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 124, ‘Narrative Critique’ with Rachel Fraser (Part II – Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 124 (Part II of II)’, in which we’ll be analysing the strengths and limits of criticising ideologies through narratives.

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.

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

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. Disrupting Ideology

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 124, ‘Narrative Critique’ with Rachel Fraser (Part I – Disrupting Ideology)

Welcome to ‘Episode 124 (Part I of II)’, in which we’ll be speaking to Rachel Fraser about narrative critiques of patriarchal ideology.

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.

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

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. Disrupting Ideology

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 121, The Philosophy of Privacy (Part III - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 121 (Part III of III)’, in which we focus on arguments against the sanctity of privacy.

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.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/tracks your activity

Contents

Part I. Privacy is Power

Part II. Privacy in Peril

Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 121, The Philosophy of Privacy (Part II - Privacy in Peril)

Welcome to ‘Episode 121 (Part II of III)’, where we’ll be discussing the value of data and threats to our privacy.

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.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/tracks your activity

Contents

Part I. Privacy is Power

Part II. Privacy in Peril

Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 121, The Philosophy of Privacy (Part I - Privacy is Power)

Welcome to ‘Episode 121 (Part I of III)’, where we’ll be discussing the nature and power of privacy.

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.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/tracks your activity

Contents

Part I. Privacy is Power

Part II. Privacy in Peril

Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 116, 'Why Honour Matters’ (Part II – Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 116 (Part II of II)’, in which we’ll be speaking to Tamler Sommers about restorative justice and the dark side of honour.

Honour calls a person to defend their teammates, support their family, and have self-respect. To heed the call of honour, say those who listen, leads us towards a good life. Yet, honour does not bear the marks of modern liberal morality. Honour does not focus on the universal but the particular, nor does it claim impartiality. Rather, honour is deeply personal and emotional.

For some, the call of honour is like that of the sirens of Greek mythology: causing the illusion of what is good. In reality, pursuing that good causes us to crash on the rocks of family feuds, cycles of violence, and the subjection of women. But is this really the full story? Must a culture of honour result in revenge and injustice? And is modern liberal morality fit to play the role many thinkers wish it to?

In this interview, we’ll be speaking to Tamler Sommers, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Houston and host of the Very Bad Wizards podcast. Tamler is the author of several books, including, Relative Justice, A Very Bad Wizard: Morality Behind the Curtain, and – the focus of our interview – Why Honor Matters.

It is time, according to Sommers, for those who are sceptical or separated from the importance of honour to reassess their relationship with it. To do so raises questions of criminal justice, morality, love, friendship, and personal integrity. In short, honour can be a great motivator across almost all areas of human life, says Sommers, and it is time we give it the respect it deserves.

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

Contents

Part I. Everything is Clear

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 116, 'Why Honour Matters’ (Part I - The Centre of Morality)

Welcome to ‘Episode 116 (Part I of II)’, in which we’ll be speaking to Tamler Sommers about the nature of honour.

Honour calls a person to defend their teammates, support their family, and have self-respect. To heed the call of honour, say those who listen, leads us towards a good life. Yet, honour does not bear the marks of modern liberal morality. Honour does not focus on the universal but the particular, nor does it claim impartiality. Rather, honour is deeply personal and emotional.

For some, the call of honour is like that of the sirens of Greek mythology: causing the illusion of what is good. In reality, pursuing that good causes us to crash on the rocks of family feuds, cycles of violence, and the subjection of women. But is this really the full story? Must a culture of honour result in revenge and injustice? And is modern liberal morality fit to play the role many thinkers wish it to?

In this interview, we’ll be speaking to Tamler Sommers, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Houston and host of the Very Bad Wizards podcast. Tamler is the author of several books, including, Relative Justice, A Very Bad Wizard: Morality Behind the Curtain, and – the focus of our interview – Why Honor Matters.

It is time, according to Sommers, for those who are sceptical or separated from the importance of honour to reassess their relationship with it. To do so raises questions of criminal justice, morality, love, friendship, and personal integrity. In short, honour can be a great motivator across almost all areas of human life, says Sommers, and it is time we give it the respect it deserves.

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

Contents

Part I. Everything is Clear

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 114, ‘Changing Minds’ with Robin McKenna (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 114 (Part II of II)’, in which we’ll be discussing science communication with Robin McKenna.

‘630 million threatened by rising seas!’; ‘Study blames climate change for 37% of worldwide heat deaths!’; ‘Fossil fuels must stay underground!’

Despite the headlines and 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human activity is one of the major causes of climate change, just seven in ten Americans believe that climate change is real and only six in ten consider human activity to be a leading cause. As a survey of beliefs, these statistics are concerning. The bigger problem, however, is that they aren’t held in a vacuum, but are formed within and contribute to the functioning of democratic societies. 

If we want a genuinely democratic state, how can we establish public policies – informed by our very best science – if a sizable minority of people reject the science? What can be done, descriptively and ethically, to change the minds of those who hold (what experts might consider) unreasonable beliefs?

According to Robin McKenna, Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Liverpool, these questions demonstrate the role and importance of contemporary epistemology. Drawing from the latest empirical research on how we form beliefs and how and why we change our minds, McKenna argues that we can improve our epistemic situations by creating environments in which we are more likely to form beliefs that align with the science.

To bring about a better world, people must recognise that their beliefs aren’t formed in an ideal and impartial state. To protect democracy and the natural world, says McKenna, we must combat misinformation and political bias through ethical and effective marketing.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/changes your mind

This episode is produced in partnership with the Philosophy and the Future project at the University of Liverpool. For more information about philosophy at Liverpool, head over to www.liverpool.ac.uk/philosophy.

Contents

Part I. Communicating Science

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 114, ‘Changing Minds’ with Robin McKenna (Part I - Communicating Science)

Welcome to ‘Episode 114 (Part I of II)’, in which we’ll be discussing science communication with Robin McKenna.

‘630 million threatened by rising seas!’; ‘Study blames climate change for 37% of worldwide heat deaths!’; ‘Fossil fuels must stay underground!’

Despite the headlines and 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human activity is one of the major causes of climate change, just seven in ten Americans believe that climate change is real and only six in ten consider human activity to be a leading cause. As a survey of beliefs, these statistics are concerning. The bigger problem, however, is that they aren’t held in a vacuum, but are formed within and contribute to the functioning of democratic societies. 

If we want a genuinely democratic state, how can we establish public policies – informed by our very best science – if a sizable minority of people reject the science? What can be done, descriptively and ethically, to change the minds of those who hold (what experts might consider) unreasonable beliefs?

According to Robin McKenna, Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Liverpool, these questions demonstrate the role and importance of contemporary epistemology. Drawing from the latest empirical research on how we form beliefs and how and why we change our minds, McKenna argues that we can improve our epistemic situations by creating environments in which we are more likely to form beliefs that align with the science.

To bring about a better world, people must recognise that their beliefs aren’t formed in an ideal and impartial state. To protect democracy and the natural world, says McKenna, we must combat misinformation and political bias through ethical and effective marketing.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/changes your mind

This episode is produced in partnership with the Philosophy and the Future project at the University of Liverpool. For more information about philosophy at Liverpool, head over to www.liverpool.ac.uk/philosophy.

Contents

Part I. Communicating Science

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 111, The Banality of Evil (Part IV - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 111 (Part IV of IV)’, in which we’ll be analysing Arendt’s views on Eichmann and morality.

On April 11, 1961, a Monster was put on trial in the state of Israel and broadcasted to the world. The Monster, who was housed in a glass box, was accused of crimes against humanity and the Jewish people – of knowingly sending hundreds of thousands of people to their deaths. When the trial commenced, and the Monster was asked how he pleaded, he answered, ‘Not guilty, in the sense of the indictment.’

As the trial proceeded, the Monster portrayed himself as a cog in a machine. He was a cog who was helpless to stop the inevitable – a cog that was merely performing its duty. To some who observed the trial, the ‘Monster’ who sat before them appeared all too human. Behind the glass, there was no demonic essence of evil. The Monster was, in fact, an average person: a normal person who was capable of committing terrifyingly evil acts.

One observer went as far as to say that the manner in which the accused spoke, and the way he framed his story, was evidence that he simply lacked the ability to think. To this observer, it was no radical evildoer who sat in the glass box. In fact, his professed motives, and his inability to avoid cliches, were evidence of his banality.

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

Music produced by Ovidiu Balaban – all rights reserved.

Contents

Part I. The Life of Hannah Arendt

Part II. Eichmann in Jerusalem

Part III. The Essence of Evil

Part IV. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 111, The Banality of Evil (Part III - The Essence of Evil)

Welcome to ‘Episode 111 (Part III of IV)’, in which we’ll be discussing Hannah Arendt’s views on the nature of evildoers.

On April 11, 1961, a Monster was put on trial in the state of Israel and broadcasted to the world. The Monster, who was housed in a glass box, was accused of crimes against humanity and the Jewish people – of knowingly sending hundreds of thousands of people to their deaths. When the trial commenced, and the Monster was asked how he pleaded, he answered, ‘Not guilty, in the sense of the indictment.’

As the trial proceeded, the Monster portrayed himself as a cog in a machine. He was a cog who was helpless to stop the inevitable – a cog that was merely performing its duty. To some who observed the trial, the ‘Monster’ who sat before them appeared all too human. Behind the glass, there was no demonic essence of evil. The Monster was, in fact, an average person: a normal person who was capable of committing terrifyingly evil acts.

One observer went as far as to say that the manner in which the accused spoke, and the way he framed his story, was evidence that he simply lacked the ability to think. To this observer, it was no radical evildoer who sat in the glass box. In fact, his professed motives, and his inability to avoid cliches, were evidence of his banality.

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

Music produced by Ovidiu Balaban – all rights reserved.

Contents

Part I. The Life of Hannah Arendt

Part II. Eichmann in Jerusalem

Part III. The Essence of Evil

Part IV. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 111, The Banality of Evil (Part II - Eichmann in Jerusalem)

Welcome to ‘Episode 111 (Part II of IV)’, where we’ll be discussing the trial of Adolf Eichmann.

On April 11, 1961, a Monster was put on trial in the state of Israel and broadcasted to the world. The Monster, who was housed in a glass box, was accused of crimes against humanity and the Jewish people – of knowingly sending hundreds of thousands of people to their deaths. When the trial commenced, and the Monster was asked how he pleaded, he answered, ‘Not guilty, in the sense of the indictment.’

As the trial proceeded, the Monster portrayed himself as a cog in a machine. He was a cog who was helpless to stop the inevitable – a cog that was merely performing its duty. To some who observed the trial, the ‘Monster’ who sat before them appeared all too human. Behind the glass, there was no demonic essence of evil. The Monster was, in fact, an average person: a normal person who was capable of committing terrifyingly evil acts.

One observer went as far as to say that the manner in which the accused spoke, and the way he framed his story, was evidence that he simply lacked the ability to think. To this observer, it was no radical evildoer who sat in the glass box. In fact, his professed motives, and his inability to avoid cliches, were evidence of his banality.

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

Music produced by Ovidiu Balaban – all rights reserved.

Contents

Part I. The Life of Hannah Arendt

Part II. Eichmann in Jerusalem

Part III. The Essence of Evil

Part IV. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 111, The Banality of Evil (Part I - The Life of Hannah Arendt)

Welcome to ‘Episode 111 (Part I of IV)’, where we’ll be discussing the life of Hannah Arendt.

On April 11, 1961, a Monster was put on trial in the state of Israel and broadcasted to the world. The Monster, who was housed in a glass box, was accused of crimes against humanity and the Jewish people – of knowingly sending hundreds of thousands of people to their deaths. When the trial commenced, and the Monster was asked how he pleaded, he answered, ‘Not guilty, in the sense of the indictment.’

As the trial proceeded, the Monster portrayed himself as a cog in a machine. He was a cog who was helpless to stop the inevitable – a cog that was merely performing its duty. To some who observed the trial, the ‘Monster’ who sat before them appeared all too human. Behind the glass, there was no demonic essence of evil. The Monster was, in fact, an average person: a normal person who was capable of committing terrifyingly evil acts.

One observer went as far as to say that the manner in which the accused spoke, and the way he framed his story, was evidence that he simply lacked the ability to think. To this observer, it was no radical evildoer who sat in the glass box. In fact, his professed motives, and his inability to avoid cliches, were evidence of his banality.

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

Music produced by Ovidiu Balaban – all rights reserved.

Contents

Part I. The Life of Hannah Arendt

Part II. Eichmann in Jerusalem

Part III. The Essence of Evil

Part IV. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 97, ‘Lessons from Lockdown’ with Vittorio Bufacchi (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 97 (Part II of II)’, in which we’ll be wrapping up our discussion on the philosophy of COVID-19 with Vittorio Bufacchi.

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.

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

Contents

Part I. The Pandemic

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 97, ‘Lessons from Lockdown’ with Vittorio Bufacchi (Part I - The Pandemic)

Welcome to ‘Episode 97 (Part I of II)’, in which we’ll be discussing the philosophy of COVID-19 with Vittorio Bufacchi.

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.

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

Contents

Part I. The Pandemic

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 95, Conspiracy Theories (Part III - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Panpsycast Logo 2020.jpg

Welcome to ‘Episode 95 (Part III of III)’, in which we’ll be discussing the assassination of JFK, as well as engaging in some further analysis.

Conspiracies happen. Sometimes there really are people who are plotting. Sometimes people use their power to undermine the power of others and harm people for their own personal gain. Sometimes, your paranoia is justified.

Perhaps then, we should all be a little more suspicious. After all, don’t we want to protect the freedoms of our families, friends, and neighbours?

Perhaps… but perhaps not. What if our suspicions lead us down a never-ending rabbit hole? What if our quest for ‘seeing things as they really are’ only erodes our ability to see the truth? What if our convictions and suspicions actually make it easier for truly dangerous people to remain hidden from our view?

What do you mean ‘that’s exactly how they want you to think’?

Who are ‘they’?

Ah, I see.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/follows the gingerbread crumbs

Contents

Part I. Origins

Part II. Solutions

Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 95, Conspiracy Theories (Part II - Solutions)

Panpsycast Logo 2020.jpg

Welcome to ‘Episode 95 (Part II of III)’, in which we’ll be discussing the dangers and philosophical solutions to conspiracy theories.

Conspiracies happen. Sometimes there really are people who are plotting. Sometimes people use their power to undermine the power of others and harm people for their own personal gain. Sometimes, your paranoia is justified.

Perhaps then, we should all be a little more suspicious. After all, don’t we want to protect the freedoms of our families, friends, and neighbours?

Perhaps… but perhaps not. What if our suspicions lead us down a never-ending rabbit hole? What if our quest for ‘seeing things as they really are’ only erodes our ability to see the truth? What if our convictions and suspicions actually make it easier for truly dangerous people to remain hidden from our view?

What do you mean ‘that’s exactly how they want you to think’?

Who are ‘they’?

Ah, I see.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/follows the gingerbread crumbs

Contents

Part I. Origins

Part II. Solutions

Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 95, Conspiracy Theories (Part I - Origins)

Panpsycast Logo 2020.jpg

Welcome to ‘Episode 95 (Part I of III)’, in which we’ll be discussing the psychology and politics behind conspiracy theories.

Conspiracies happen. Sometimes there really are people who are plotting. Sometimes people use their power to undermine the power of others and harm people for their own personal gain. Sometimes, your paranoia is justified.

Perhaps then, we should all be a little more suspicious. After all, don’t we want to protect the freedoms of our families, friends, and neighbours?

Perhaps… but perhaps not. What if our suspicions lead us down a never-ending rabbit hole? What if our quest for ‘seeing things as they really are’ only erodes our ability to see the truth? What if our convictions and suspicions actually make it easier for truly dangerous people to remain hidden from our view?

What do you mean ‘that’s exactly how they want you to think’?

Who are ‘they’?

Ah, I see.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/follows the gingerbread crumbs

Contents

Part I. Origins

Part II. Solutions

Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion