Episode 79, The Absurd (Part III - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 79 (Part III of III)', where we’ll be applying Nagel’s and Camus’ understanding of the absurd to philosophical literature, as well as engaging in some further analysis and discussion.

Meet Jack. Jack, like most individuals, takes great care of his health, appearance, the fulfilment of his projects, and the quality of his relationships with friends and family.

Today Jack is preparing for another episode of his iconic philosophy podcast. He has been reading diligently, noting fastidiously, and practicing his jokes in the mirror. Fully invested in his work, he goes to great lengths to ensure that the podcast is well received. But today is no ordinary day for Jack, something is about to happen that he could never prepare for.

Sat at his desk with his nose in Thomas Nagel’s Mortal Questions, Jack reaches for his cafetière to refill his Nietzsche coffee mug - when he hears the sound of a heavy creak above him. The room begins to shake, the coffee mug spills, and Jack jumps out of his chair as dust begins to fall around him. Fearing that the roof will cave, he runs out of the house, but finds that the streets are shaking too.

Like the set of a stage, the neighbourhood before his eyes begins to fall backwards. As the walls hit the ground, Jack sees countless figures in black uniforms running frantically in all directions. He looks up to the sky and sees several tall figures on ladders: a blue figure holds a large, blinding torch, a white figure holds a watering can, and a black figure holds what seems to be a large block of cheese. Jack is overwhelmed with disbelief - he is standing in the middle of a stage. Suddenly, one of the figures shouts instructions to another, who frantically pulls on a rope - the stage rising back to its original position, the figures disappearing.

It dawns on him: Jack is the actor in a play. What of his life? His childhood? His family and friends? What of his projects? Will he ever be able to return, to his old life?

Jack ponders the thought for a moment and walks back into his home. He cleans up the coffee, brushes up the dust, sits back down in his chair… and continues, with his reading.

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

Contents

Part I. Thomas Nagel

Part II. Camus, Criticisms, and Comparison

Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 79, The Absurd (Part II - Camus, Criticisms, and Comparison)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 79 (Part II of III)', where we’ll be comparing Thomas Nagel’s and Albert Camus’ understanding of the absurd.

Meet Jack. Jack, like most individuals, takes great care of his health, appearance, the fulfilment of his projects, and the quality of his relationships with friends and family.

Today Jack is preparing for another episode of his iconic philosophy podcast. He has been reading diligently, noting fastidiously, and practicing his jokes in the mirror. Fully invested in his work, he goes to great lengths to ensure that the podcast is well received. But today is no ordinary day for Jack, something is about to happen that he could never prepare for.

Sat at his desk with his nose in Thomas Nagel’s Mortal Questions, Jack reaches for his cafetière to refill his Nietzsche coffee mug - when he hears the sound of a heavy creak above him. The room begins to shake, the coffee mug spills, and Jack jumps out of his chair as dust begins to fall around him. Fearing that the roof will cave, he runs out of the house, but finds that the streets are shaking too.

Like the set of a stage, the neighbourhood before his eyes begins to fall backwards. As the walls hit the ground, Jack sees countless figures in black uniforms running frantically in all directions. He looks up to the sky and sees several tall figures on ladders: a blue figure holds a large, blinding torch, a white figure holds a watering can, and a black figure holds what seems to be a large block of cheese. Jack is overwhelmed with disbelief - he is standing in the middle of a stage. Suddenly, one of the figures shouts instructions to another, who frantically pulls on a rope - the stage rising back to its original position, the figures disappearing.

It dawns on him: Jack is the actor in a play. What of his life? His childhood? His family and friends? What of his projects? Will he ever be able to return, to his old life?

Jack ponders the thought for a moment and walks back into his home. He cleans up the coffee, brushes up the dust, sits back down in his chair… and continues, with his reading.

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

Contents

Part I. Thomas Nagel

Part II. Camus, Criticisms, and Comparison

Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 79, The Absurd (Part I - Thomas Nagel)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 79 (Part I of III)', where we’ll be discussing Thomas Nagel’s paper, The Absurd (1971).

Meet Jack. Jack, like most individuals, takes great care of his health, appearance, the fulfilment of his projects, and the quality of his relationships with friends and family.

Today Jack is preparing for another episode of his iconic philosophy podcast. He has been reading diligently, noting fastidiously, and practicing his jokes in the mirror. Fully invested in his work, he goes to great lengths to ensure that the podcast is well received. But today is no ordinary day for Jack, something is about to happen that he could never prepare for.

Sat at his desk with his nose in Thomas Nagel’s Mortal Questions, Jack reaches for his cafetière to refill his Nietzsche coffee mug - when he hears the sound of a heavy creak above him. The room begins to shake, the coffee mug spills, and Jack jumps out of his chair as dust begins to fall around him. Fearing that the roof will cave, he runs out of the house, but finds that the streets are shaking too.

Like the set of a stage, the neighbourhood before his eyes begins to fall backwards. As the walls hit the ground, Jack sees countless figures in black uniforms running frantically in all directions. He looks up to the sky and sees several tall figures on ladders: a blue figure holds a large, blinding torch, a white figure holds a watering can, and a black figure holds what seems to be a large block of cheese. Jack is overwhelmed with disbelief - he is standing in the middle of a stage. Suddenly, one of the figures shouts instructions to another, who frantically pulls on a rope - the stage rising back to its original position, the figures disappearing.

It dawns on him: Jack is the actor in a play. What of his life? His childhood? His family and friends? What of his projects? Will he ever be able to return, to his old life?

Jack ponders the thought for a moment and walks back into his home. He cleans up the coffee, brushes up the dust, sits back down in his chair… and continues, with his reading.

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

Contents

Part I. Thomas Nagel

Part II. Camus, Criticisms, and Comparison

Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion

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 77, ‘Time Travel: The Grandfather Paradox and Abilities’ with Olivia Coombes (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 77 (Part II of II)', where we’ll be discussing time travel with Olivia Coombes.

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

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

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

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/travels forwards in time

Contents

Part I. Time Traveller Abilities

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 77, ‘Time Travel: The Grandfather Paradox and Abilities’ with Olivia Coombes (Part I - Time Traveller Abilities)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 77 (Part I of II)', where we’ll be discussing the grandfather paradox with Olivia Coombes.

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

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

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

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/travels forwards in time

Contents

Part I. Time Traveller Abilities

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 76, René Descartes (Part V - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 76 (Part V of V)', where we’ll be engaging in some further analysis and discussion.

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

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

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

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

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/dreams of melons

Contents

Part I. The Life of René Descartes.

Part II. Meditations on First Philosophy, 1-2.

Part III. Meditations on First Philosophy, 3-4.

Part IV. Meditations on First Philosophy, 5-6.

Part V. Further Analysis and Discussion.

Episode 76, René Descartes (Part IV - Meditations on First Philosophy, 5-6)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 76 (Part IV of V)', where we’ll be unpacking Descartes’ fifth and sixth meditations.

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

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

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

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

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/dreams of melons

Contents

Part I. The Life of René Descartes.

Part II. Meditations on First Philosophy, 1-2.

Part III. Meditations on First Philosophy, 3-4.

Part IV. Meditations on First Philosophy, 5-6.

Part V. Further Analysis and Discussion.

Episode 76, René Descartes (Part III - Meditations on First Philosophy, 3-4)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 76 (Part III of V)', where we’ll be discussing Descartes’ third and fourth meditations.

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

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

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

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

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/dreams of melons

Contents

Part I. The Life of René Descartes.

Part II. Meditations on First Philosophy, 1-2.

Part III. Meditations on First Philosophy, 3-4.

Part IV. Meditations on First Philosophy, 5-6.

Part V. Further Analysis and Discussion.

Episode 76, René Descartes (Part II - Meditations on First Philosophy, 1-2)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 76 (Part II of V)', where we’ll be exploring the first and second of Descartes’ meditations.

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

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

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

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

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/dreams of melons

Contents

Part I. The Life of René Descartes.

Part II. Meditations on First Philosophy, 1-2.

Part III. Meditations on First Philosophy, 3-4.

Part IV. Meditations on First Philosophy, 5-6.

Part V. Further Analysis and Discussion.

Episode 76, René Descartes (Part I - The Life of René Descartes)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 76 (Part I of V)', where we’ll be discussing the life of René Descartes.

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

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

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

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

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/dreams of melons

Contents

Part I. The Life of René Descartes.

Part II. Meditations on First Philosophy, 1-2.

Part III. Meditations on First Philosophy, 3-4.

Part IV. Meditations on First Philosophy, 5-6.

Part V. 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 74, ‘Football’ with Stephen Mumford (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 74 (Part II of II)', where we'll be engaging in some further analysis and discussion on the philosophy of football (soccer).

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

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

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

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

Contents

Part I. The Philosophy Behind the Game.

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion.

Episode 74, ‘Football’ with Stephen Mumford (Part I - The Philosophy Behind the Game)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 74 (Part I of II)', where we'll be discussing the philosophy of football (soccer), with Professor Stephen Mumford.

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

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

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

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

Contents

Part I. The Philosophy Behind the Game.

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion.

Episode 73, Plato’s Phaedo: The Death of Socrates (Part IV - The Death of Socrates, Further Analysis and Discussion)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 73 (Part IV of IV)', where we'll be bringing our series to an end with Socrates’ death, and some further analysis and discussion.

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

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

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

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

Contents

Part I. The Soul and Body

Part II. Arguments for the Soul’s Immortality

Part III. In Defence of Immortality

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

Attributions

Thank you to the following creators for allowing us to use their work in this episode.

Tri-Tachyon: https://soundcloud.com/tri-tachyon/albums.

PSOVOD: https://freesound.org/people/PSOVOD/sounds/416057.

All other music and sound effects used in Episode 73, Plato’s Phaedo (Parts I-IV) are fully licensed. To request certificates, please contact jack@thepanpsycast.com.

Episode 73, Plato’s Phaedo: The Death of Socrates (Part III - In Defence of Immortality)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 73 (Part III of IV)', where we'll be reading and analysing the arguments against the soul’s immortality.

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

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

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

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

Contents

Part I. The Soul and Body

Part II. Arguments for the Soul’s Immortality

Part III. In Defence of Immortality

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

Attributions

Thank you to the following creators for allowing us to use their work in this episode.

Tri-Tachyon: https://soundcloud.com/tri-tachyon/albums.

PSOVOD: https://freesound.org/people/PSOVOD/sounds/416057.

All other music and sound effects used in Episode 73, Plato’s Phaedo (Parts I-IV) are fully licensed. To request certificates, please contact jack@thepanpsycast.com.

Episode 73, Plato’s Phaedo: The Death of Socrates (Part II - Arguments for the Soul’s Immortality)

Classic Cast.jpg

Welcome to 'Episode 73 (Part II of IV)', where we'll be unpacking three arguments for the soul’s immortality.

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

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

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

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

Contents

Part I. The Soul and Body

Part II. Arguments for the Soul’s Immortality

Part III. In Defence of Immortality

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

Attributions

Thank you to the following creators for allowing us to use their work in this episode.

Tri-Tachyon: https://soundcloud.com/tri-tachyon/albums.

PSOVOD: https://freesound.org/people/PSOVOD/sounds/416057.

All other music and sound effects used in Episode 73, Plato’s Phaedo (Parts I-IV) are fully licensed. To request certificates, please contact jack@thepanpsycast.com.