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. __ Contents Part I. The Philosophy Behind the Game. Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion.

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

An 'informal and informative' philosophy podcast inspiring and supporting students, teachers, academics and free-thinkers worldwide. All episodes are available at www.thepanpsycast.com.

Society & Culture

Personal Journals

History

Philosophy

Places & Travel

Education

Training

Language Courses

Higher Education

K-12

Educational Technology

Courses

‘The kitchen needs cleaning, but only one of us seems to notice. I mean, he looked straight at the dishes in the sink…and just stacked his dish on top of them. How high does this precarious tower of crockery have to be until he decides to wash the dishes or, more likely, they collapse into an unrepairable heap? I suppose I’ll have to wash them. They won’t get washed otherwise, and I’d rather get them off my mind.’ The unequal distribution of household labour is a familiar concern amongst feminists. Despite the progress in women’s rights and freedoms, women across the world continue to bear the responsibility of domestic chores and childcare. This raises an important question: why do women in monogamous, opposite-sex relationships continue to shoulder a disproportionate amount of housework work despite their political gains? In this episode, we’ll be exploring this question with two outstanding philosophers of morality and mind: Paulina Sliwa (Professor of Philosophy at the University of Vienna) and Thomas McClelland (Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Cambridge).  According to Paulina and Tom, our disparities and perception of domestic labour are determined by our feelings, beliefs, and social norms. In other words, the way we perceive the world is radically different. The dishes don’t call out to some – in need of cleaning – in a moment of perception, as they do to others. So what can we do to change this disparity…that is, if it’s in need of changing at all.              Contents Part I. Affordance Perception Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion           Links Thomas McClelland and Paulina Sliwa, Gendered Affordance Perception and Unequal Domestic Labour (paper) Coverage of Gendered Addordance Perception in the media (website) Thomas McClelland (website) Paulina Sliwa (website)   

Episode 128, ‘Domestic Labour’ with Paulina Sliwa & Tom McClelland (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

‘The kitchen needs cleaning, but only one of us seems to notice. I mean, he looked straight at the dishes in the sink…and just stacked his dish on top of them. How high does this precarious tower of crockery have to be until he decides to wash the dishes or, more likely, they collapse into an unrepairable heap? I suppose I’ll have to wash them. They won’t get washed otherwise, and I’d rather get them off my mind.’ The unequal distribution of household labour is a familiar concern amongst feminists. Despite the progress in women’s rights and freedoms, women across the world continue to bear the responsibility of domestic chores and childcare. This raises an important question: why do women in monogamous, opposite-sex relationships continue to shoulder a disproportionate amount of housework work despite their political gains? In this episode, we’ll be exploring this question with two outstanding philosophers of morality and mind: Paulina Sliwa (Professor of Philosophy at the University of Vienna) and Thomas McClelland (Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Cambridge).  According to Paulina and Tom, our disparities and perception of domestic labour are determined by our feelings, beliefs, and social norms. In other words, the way we perceive the world is radically different. The dishes don’t call out to some – in need of cleaning – in a moment of perception, as they do to others. So what can we do to change this disparity…that is, if it’s in need of changing at all.        Contents Part I. Affordance Perception Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion           Links Thomas McClelland and Paulina Sliwa, Gendered Affordance Perception and Unequal Domestic Labour (paper) Coverage of Gendered Addordance Perception in the media (website) Thomas McClelland (website) Paulina Sliwa (website)   

Episode 128, ‘Domestic Labour’ with Paulina Sliwa & Tom McClelland (Part I - Affordance Perception)

Alongside life and liberty, the Declaration of Independence marked the pursuit of happiness as the foundation of American democracy. Yet, as the history of philosophy has taught us, understanding happiness is no easy task. Pursuing happiness as the cessation of desire, a feeling of perpetual pleasure, or as a state of human flourishing are very different projects…so, which conception of happiness did America’s Founding Fathers take to be an ‘inalienable right’? In this episode, we’ll be exploring the nature of happiness with Professor Jeffrey Rosen, President and CEO of the National Constitution Center. According to Rosen, in tracing the Founding Fathers’ intellectual development – inspired by Greek and Roman philosophy – we see that the Founders understood happiness as a pursuit of moral excellence rather than immediate gratification. No doubt, Western understandings of happiness have shifted…today, happiness means something closer to feeling good than being good. Our question is whether this cultural shift was a mistake. In carving out our futures, ought we look to the past? In defining the purpose of our lives and the destination of our states, should we turn to America’s Founding Fathers and their ancient teachers?    Contents Part I. The Founding Fathers Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion           Links Jeffrey Rosen, Twitter The National Constitution Center, Website Jeffrey Rosen, The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America (Amazon) Jeffrey Rosen, The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America (Simon & Schuster)   

Episode 127, ‘The Pursuit of Happiness’ with Jeffrey Rosen (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

Episode 127, ‘The Pursuit of Happiness’ with Jeffrey Rosen (Part I - The Founding Fathers)

There’s great pleasure to be found in make-believe. Instantly shifting our perspectives and belief systems gives rise to new possibilities – possibilities that are unavailable to the serious and sober-minded. Yet, as time passes, so does our desire to play. Adults – and, perhaps more so, philosophers – are instructed to ‘grow up’, to build their lives and views on sensible grounds, and leave their disposition for laughter, disruption, and mischief in the playground. For C. T Nguyen – Professor of Philosophy at the University of Utah – this is a foolish mistake. C. T Nguyen is one of the most innovative aestheticians of our time. As well as being published across philosophy’s leading journals, Nguyen’s work – which focuses on art, games, and agency – has earned him several notable prizes, including the American Philosophical Association 2021 Award, for his book Games: Agency as Art. In this episode, we’ll be speaking to Nguyen about intellectual playfulness. For Nguyen, playfulness should be understood as a virtue and not a vice. When we explore philosophical ideas through our usual perspectives, we close ourselves off from a rich set of alternative possibilities, and risk re-directing good-faith inquiry into bad-faith results. Playfulness, however, allows us to escape these traps in our thinking, and open ourselves up to the possibility of creativity.        This episode is produced in partnership with the Aesthetics and Political Epistemology Project at the University of Liverpool, led by Katherine Furman, Robin McKenna, and Vid Simoniti and funded by the British Society of Aesthetics.           Contents Part I. The Ideal Thinker Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion           Links C. Thi Nguyen, ‘Playfulness Versus Epistemic Traps’ (paper) C. Thi Nguyen, Games: Agency As Art (book) C. Thi Nguyen, website C. Thi Nguyen, X (Twitter)  John Gierach, Fly Fishing Small Streams (book) Natasha Dow Schüll, Addiction by Design: Machine Gambling in Las Vegas (book) Monster Train (game)   

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

Download our free app to listen on your phone