Please Expand

In this episode one of my past co-hosts Giulia Luvisotto takes the lead and discusses the book Money: The Currency of Politics with its author Stefan Eich, Assistant Professor of Government at Georgetown University. Eich draws attention on what he takes to be an important yet unduly neglected truth: far from being a neutral means of exchange, money is intrinsically political. To make his case, Eich retraces the genealogy of this thesis (and of its neglect) by looking at the authors that play a key role in it: Aristotle, Locke, Fichte, Marx and Keynes and tells a gripping story of how our conception of money changed because of contextual historical factors.

Giulia and Stefan discuss these thinkers in sequence to bring forth how each contributes to the neglect of the political status of money, trying to highlight their peculiarities and clarify their ambiguities. But ultimately the goal is to get to the core of the matter: in what sense is money itself political? Why has this truth been concealed? What sort of politics do we want to strive for? Are there viable alternatives to the status quo?

If successful, this episode would not leave you with a number of learnt lessons but with a heightened sense that more attention on money is needed and a thirst for further reflection on the matter.

In this episode we discuss the origins of the New Deal with Ira Katznelson. I am joined by Simon Gansinger, philosopher and law-enthusiast, to delve into the murky past of the New Deal and to examine how it became one of the most defining moments of US history and why it continues to deserve our attention.

We begin by looking at the uneasy alliance between F.D. Roosevelt and the Southern Democrats. Roosevelt required their political support in Congress in order to pass the New Deal, but that came at a price: to keep the subject of race off of the political agenda. Katznelson's book focuses on this uneasy alliance and raises important questions about the success of the New Deal and how it should be understood.

We then look at how the New Deal fundamentally altered the relationship between the US state and the economy. Much of what is considered nowadays to be the role of the US state is due to the New Deal. This, too, could not have succeeded without the support of the Southern Democrats, who were curiously pro-labour. We investigate this development in the US state and interrogate the tension at heart between a white supremacist South and a progressive South, when it came to labour.

Finally, we consider the difficult relationship that the New Deal has with non-democratic forms of government. A central theme of Katznelson's book is that the, paradoxically, whilst the New Deal is a response by the US to defend itself against the rise of non-democratic forms of government, it borrows much from these non-democratic forms of government. Katznelson's book, then, fundamentally demands that we re-think the opposition between democracy and non-democracy, and shows us how, in times of crisis, they are unnervingly similar.

In this episode we look at Robin Dunbar's particular thesis that religion is not just an unexpected outcome of evolution but is, in fact, a mode of engaging with the world that confers substantial benefits on its adherents. We look at the importance of group bonding and the important role that religion plays in this. We talk about why religion is the most effective mode of bonding people in large groups, paying special attention to the role that endorphin release plays in this. Indeed, the emotional background to religion raises interesting questions about the futility of arguing about religious beliefs or trying to reason against religious belief. A big consequence of Dunbar's reading is that one is religious, not for reasons, but because of the emotional pull that religion has over people. Finally, we discuss the role of religion in our increasingly secular societies. If religion is as important to group bonding as Dunbar would argue, then what does this mean for the decline of religion that we are witnessing across the Western world? We discuss all this, and more, in our thought-provoking interview with Robin Dunbar.

I talk with Michael Strevens about the scientific enterprise. Does science get at objective truth or is it limited by subjective world-views? We begin by discussing the roles of Kuhn and Popper in the "Great Method Debate", before going on to discuss developments in the sociology of science, by figures such as Bruno Latour, who showed that there is actually quite a bit of subjectivity in everyday scientific activities. We then go on to discuss Michael's contribution to this debate and we examine the "Iron Rule of Explanation". We look at the constellation of ideas that buttress the Iron Rule of Explanation and examine their suitability to the scientific enterprise. Finally, we consider the role that beauty can play in science.

In this episode we talk about meritocracy and whether it is still a viable system for social organisation.

We begin by dissecting the concept of merit by analysing the role that talent or IQ play in assessing whether someone deserves something or not. We discuss the historical relationship between the fight for equality and the growth of the meritocratic ideal. We talk about the importance of education in the construction of a meritocracy; we wonder whether tests are sufficiently fine-grained to tell us whether somebody is deserving of something or not, and we think about the applicability of exam results to job roles that involve value-judgments. Finally, we interrogate the relationship between meritocracy and capitalism and wonder whether meritocracy is made worse by capitalism, or whether capitalism is made worse by meritocracy.

In this episode, Giulia Luvisotto and I interview Michael Hunter on The Decline of Magic. Taking its cue from Keith Thomas's Religion and the Decline of Magic, Hunter goes into the details of why magic declined in the late 17th century. Hunter introduces us to the world of the orthodox thinkers and the free-thinkers (or the Wits!) and the intellectual battlefield on which they exchanged withering treatises about the existence of supernatural phenomena and natural causation. We talk about the rise of the New Science, the struggle of Baconianism against the rising star of Newtonianism, and how the ultimate triumph of Newtonianism played a role in the decline of magic. We also look at the role played by doctors and the way that Cartesianism paved the way for the claim that superstitious beliefs were merely an ailment of the mind that could be cured. Finally, we take stock of what we have discussed and look back to Religion and Decline of Magic and consider Michael Hunter's contribution to the discussion on the decline of magic. Ultimately, it was neither the cold scepticism of the Wits or the dogmatic method of the New Science that rung the death knell for magic, rather it was a growing feeling of optimism about our problem-solving capacities that gave people the confidence with which to object to magic that dealt the fatal blow.

In this episode, I interview Mary Hollingsworth on her new book, Princes of the Renaissance. We begin by talking about just what exactly the Renaissance was and how it developed differently across the Italian peninsula. Then, we discuss the ideal character of an Italian Prince, of their engagement in war but, more importantly, their role as patron of the arts and how they were the focal point for the development of the Renaissance within their particular city-state.

We go from talking about the not-so-salacious Borgias, to the mysterious Venetians in their all black robes, to the humbly virtuous dynasty of the Este's of Ferrara. We look at how they garnered prestige and reputation through the arts, and how the fierce rivalry between Francis I and Philip V.

At the end of the episode, Giulia and I talk about the creation of identity through art, similarities between the role of art in the Renaissance and the present, and an obscure Vietnamese emperor who could have been a Renaissance man.

In this episode I interview Fernando Cervantes, author of "Conquistadores", where we discuss his new interpretation of the conquest of the Americas. By placing figures like Columbus and Cortes in their proper historical context, Fernando paints a picture of the conquest of the Americas that is no less violent than traditional narratives, but much less wicked.

We talk about the Christian, medieval, crusading spirit that is fundamental to understanding the motivations and actions of the conquistadors; we look at the methods used by missionaries to spread Christianity and how their flexibility to blending native religions with Christianity led to the establishment of a distinctly Latin American Christian religion; and, finally, we look at the kinds of political lessons that can be learnt from the earliest forms of government in Latin America, particularly in the context of contemporary debates between the sovereignty of states over and against transnational political entities.

In this episode I interview John Ghazvinian, author of "American and Iran", where we talk about the surprising history of American-Iranian relations by beginning in 1720, and continue all the way through the circuitous and, sometimes tortuous, path that is the history of these two remarkable nations.

We look at the foundations for American interest in Iran; the growth of Iranian fascination with American democracy; the fascinating dual character of Iran as both the inheritor of Ancient Persia and Cyrus the Great, on the one hand, and as a Muslim nation, on the other hand; the role that religion played as a motor for progress in both the Constitutional Revolution of 1905 and the Iranian Revolution of 1979; and, finally, we consider the future of American-Iranian relations.

In this episodes we talk about an obscure group of professionals called "Antiquaries" ,whose intellectual activities became increasingly relevant in the period from 1789 -1851. We discuss the changing self-image of the English; the antiquaries made the Gothic central to English identity; and it is to the antiquaries that we owe the canonisation of Shakespeare. We grapple with questions concerning historical authenticity, the role of creativity in historical narratives, and ultimately wonder whether the histories we get are simply the ones that we need.