Slavoj Žižek, Friedrich Nietzsche, Kehinde Andrews – the world has never been short of bad philosophers. But of all the minds who have graced, tortured, or otherwise afflicted human history, which one truly deserves the title: The World's Worst Philosopher?

That's not an easy question; after all, philosophy has given us so many options. When Dan Dennett denied consciousness, was that the silliest claim ever made? What should we think when once sensible people – Philip Goff – convert to Christianity? Is Robert Wright, in fact, Robert Wrong? Is it the wartime quartet, or the woke-time bore-tet? Did Bentham really support bestiality? And why did David Papineau say that thing about women?

Philosophers are supposed to be seekers of truth: lofty creatures aiming at wisdom, clarity, and the betterment of humanity. But philosophers are just people, shaped by forces that lead them astray. Sometimes they miss truth entirely; sometimes they stumble into it through terrible reasoning; and sometimes they make the world a genuinely worse place.

Which brings us to the task at hand: trying to rank the worst philosopher in history. It's no easy feat. In fact, it's going to require the combined efforts of three of philosophy's greatest minds: Jack Symes, Andrew Horton, and (me) Olly Marley.

This episode may also mark the end of our professional careers. But if we're going down, we'll go down like Socrates: making an unnecessarily big deal out of something that, absolutely, could have been easily avoided.

Slavoj Žižek, Friedrich Nietzsche, Kehinde Andrews – the world has never been short of bad philosophers. But of all the minds who have graced, tortured, or otherwise afflicted human history, which one truly deserves the title: The World's Worst Philosopher?

That's not an easy question; after all, philosophy has given us so many options. When Dan Dennett denied consciousness, was that the silliest claim ever made? What should we think when once sensible people – Philip Goff – convert to Christianity? Is Robert Wright, in fact, Robert Wrong? Is it the wartime quartet, or the woke-time bore-tet? Did Bentham really support bestiality? And why did David Papineau say that thing about women?

Philosophers are supposed to be seekers of truth: lofty creatures aiming at wisdom, clarity, and the betterment of humanity. But philosophers are just people, shaped by forces that lead them astray. Sometimes they miss truth entirely; sometimes they stumble into it through terrible reasoning; and sometimes they make the world a genuinely worse place.

Which brings us to the task at hand: trying to rank the worst philosopher in history. It's no easy feat. In fact, it's going to require the combined efforts of three of philosophy's greatest minds: Jack Symes, Andrew Horton, and (me) Olly Marley.

This episode may also mark the end of our professional careers. But if we're going down, we'll go down like Socrates: making an unnecessarily big deal out of something that, absolutely, could have been easily avoided.

Jainism, along with Buddhism and Hinduism, is one of India's great dharmic traditions – though far less well known than its siblings. Emerging around the second century BCE, it is best-known for valuing ahimsa in pursuit of liberation – a devout practice of non-violence. Yet there is far more to Jain philosophy than liberation and ahimsa. Jainism offers a rich way of understanding the self, the cosmos, and the divine. It's a philosophy with a vision of reality that continues to challenge Western preconceptions on, well, just about everything: from the nature of souls and knowledge to the meaning of life and the origin of the universe.

Today, we'll be exploring Jainism with Dr Marie-Hélène Gorisse. Dr Gorisse is currently Dharmanath Assistant Professor in Jain Studies at the University of Birmingham, where she's co-project lead of the Global Philosophy of Religion Project 2. Marie-Hélène's work explores South Asian philosophy of religion and, most specifically, she is a world-leading expert on Jaina philosophy.

In this episode, we'll trace how Jainism arose, how its sages taught that the self can escape the cycle of rebirth, and the purpose of the universe. And perhaps more importantly, we'll explore how Jainism can help us all live better lives for the sake of ourselves, and the world around us.

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

Links

Marie-Hélène Gorisse, University of Birmingham

The Global Philosophy of Religion Project 2, Website

Jainism, along with Buddhism and Hinduism, is one of India's great dharmic traditions – though far less well known than its siblings. Emerging around the second century BCE, it is best-known for valuing ahimsa in pursuit of liberation – a devout practice of non-violence. Yet there is far more to Jain philosophy than liberation and ahimsa. Jainism offers a rich way of understanding the self, the cosmos, and the divine. It's a philosophy with a vision of reality that continues to challenge Western preconceptions on, well, just about everything: from the nature of souls and knowledge to the meaning of life and the origin of the universe.

Today, we'll be exploring Jainism with Dr Marie-Hélène Gorisse. Dr Gorisse is currently Dharmanath Assistant Professor in Jain Studies at the University of Birmingham, where she's co-project lead of the Global Philosophy of Religion Project 2. Marie-Hélène's work explores South Asian philosophy of religion and, most specifically, she is a world-leading expert on Jaina philosophy.

In this episode, we'll trace how Jainism arose, how its sages taught that the self can escape the cycle of rebirth, and the purpose of the universe. And perhaps more importantly, we'll explore how Jainism can help us all live better lives for the sake of ourselves, and the world around us.

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

Links

Marie-Hélène Gorisse, University of Birmingham

The Global Philosophy of Religion Project 2, Website

Most people believe in moral facts – that is, there's something about torturing and murdering innocent people that makes it wrong, which goes beyond just a feeling. Yet it's hard to locate morality anywhere in the natural world. For this reason, many have understood God to be the source and arbiter of moral truth. But can morality depend on divine decree – or would that make goodness a matter of celestial whim?

In this episode, we'll be discussing the nature of moral obligation with Paul Taylor, doctoral candidate in philosophy at the University of Liverpool. There, as a university teacher, he specialises in ethics, political philosophy, and – our topic for today – philosophy of religion. As the recipient of the Robbins Rotblat Scholarship, Paul's research examines one of the oldest and most perplexing questions in moral philosophy – first posed by Plato over two thousand years ago: does God decide what is moral, or merely report moral facts?

In search of the best answer, we've been diving into Paul's unpublished work – pieces that ask not just the big meta-ethical questions, but the practical ones: what are we obliged to do, and why are we obliged to do it. As we'll discover, Taylor's work – and contemporary discussion on the Euthyphro dilemma – pushes us to think again about where morality comes from and whether we, and even God, must answer to it.

Most people believe in moral facts – that is, there's something about torturing and murdering innocent people that makes it wrong, which goes beyond just a feeling. Yet it's hard to locate morality anywhere in the natural world. For this reason, many have understood God to be the source and arbiter of moral truth. But can morality depend on divine decree – or would that make goodness a matter of celestial whim?

In this episode, we'll be discussing the nature of moral obligation with Paul Taylor, doctoral candidate in philosophy at the University of Liverpool. There, as a university teacher, he specialises in ethics, political philosophy, and – our topic for today – philosophy of religion. As the recipient of the Robbins Rotblat Scholarship, Paul's research examines one of the oldest and most perplexing questions in moral philosophy – first posed by Plato over two thousand years ago: does God decide what is moral, or merely report moral facts?

In search of the best answer, we've been diving into Paul's unpublished work – pieces that ask not just the big meta-ethical questions, but the practical ones: what are we obliged to do, and why are we obliged to do it. As we'll discover, Taylor's work – and contemporary discussion on the Euthyphro dilemma – pushes us to think again about where morality comes from and whether we, and even God, must answer to it.

Links

Paul Taylor, University of Liverpool

Across the world, belief in God continues to be widespread and, among philosophers, has long been considered one solution to the problems of the world's origin, fine-tuned nature, and purpose. However, in the West, very few people have considered alternative concepts of God credible. That, though, may be beginning to change. One such alternative – pantheism – tells us that the universe and God are one and the same thing. It challenges conventional ideas about divine agency and the coherence of traditional theism, and invites us to reconsider what we mean when we speak of 'God'.

To explore God's nature, in this special episode, I'll be joined by two guests: Tim Mawson and Asha Lancaster-Thomas. Dr Mawson is Edgar Jones Fellow and Tutor in Philosophy at St Peter's College, University of Oxford. He has published five books and over fifty papers in the philosophy of religion. Dr Lancaster-Thomas is Teacher of Philosophy at Atlanta Classical Academy, USA, and has published widely on the philosophy of religion – most recently exploring alternative concepts of God, including the one we'll be debating today.

Tim Mawson will be arguing in favour of traditional theism – the view that God and the world are not identical. Asha Lancaster-Thomas will be defending pantheism – the view that they are. What are the implications of identifying God with the universe? Can such a view still provide the kind of moral and metaphysical grounding traditionally associated with belief in a transcendent creator? Or – by dragging God down from the heaven's – do we diminish the divine and its explanatory power?

This episode is generously supported by The John Templeton Foundation, through The Panpsychism and Pan(en)theism Project (62683).

Links

Asha Lancaster-Thomas (PhilPapers, website)

Tim Mawson (Oxford University, website)

The Panpsychism and Pan(en)theism Project (website)

Across the world, belief in God continues to be widespread and, among philosophers, has long been considered one solution to the problems of the world's origin, fine-tuned nature, and purpose. However, in the West, very few people have considered alternative concepts of God credible. That, though, may be beginning to change. One such alternative – pantheism – tells us that the universe and God are one and the same thing. It challenges conventional ideas about divine agency and the coherence of traditional theism, and invites us to reconsider what we mean when we speak of 'God'.

To explore God's nature, in this special episode, I'll be joined by two guests: Tim Mawson and Asha Lancaster-Thomas. Dr Mawson is Edgar Jones Fellow and Tutor in Philosophy at St Peter's College, University of Oxford. He has published five books and over fifty papers in the philosophy of religion. Dr Lancaster-Thomas is Teacher of Philosophy at Atlanta Classical Academy, USA, and has published widely on the philosophy of religion – most recently exploring alternative concepts of God, including the one we'll be debating today.

Tim Mawson will be arguing in favour of traditional theism – the view that God and the world are not identical. Asha Lancaster-Thomas will be defending pantheism – the view that they are. What are the implications of identifying God with the universe? Can such a view still provide the kind of moral and metaphysical grounding traditionally associated with belief in a transcendent creator? Or – by dragging God down from the heaven's – do we diminish the divine and its explanatory power?

This episode is generously supported by The John Templeton Foundation, through The Panpsychism and Pan(en)theism Project (62683).

In 2021, Netflix released His Dark Material, a Christmas stand-up special by Irish–British comedian Jimmy Carr. The show sparked international outrage. Toward the end of the set, Carr delivered what he called a 'career ender' – a joke about the Holocaust, in which he described the Nazis' murder of thousands of 'Gypsies' as a 'positive'.

The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, the Auschwitz Memorial, and the UK government condemned the joke as 'appalling', 'abhorrent', and 'racist'; Carr, critics said, was trading on the 'last acceptable form of racism'.

Comedy touches every part of our lives. We tell jokes at the pub, around the dinner table, and by the office coffee machine. We all know someone who makes us laugh – and someone who seems to take things too far. But is there a line when it comes to humour? And if there is, who gets to draw it? Should we suspend our moral judgements when the lights go down and the curtain goes up? Or do jokes, like most speech acts, carry moral weight?

To answer these questions, we need to understand the nature of comedy itself – what exactly it is we're responding to when we laugh. Humour might be a release of nervous tension, a playful disruption of expectations, or – more troublingly, if it applies to Carr's joke – a means of asserting social superiority. No doubt, comedy has the power to shape our culture and perceptions. But, as we'll find out, it also tells us something about who we are, who we ought to be, and the things we value most.

Links

Abrahams, Daniel – Winning Over the Audience: Trust and Humor in Stand‐Up Comedy (paper)

Anderson, Luvell – Roasting Ethics (paper)

Bergson, Henri – Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of the Comic (book)

Carroll, Noël – Ethics and Comic Amusement (paper)

Carroll, Noël – Humour: A Very Short Introduction (book)

Carroll, Noël – I'm Only Kidding: On Racist and Ethnic Jokes (paper)

Carroll, Noël – Cruelty and Humour (paper)

Critchley, Simon – On Humour (book)

Deen, Phillip – What Could It Mean to Say That Today's Stand‐Up Audiences Are Too Sensitive? (paper)

Gimbel, Steven (ed.) – The Philosophy of Comedy (book)

Hick, Darren Hudson – Why Can't You Take a Joke? The Several Moral Dimensions of Pilfering a Ha‐Ha (paper)

Morreall, John – Comic Relief: A Comprehensive Philosophy of Humor (book)

Morreall, John – Philosophy of Laughter and Humor (book)

Morreall, John – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Philosophy of Humor (article)

Smuts, Aaron – Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Comedy (article)

In 2021, Netflix released His Dark Material, a Christmas stand-up special by Irish–British comedian Jimmy Carr. The show sparked international outrage. Toward the end of the set, Carr delivered what he called a 'career ender' – a joke about the Holocaust, in which he described the Nazis' murder of thousands of 'Gypsies' as a 'positive'.

The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, the Auschwitz Memorial, and the UK government condemned the joke as 'appalling', 'abhorrent', and 'racist'; Carr, critics said, was trading on the 'last acceptable form of racism'.

Comedy touches every part of our lives. We tell jokes at the pub, around the dinner table, and by the office coffee machine. We all know someone who makes us laugh – and someone who seems to take things too far. But is there a line when it comes to humour? And if there is, who gets to draw it? Should we suspend our moral judgements when the lights go down and the curtain goes up? Or do jokes, like most speech acts, carry moral weight?

To answer these questions, we need to understand the nature of comedy itself – what exactly it is we're responding to when we laugh. Humour might be a release of nervous tension, a playful disruption of expectations, or – more troublingly, if it applies to Carr's joke – a means of asserting social superiority. No doubt, comedy has the power to shape our culture and perceptions. But, as we'll find out, it also tells us something about who we are, who we ought to be, and the things we value most.

Links

Abrahams, Daniel – Winning Over the Audience: Trust and Humor in Stand‐Up Comedy (paper)

Anderson, Luvell – Roasting Ethics (paper)

Bergson, Henri – Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of the Comic (book)

Carroll, Noël – Ethics and Comic Amusement (paper)

Carroll, Noël – Humour: A Very Short Introduction (book)

Carroll, Noël – I'm Only Kidding: On Racist and Ethnic Jokes (paper)

Carroll, Noël – Cruelty and Humour (paper)

Critchley, Simon – On Humour (book)

Deen, Phillip – What Could It Mean to Say That Today's Stand‐Up Audiences Are Too Sensitive? (paper)

Gimbel, Steven (ed.) – The Philosophy of Comedy (book)

Hick, Darren Hudson – Why Can't You Take a Joke? The Several Moral Dimensions of Pilfering a Ha‐Ha (paper)

Morreall, John – Comic Relief: A Comprehensive Philosophy of Humor (book)

Morreall, John – Philosophy of Laughter and Humor (book)

Morreall, John – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Philosophy of Humor (article)

Smuts, Aaron – Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Comedy (article)