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 110, ‘The Philosophy of Islam’ with Mohammad Saleh Zarepour (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 110 (Part II of II)’, in which we’ll be discussing evil and the afterlife with Dr Zarepour.

“How did the universe come into existence?” It’s a question that most of the world’s religions seek to answer. According to the Abrahamic faiths, the world can only exist with the existence of a being who was not caused by something other than itself – and this they call ‘Yahweh’, ‘Allāh’, or ‘God’. Philosophical arguments to this end come in many forms, one of which – from the medieval Islamic philosopher Ibn Sina (known in the West as ‘Avicenna’) ­­­– claims that we can prove the existence of this necessary being with absolute certainty. If something can exist there must be an uncaused being, and from this concept alone, Avicenna says that we can deduce every other property that Muslims attribute to Allāh.

In this interview, we’ll be discussing Avicenna and the philosophy of Islam with Dr Mohammad Saleh Zarepour. Currently Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Manchester, Dr Zarepour completed his first PhD at the Tarbiat Modares University in Iran and his second PhD at the University of Cambridge. Publishing extensively in philosophy of religion – and having worked on major initiatives such as the Global Philosophy of Religion Project – it is safe to say that Saleh is one of the world’s leading experts in Islamic philosophy.

Islam claims to solve the problem of existence, but its implications extend far beyond the origin of the cosmos. Allāh is a being invested in his creation – a being that will judge, reward, or punish us for our good and bad deeds, who permits us to live and to suffer – and differs from the God of Judaism and Christianity in his nature and actions. Thus, we should ask not only whether belief in Allāh’s necessity is reasonable, but whether the beliefs of Muslims are more (or less) reasonable than those of their Abrahamic cousins.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/contemplates the Necessary Existent

This episode is produced in partnership with The Global Philosophy of Religion Project at University of Birmingham, led by Yujin Nagasawa and funded by the John Templeton Foundation.

Contents

Part I. Allāh

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 110, ‘The Philosophy of Islam’ with Mohammad Saleh Zarepour (Part I - Allāh)

Welcome to ‘Episode 110 (Part I of II)’, in which we’ll be discussing the nature and existence of Allāh with Mohammad Saleh Zarepour.

“How did the universe come into existence?” It’s a question that most of the world’s religions seek to answer. According to the Abrahamic faiths, the world can only exist with the existence of a being who was not caused by something other than itself – and this they call ‘Yahweh’, ‘Allāh’, or ‘God’. Philosophical arguments to this end come in many forms, one of which – from the medieval Islamic philosopher Ibn Sina (known in the West as ‘Avicenna’) ­­­– claims that we can prove the existence of this necessary being with absolute certainty. If something can exist there must be an uncaused being, and from this concept alone, Avicenna says that we can deduce every other property that Muslims attribute to Allāh.

In this interview, we’ll be discussing Avicenna and the philosophy of Islam with Dr Mohammad Saleh Zarepour. Currently Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Manchester, Dr Zarepour completed his first PhD at the Tarbiat Modares University in Iran and his second PhD at the University of Cambridge. Publishing extensively in philosophy of religion – and having worked on major initiatives such as the Global Philosophy of Religion Project – it is safe to say that Saleh is one of the world’s leading experts in Islamic philosophy.

Islam claims to solve the problem of existence, but its implications extend far beyond the origin of the cosmos. Allāh is a being invested in his creation – a being that will judge, reward, or punish us for our good and bad deeds, who permits us to live and to suffer – and differs from the God of Judaism and Christianity in his nature and actions. Thus, we should ask not only whether belief in Allāh’s necessity is reasonable, but whether the beliefs of Muslims are more (or less) reasonable than those of their Abrahamic cousins.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/contemplates the Necessary Existent

This episode is produced in partnership with The Global Philosophy of Religion Project at University of Birmingham, led by Yujin Nagasawa and funded by the John Templeton Foundation.

Contents

Part I. Allāh

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 109, The Mystery of Consciousness (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 109 (Part II of II)’, the final instalment of our debate – featuring Rowan Williams, Anil Seth, Laura Gow, and Philip Goff – in which our panelists take questions from our live audience.

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

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

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

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/finds its spark of life

Contents

Part I. The Debate

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 109, The Mystery of Consciousness (Part I - The Debate)

Welcome to ‘Episode 109 (Part I of II)’, the first instalment of our live show featuring Rowan Williams, Anil Seth, Laura Gow, and Philip Goff.

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

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

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

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/finds its spark of life

Contents

Part I. The Debate

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 108, The Richard Dawkins Interview (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 108 (Part II of II)’, in which we’ll be continuing our discussion with Professor Richard Dawkins.

The flight of a hummingbird, the sprint of a cheetah, the breath of a whale, a daisy turning towards the sunlight. Given the complexity of the natural world, we can understand why – before the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species – people believed that the universe was the work of an intelligent designer. These days, however – although creationism continues to be defended by religious fundamentalists – the scientific consensus is that the world’s organisms evolved through the long and arduous process of natural selection. ‘With a complete physical explanation,’ say the new atheists, ‘there’s no need to appeal to the supernatural.’

In this interview, we’ll be discussing atheism with Professor Richard Dawkins. It’s no exaggeration to say that Richard Dawkins is one of the most influential scientists, and the most famous atheist, of all time. Alongside his invaluable contributions to evolutionary biology, his books – including The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and The God Delusion – have a readership in the tens of millions, resulting in numerous prestigious awards and recognition as ‘the world’s top thinker’.

‘Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin’, says Dawkins, ‘Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.’ It is time we seized that possibility: that we embrace the godless universe, craft our own meaning, and stop suffering fools gladly.

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

Contents

Part I. Why I'm an Atheist

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 108, The Richard Dawkins Interview (Part I - Why I'm an Atheist)

Welcome to ‘Episode 108 (Part I of II)’, in which we’ll be discussing the existence of God with Professor Richard Dawkins.

The flight of a hummingbird, the sprint of a cheetah, the breath of a whale, a daisy turning towards the sunlight. Given the complexity of the natural world, we can understand why – before the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species – people believed that the universe was the work of an intelligent designer. These days, however – although creationism continues to be defended by religious fundamentalists – the scientific consensus is that the world’s organisms evolved through the long and arduous process of natural selection. ‘With a complete physical explanation,’ say the new atheists, ‘there’s no need to appeal to the supernatural.’

In this interview, we’ll be discussing atheism with Professor Richard Dawkins. It’s no exaggeration to say that Richard Dawkins is one of the most influential scientists, and the most famous atheist, of all time. Alongside his invaluable contributions to evolutionary biology, his books – including The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and The God Delusion – have a readership in the tens of millions, resulting in numerous prestigious awards and recognition as ‘the world’s top thinker’.

‘Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin’, says Dawkins, ‘Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.’ It is time we seized that possibility: that we embrace the godless universe, craft our own meaning, and stop suffering fools gladly.

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

Contents

Part I. Why I'm an Atheist

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 107, ‘The Ethics of Art’ with Daisy Dixon (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 107 (Part II of II)’, in which we’ll be discussing lies and censorship.

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

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

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

Contents

Part I. Time

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 107, ‘The Ethics of Art’ with Daisy Dixon (Part I - Immoral Art)

Welcome to ‘Episode 107 (Part I of II)’, in which we’ll be discussing immoral artists with Daisy Dixon.

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

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

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

Contents

Part I. Time

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 106, Four Thousand Weeks (Part III - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 106 (Part III of III)’, in which we’ll be evaluating Burkeman’s views on time management.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contents

Part I. Time

Part II. How to Use It

Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 106, Four Thousand Weeks (Part II - How to Use It)

Welcome to ‘Episode 106 (Part II of III)’, in which we’ll be discussing the Oliver Burkeman’s solutions to our time-related problems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contents

Part I. Time

Part II. How to Use It

Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 106, Four Thousand Weeks (Part I - Time)

Welcome to ‘Episode 106 (Part I of III)’, in which we’ll be discussing the problem of time management and finitude.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contents

Part I. Time

Part II. How to Use It

Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 105, ‘Animals in Transhumanism’ with Michael Hauskeller (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 105 (Part II of II)’, in which we’ll be analysing Hauskeller’s argument against transhumanist approaches to animals.

We are all prisoners of our biology. Whether humans (and our non-human cousins) have the capacity to think, feel, or fly is dictated by their DNA, long before they have a say in the matter. It’s a living lottery that has lifted human beings to lofty heights; that is, above the world’s lowly, lesser creatures. With the emergence of new technologies, the age of the transhumanists is upon us: philosophers and scientists who believe that the lottery should be rigged towards self-design and the elimination of suffering. We have a moral imperative, say the transhumanists, to engineer a world that is better for everybody: to seek out technological solutions to ethical problems, not just for ourselves but the rest of the animal kingdom. After all, the question is not, ‘can they reason?’ – nor ‘can they talk?’ – but ‘can they suffer?’

In this episode, we’ll be discussing animals in transhumanism with Professor of Philosophy and Head of Department at the University of Liverpool, Michael Hauskeller. With over two hundred publications – across a vast range of philosophical questions – in both academic and public philosophy, Professor Hauskeller is, undoubtedly, one of the world’s most prominent philosophers. For Hauskeller, philosophy helps us navigate ourselves towards a better tomorrow: through philosophy, we can discover what kind of people we want to be, in what kind of world we want to live, and how we should steer the futures of our fellow creatures.

Our question for today: should we take pity on the world’s poor brutes – those who live such lowly lives – and lift them up to our own lofty heights? Or should we leave them to dance the muddy dance of life?

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

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. How to Become a Post-Dog

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 105, ‘Animals in Transhumanism’ with Michael Hauskeller (Part I - How to Become a Post-Dog)

Welcome to ‘Episode 105 (Part I of II)’, in which we’ll be discussing animals in transhumanism with Michael Hauskeller.

We are all prisoners of our biology. Whether humans (and our non-human cousins) have the capacity to think, feel, or fly is dictated by their DNA, long before they have a say in the matter. It’s a living lottery that has lifted human beings to lofty heights; that is, above the world’s lowly, lesser creatures. With the emergence of new technologies, the age of the transhumanists is upon us: philosophers and scientists who believe that the lottery should be rigged towards self-design and the elimination of suffering. We have a moral imperative, say the transhumanists, to engineer a world that is better for everybody: to seek out technological solutions to ethical problems, not just for ourselves but the rest of the animal kingdom. After all, the question is not, ‘can they reason?’ – nor ‘can they talk?’ – but ‘can they suffer?’

In this episode, we’ll be discussing animals in transhumanism with Professor of Philosophy and Head of Department at the University of Liverpool, Michael Hauskeller. With over two hundred publications – across a vast range of philosophical questions – in both academic and public philosophy, Professor Hauskeller is, undoubtedly, one of the world’s most prominent philosophers. For Hauskeller, philosophy helps us navigate ourselves towards a better tomorrow: through philosophy, we can discover what kind of people we want to be, in what kind of world we want to live, and how we should steer the futures of our fellow creatures.

Our question for today: should we take pity on the world’s poor brutes – those who live such lowly lives – and lift them up to our own lofty heights? Or should we leave them to dance the muddy dance of life?

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

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. How to Become a Post-Dog

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 104, ‘Art and the Future’ with Vid Simoniti (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 104 (Part II of II)’, where we’ll be analysing Simoniti’s view that art offers something unique to political discourse.

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

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

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

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/offers something unique

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. Public Health

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 104, ‘Art and the Future’ with Vid Simoniti (Part I - Art as Political Discourse)

Welcome to ‘Episode 104 (Part I of II)’, in which we’ll be discussing the nature of political art with Vid Simoniti.

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

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

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

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/offers something unique

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. Public Health

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 103, 'Nudges' with Thomas Schramme (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 103 (Part II of II)’, in which we’ll be continuing our discussion of public health nudges with Professor Thomas Schramme.

Given the choice, who wouldn’t increase the balance in their bank account, switch into a fit and healthy body, find themselves in a meaningful career, and cultivate happiness and love in their relationships? These are preferences we all share, but few of us achieve them. Perhaps we could, if only we made better choices. We all want to make better decisions – the salad over the burger, the restful night’s sleep over ‘one more episode’ – yet we continue to succumb to our desires. Perhaps we need some help: maybe we need something to nudge us in the right direction?

In this episode, we’ll be discussing the philosophy of nudges with Professor Thomas Schramme. Chair of Philosophy at the University of Liverpool, Thomas’s research focuses on moral and political philosophy and the philosophy of health and medicine. With over one hundred publications and heading several innovative projects – including ‘How Does it Feel? Interpersonal Understanding and Affective Empathy’ – Professor Schramme is not only an expert in his field but always communicates his ideas through accessible and engaging prose.

As we’ll find in this interview, Schramme challenges some of the most prominent ideas in contemporary politics and psychology. According to Daniel Kehneman, nudges ‘have changed the world’… but, asks Schramme, do they always change it for the better?

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/nudges you in the 'right' direction

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. Public Health

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion