Episode 118, Romantic Love (Part I - Happily Ever After)

Welcome to ‘Episode 118 (Part I of IV)’, in which we’ll be discussing different approaches to romantic love.

I was told not to think too much about love. Obsess over it, let it dye the very fabric of my being: but do not think about it. Why, after all, would I want to overanalyse the magic and mystery? Would this not reduce a storybook to words and pages?

I was told that I was incomplete and was to search for another who would make me whole. This search, I was promised, would lead me to a partner I would love and be happy with forever. And are love and happiness not required for a good life?

Yet, these demands, these stories, and these questions feel restrictive and misleading. Why must I not think about what you say is so important? Why must I believe a story I have seen end in tears countless time?

It is time we started taking control of love rather than letting love control us. There is no one size fits all approach given to us by nature: not everyone finds ‘the one’, not everyone wants to find the one, and not all relationships need to last.

Imagine the lives we could craft if we loved proactively, with honesty and freedom. If we all did this together, we could choose what we wanted and not be pressured into what we’ve been told is good. And given the importance of love, is this not worth a try, even if the magic fades?

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

Contents

Part I. Happily Ever After

Part II. What Love Is

Part III. Sad Love

Part IV. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 117, ‘The Rationality of Theism’ with Silvia Jonas (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 117 (Part II of II)’, in which we’ll be speaking to Silvia Jonas about the role and value of philosophy of religion.

For Judaism, it is practice over theology. The most important aspect of one’s faith is not philosophical reflection on God, but the rules and actions of the faithful. After all, according to Maimonides – arguably the most significant philosopher in the history of Jewish thought – we can never know God’s nature, and, therefore, there is more to be gained from what we do than trying to know what God is like. For Maimonides, ‘We are only able to apprehend that He is.’ This raises a problem, however, for if we cannot learn about, come to build a relationship, or increase our knowledge of God, then what is the point of religious observance?

In this episode, we’ll be discussing Judaism, knowledge, understanding and the rationality of theism with Professor Silvia Jonas of the University of Bamberg and the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy. According to Jonas, Maimonides’s insights are valuable; yet he misses a crucial piece of the puzzle – a distinction between knowledge and understanding.

Beyond understanding the ineffable, Jonas argues that theism shouldn’t try to compete with modern science. That doesn’t mean, however, that questions of God aren’t important. For Jonas, God is a worthy object of philosophical investigation, not because God completes our grand ‘theory of everything’, but because God shapes people’s everyday lives.

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

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. Judaism: Knowledge and Understanding

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 117, ‘The Rationality of Theism’ with Silvia Jonas (Part I - Judaism: Knowledge and Understanding)

Welcome to ‘Episode 117 (Part I of II)’, in which we’ll be speaking to Silvia Jonas about Judaism, Maimonides, and understanding God.

For Judaism, it is practice over theology. The most important aspect of one’s faith is not philosophical reflection on God, but the rules and actions of the faithful. After all, according to Maimonides – arguably the most significant philosopher in the history of Jewish thought – we can never know God’s nature, and, therefore, there is more to be gained from what we do than trying to know what God is like. For Maimonides, ‘We are only able to apprehend that He is.’ This raises a problem, however, for if we cannot learn about, come to build a relationship, or increase our knowledge of God, then what is the point of religious observance?

In this episode, we’ll be discussing Judaism, knowledge, understanding and the rationality of theism with Professor Silvia Jonas of the University of Bamberg and the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy. According to Jonas, Maimonides’s insights are valuable; yet he misses a crucial piece of the puzzle – a distinction between knowledge and understanding.

Beyond understanding the ineffable, Jonas argues that theism shouldn’t try to compete with modern science. That doesn’t mean, however, that questions of God aren’t important. For Jonas, God is a worthy object of philosophical investigation, not because God completes our grand ‘theory of everything’, but because God shapes people’s everyday lives.

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

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. Judaism: Knowledge and Understanding

Part II. 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 115, ‘Intellectual Seemings’ with Laura Gow (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 115 (Part II of II)’, in which we’ll be continuing our discussion on sensory phenomenology and the nature of consciousness.

Our sensory experiences make up the fabric of our worlds. It’s a fabric that keeps us warm; a fabric that makes the world worth living in. If you couldn’t hear the cry of your new-born child, if you couldn’t taste your grandfather’s famous brussels sprouts at Christmas, or feel the embrace of your lifelong partner, then your life wouldn’t just include less experiences, but less meaning. Given the value we place on our sensory experiences, it seems important that we understand the nature of them. What is happening, exactly, when we hear, taste, and feel? What are sensory experiences made of?

In this episode, we’ll be exploring the nature of sensory phenomenology with Dr Laura Gow, Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Liverpool. Formerly of Warwick University, Cambridge University, and the University of Antwerp, Dr Gow – whose work focuses on the philosophy of perception and the metaphysics of consciousness – is one of the UK’s leading phenomenologists. From hallucinations and colour to empty space and silence, Laura’s research covers a broad range of topics, but in this episode we’ll be focusing on transparency.

According to the transparency view, when we undergo a perceptual experience, the only properties we’re aware of are located externally. There are no perceptual properties, says Gow, inside of us – despite what it may seem.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/allows you to see through it

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. Everything is Clear

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 115, ‘Intellectual Seemings’ with Laura Gow (Part I - Everything is Clear)

Welcome to ‘Episode 115 (Part I of II)’, in which we’ll be discussing the nature of sensory experience with Laura Gow.

Our sensory experiences make up the fabric of our worlds. It’s a fabric that keeps us warm; a fabric that makes the world worth living in. If you couldn’t hear the cry of your new-born child, if you couldn’t taste your grandfather’s famous brussels sprouts at Christmas, or feel the embrace of your lifelong partner, then your life wouldn’t just include less experiences, but less meaning. Given the value we place on our sensory experiences, it seems important that we understand the nature of them. What is happening, exactly, when we hear, taste, and feel? What are sensory experiences made of?

In this episode, we’ll be exploring the nature of sensory phenomenology with Dr Laura Gow, Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Liverpool. Formerly of Warwick University, Cambridge University, and the University of Antwerp, Dr Gow – whose work focuses on the philosophy of perception and the metaphysics of consciousness – is one of the UK’s leading phenomenologists. From hallucinations and colour to empty space and silence, Laura’s research covers a broad range of topics, but in this episode we’ll be focusing on transparency.

According to the transparency view, when we undergo a perceptual experience, the only properties we’re aware of are located externally. There are no perceptual properties, says Gow, inside of us – despite what it may seem.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/allows you to see through it

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. 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 113, Epicurus and the Art of Happiness (Part III - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 113 (Part III of III)’, in which we’ll be analysing Epicurean metaphysics and ethics.

You’re going to a party, but you don’t care if the other guests will like your dress. You pull onto your drive; you don’t consider what your neighbours will think of your car. You sell books that you’ve written, share photographs that you’ve taken, and post your thoughts on the world to any internet user who will listen – yet, you are unmoved and unmotivated by the popularity of your work.

Imagine if you didn’t have to worry about your career, your fame, or wealth. Imagine if you didn’t have to fret about falling in love or maintaining that love once you’ve found it. Imagine never feeling daunted by the fact you’re going to die, and that something may or may not be waiting for you beyond the grave. If you could free yourself from these anxieties, do you think you would be happy? Well, isn’t happiness the goal of life, after all?

According to the Epicureans, we should answer these questions with a resounding ‘yes’. For his followers, Epicurus worked out exactly how we can achieve this state of happiness and tranquillity, and the good news is that it is within reach for all of us. All we need to do is follow one principle: pursue pleasure and avoid pain. It’s just that simple.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/focuses on what is natural and necessary

This episode is proudly sponsored by Gaston Luga backpacks.

Head over to www.gastonluga.com and get 15% off any purchase with the discount code PANPSYCAST.

Contents

Part I. The Path to Tranquility

Part II. Metaphysics, God, and Death

Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 113, Epicurus and the Art of Happiness (Part II - Metaphysics, God, and Death)

Welcome to ‘Episode 113 (Part II of III)’, in which we’ll be discussing the metaphysics of Epicureanism.

You’re going to a party, but you don’t care if the other guests will like your dress. You pull onto your drive; you don’t consider what your neighbours will think of your car. You sell books that you’ve written, share photographs that you’ve taken, and post your thoughts on the world to any internet user who will listen – yet, you are unmoved and unmotivated by the popularity of your work.

Imagine if you didn’t have to worry about your career, your fame, or wealth. Imagine if you didn’t have to fret about falling in love or maintaining that love once you’ve found it. Imagine never feeling daunted by the fact you’re going to die, and that something may or may not be waiting for you beyond the grave. If you could free yourself from these anxieties, do you think you would be happy? Well, isn’t happiness the goal of life, after all?

According to the Epicureans, we should answer these questions with a resounding ‘yes’. For his followers, Epicurus worked out exactly how we can achieve this state of happiness and tranquillity, and the good news is that it is within reach for all of us. All we need to do is follow one principle: pursue pleasure and avoid pain. It’s just that simple.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/focuses on what is natural and necessary

This episode is proudly sponsored by Gaston Luga backpacks.

Head over to www.gastonluga.com and get 15% off any purchase with the discount code PANPSYCAST.

Contents

Part I. The Path to Tranquility

Part II. Metaphysics, God, and Death

Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 113, Epicurus and the Art of Happiness (Part I - The Path to Tranquility)

Welcome to ‘Episode 113 (Part I of III)’, in which we’ll be discussing the life and ethics of Epicurus.

You’re going to a party, but you don’t care if the other guests will like your dress. You pull onto your drive; you don’t consider what your neighbours will think of your car. You sell books that you’ve written, share photographs that you’ve taken, and post your thoughts on the world to any internet user who will listen – yet, you are unmoved and unmotivated by the popularity of your work.

Imagine if you didn’t have to worry about your career, your fame, or wealth. Imagine if you didn’t have to fret about falling in love or maintaining that love once you’ve found it. Imagine never feeling daunted by the fact you’re going to die, and that something may or may not be waiting for you beyond the grave. If you could free yourself from these anxieties, do you think you would be happy? Well, isn’t happiness the goal of life, after all?

According to the Epicureans, we should answer these questions with a resounding ‘yes’. For his followers, Epicurus worked out exactly how we can achieve this state of happiness and tranquillity, and the good news is that it is within reach for all of us. All we need to do is follow one principle: pursue pleasure and avoid pain. It’s just that simple.

The file size is large, please be patient whilst the podcast buffers/downloads/focuses on what is natural and necessary

This episode is proudly sponsored by Gaston Luga backpacks.

Head over to www.gastonluga.com and get 15% off any purchase with the discount code PANPSYCAST.

Contents

Part I. The Path to Tranquility

Part II. Metaphysics, God, and Death

Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 112, ‘The Philosophy of Buddhism’ with Jay Garfield (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Welcome to ‘Episode 112 (Part II of II)’, in which we’ll be discussing the broader metaphysics (and psychology) of Buddhism with Professor Jay Garfield.

A prick of the skin; the sorrow of grief; the inevitability of change; our dependence on the whim of the cosmos. Suffering bleeds into every aspect of our existence and, according to Siddhārtha Gautama (the Buddha), the anguish of our misfortune stems from our ignorance and confusion. If we were to see the world for how it really is – a place of impermanence, interdependence, and emptiness – then, according to Buddhism, we might free ourselves from illusion and discover the path to liberation and enlightenment. Today, this insight is shared by over half a billion people. Yet, most philosophy departments in Europe and America offer no courses in Buddhist philosophy and (within the leading journals) academic papers focusing on the central tenets of Buddhist philosophy of religion are vastly outweighed by their Abrahamic (and predominantly Christian) counterparts.

Professor Jay Garfield, our guest for this episode, is the exception to this rule. Championing the globalisation of philosophy and reshaping perceptions of Buddhist scholarship, Professor Garfield is Chair of Philosophy at Smith College in Massachusetts, Visiting Professor at Harvard Divinity School, Professor at Melbourne University, and adjunct Professor at the Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies. Named amongst the 50 most influential philosophers of the past decade – with over 30 books and over 200 publications – it is safe to say that Professor Garfield is one of the leading exponents of Buddhist philosophy in contemporary academia.

For Garfield, if philosophy won’t diversify, then let’s call it out for what it is: a colonial discipline that ignores the rich and relevant insights of non-Western thought. As philosophers, we cannot afford to ignore the metaphysical, ethical, epistemological, and existential insights of Buddhist scholarship. It’s time to engage with Buddhism, and rid ourselves of our prejudices, ignorance, and confusion. Buddhism is a philosophy of the present, not a philosophy of the past, and it’s time we treated it that way.

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

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. The Nature of Reality

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Episode 112, ‘The Philosophy of Buddhism’ with Jay Garfield (Part I - The Nature of Reality)

Welcome to ‘Episode 112 (Part I of II)’, in which we’ll be discussing the four noble truths with Professor Jay Garfield.

A prick of the skin; the sorrow of grief; the inevitability of change; our dependence on the whim of the cosmos. Suffering bleeds into every aspect of our existence and, according to Siddhārtha Gautama (the Buddha), the anguish of our misfortune stems from our ignorance and confusion. If we were to see the world for how it really is – a place of impermanence, interdependence, and emptiness – then, according to Buddhism, we might free ourselves from illusion and discover the path to liberation and enlightenment. Today, this insight is shared by over half a billion people. Yet, most philosophy departments in Europe and America offer no courses in Buddhist philosophy and (within the leading journals) academic papers focusing on the central tenets of Buddhist philosophy of religion are vastly outweighed by their Abrahamic (and predominantly Christian) counterparts.

Professor Jay Garfield, our guest for this episode, is the exception to this rule. Championing the globalisation of philosophy and reshaping perceptions of Buddhist scholarship, Professor Garfield is Chair of Philosophy at Smith College in Massachusetts, Visiting Professor at Harvard Divinity School, Professor at Melbourne University, and adjunct Professor at the Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies. Named amongst the 50 most influential philosophers of the past decade – with over 30 books and over 200 publications – it is safe to say that Professor Garfield is one of the leading exponents of Buddhist philosophy in contemporary academia.

For Garfield, if philosophy won’t diversify, then let’s call it out for what it is: a colonial discipline that ignores the rich and relevant insights of non-Western thought. As philosophers, we cannot afford to ignore the metaphysical, ethical, epistemological, and existential insights of Buddhist scholarship. It’s time to engage with Buddhism, and rid ourselves of our prejudices, ignorance, and confusion. Buddhism is a philosophy of the present, not a philosophy of the past, and it’s time we treated it that way.

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

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. The Nature of Reality

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 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