When it comes to global problems like climate change, it can be easy to feel as though your own individual efforts to stop it are too small to make a difference. But then when you consider the big players whose efforts could make a difference—the corporations, the political parties—making them do the right thing just seems too daunting and complicated a task. What to do when individual efforts seem too small to matter, but structural change seems too big to effect? This week, the authors of a new book talk about taking a middle path.

Digestive disorders are a common source of distress and social anxiety - which might seem to be an odd topic for philosophy, until you start to think about why we attach such stigma, shame and silence to issues of the gut. What does the gut tell us about our own experience of embodiment - and how can disability theory be used to shape healthier attitudes to the gut issues that plague so many of us?

When someone complains about feeling pressure to use 'woke' language, their discomfort is that of a stranger in an unfamiliar world. For people in marginalised communities, travelling between 'worlds' is an everyday experience, albeit not always a voluntary or a safe one. This week we're talking about the language of trans identity, the category of the natural and the experience of 'world' travel.

We tend to think of time as a universal experience, something that carries us all along in the same direction at the same pace. So it might seem strange to think of time in terms of 'temporalities', different concepts and experiences of time that reflect different cultural values. In Australia, Indigenous temporalities are deeply interwoven with notions of justice, sovereignty and care for country - but these temporalities exist in tension with settler-colonial notions of time.

Once upon a time, what we now call scientists were known as "natural philosophers". These were people who studied the physical universe through observation and logic, using philosophical methods and reasoning. Today, science and philosophy have gone their separate ways, with some scientists rejoicing in the split (the late theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking famously pronounced that "philosophy is dead"). This week we're asking if science and philosophy need each other, and if a reconciliation between the two would benefit both.

Is it possible to have judgement without blame? And what does it mean to say - as Socrates did - that it's better to suffer evil at the hands of others than to be an evildoer oneself? This week we're talking with one of Australia's pre-eminent moral philosophers on questions of judgement, evil, remorse... and why he became a philosopher in the first place.

We routinely refer to "the unconscious" in a way that suggests we all agree on what it means - but in fact, the unconscious is a highly contested domain. For some, it's a subterranean layer of emotions and desires that operate deep below the rational mind, and that drive our behaviour in unpredictable ways. For others, the unconscious barely exists at all, and only as a metaphor or linguistic device. There's certainly no science of the unconscious, no empirical evidence that might show us what it is or how it works. This week we're diving deep into (or perhaps just skating across the surface of) the unconscious, with the great early 20th century psychonauts Ludwig Wittgenstein and Sigmund Freud as our guides.

Buddhism in the West is often thought of as an ethical or philosophical system first and foremost, based on principles of non-self and impermanence, and universalist in its outlook. So it can come as a surprise to find that in countries like Sri Lanka, there exists a strain of Buddhist nationalism that has fierce pride, religious chauvinism and even violence in its history.

Analytic philosophy has often understood itself as being in some sense "above" history - using reason and logic to explore problems that are timeless and apolitical. But this week we're talking with the author of a new book that places analytic philosophy firmly in its social/historical context.

Medical diagnosis these days is not as straightforward as it seems. Doctors still diagnose, but so do a great many people who previously didn't - wellness influencers, misinformation peddlers, users of the many kinds of medical tests available to the public - and then there's the advent of AI and machine learning diagnostics. So what exactly does diagnosis mean today? And what implications do emerging technologies have for the kind of authority traditionally seen as exclusive to the medical profession?