not making yourself a special case? Isn’t everyone a special case? Would not everyone be pardoned?

So, what will it be: accept the law and therefore your fate, or set a precedent that demonstrates the contract is in fact as real as it is visible?

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/watches you sleep

Contents

Part I. The Dialogue

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 71, Plato’s Apology: Socrates on Trial (Part I - The Dialogue)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 71 (Part I of II)', where we'll be reading Plato’s Apology.

Gentleman of our most prestigious Court of Athens, may I praise your patience and diligence in the presentation of the prosecution. I, Meletus stand before you unequivocally convinced that the criminal is guilty as charged. The hideous, snub-nosed Socrates is charged with corrupting the young men of Athens with his rhetoric and poisonous oratory skill, an undeniable fact. Socrates also stands before you charged with denying the gods their authority and challenging the beliefs of every genuine Athenian.

He insults our great city with his relentless irritating presence, a fly in great need of a spider. He shows no signs of remorse for his conduct or apology for his crimes, a true reflection of his guilt. I beg you loyal judicators of Athens, listen to his words, hear him twist them for his own malevolent purpose. Look into his eyes, see his lack of contrition. He says he knows nothing! I know at least one thing, the evidence presented by the prosecution proves Socrates is guilty, and he should accept the judgement of the Athenian Court.

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

Contents

Part I. The Dialogue

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 62, Epictetus: A Guide to Stoicism (Part V. Further Analysis and Discussion)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 62 (Part V of V)', where we'll be engaging in some 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.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/desires nothing out of its control

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.

Episode 62, Epictetus: A Guide to Stoicism (Part IV. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 62 (Part IV of V)', where we'll be discussing the links between Stoicism and CBT.

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.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/desires nothing out of its control

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.

Episode 62, Epictetus: A Guide to Stoicism (Part III. Modern Stoicism)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 62 (Part III of V)', where we'll be discussing modern approaches to Stoicism.

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.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/desires nothing out of its control

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.

Episode 62, Epictetus: A Guide to Stoicism (Part II. The Discourses and The Enchiridion)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 62 (Part II of V)', where we'll be discussing The Discourses and The Enchiridion.

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.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/desires nothing out of its control

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.

Episode 62, Epictetus: A Guide to Stoicism (Part I. The Context and Life of Epictetus)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 62 (Part I of V)', where we'll be discussing the context and life of Epictetus.

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.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/desires nothing out of its control

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.

Episode 61, David Pearce on Transhumanism (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 61 (Part II of II)', where we'll be engaging in some further analysis and discussion.

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.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/evolves into something greater

Contents

Part I. Transhumanism.

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion.

Episode 61, David Pearce on Transhumanism (Part I - Transhumanism)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 61 (Part I of II)', where we'll be discussing transhumanism with David Pearce.

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.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/evolves into something greater

Contents

Part I. Transhumanism.

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion.

Episode 53, Friedrich Nietzsche (Part IV - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 53 (Part IV)', where we'll be engaging in some further analysis and discussion.

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.”

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

Contents

Part I. The Life of Nietzsche

Part II. Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Part III. Beyond Good and Evil

Part IV. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 53, Friedrich Nietzsche (Part III - Beyond Good and Evil)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 53 (Part III)', where we'll be discussing Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil.

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.”

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

Contents

Part I. The Life of Nietzsche

Part II. Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Part III. Beyond Good and Evil

Part IV. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 53, Friedrich Nietzsche (Part II - Thus Spoke Zarathustra)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 53 (Part II)', where we'll be discussing Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

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.”

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

Contents

Part I. The Life of Nietzsche

Part II. Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Part III. Beyond Good and Evil

Part IV. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 53, Friedrich Nietzsche (Part I - The Life of Nietzsche)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 53 (Part I)', where we'll be discussing the life of Friedrich Nietzsche.

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.”

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

Contents

Part I. The Life of Nietzsche

Part II. Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Part III. Beyond Good and Evil

Part IV. Further Analysis and Discussion