The Panpsycast Philosophy Podcast

On August 6, 1945, an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, instantly killing up to 80,000 civilians, with another 40,000 dying soon after from burns and radiation poisoning. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki led to the surrender of the Japanese Army, marking the end of the most destructive war in history.

War has been a constant throughout history. Since the dawn of agriculture, humans have waged war against one another. Some argue that war is ingrained in human nature, from our ancestors battling over resources and empires seeking expansion, to biblical genocides and acts of human sacrifice—Homo sapiens are seemingly insatiable for conflict. Others, however, believe war is not inevitable and that we have the capacity for humility, justice, and kindness without resorting to armed conflict.

We must remember that explaining war is not the same as justifying it. While pacifism, as exemplified by Jesus and Gandhi, is often seen as noble, is non-violence truly effective against regimes intent on ethnic cleansing? If not, how do we determine when war is justified and what defines proportional force? Can the killing of innocent civilians ever be justified? And, if not, how do they differ from innocent combatants? War, huh, good god, what is it good for?

Links

A.C. Grayling, War: An Enquiry (book)

Richard Overy, Why War? (book)

Jeff Mcmahan, Killing in War (book)

Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars (book)

Carl von Clausewitz, On War (book)

War, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

On August 6, 1945, an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, instantly killing up to 80,000 civilians, with another 40,000 dying soon after from burns and radiation poisoning. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki led to the surrender of the Japanese Army, marking the end of the most destructive war in history.

War has been a constant throughout history. Since the dawn of agriculture, humans have waged war against one another. Some argue that war is ingrained in human nature, from our ancestors battling over resources and empires seeking expansion, to biblical genocides and acts of human sacrifice—Homo sapiens are seemingly insatiable for conflict. Others, however, believe war is not inevitable and that we have the capacity for humility, justice, and kindness without resorting to armed conflict.

We must remember that explaining war is not the same as justifying it. While pacifism, as exemplified by Jesus and Gandhi, is often seen as noble, is non-violence truly effective against regimes intent on ethnic cleansing? If not, how do we determine when war is justified and what defines proportional force? Can the killing of innocent civilians ever be justified? And, if not, how do they differ from innocent combatants? War, huh, good god, what is it good for?

Links

A.C. Grayling, War: An Enquiry (book)

Richard Overy, Why War? (book)

Jeff Mcmahan, Killing in War (book)

Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars (book)

Carl von Clausewitz, On War (book)

War, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

On August 6, 1945, an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, instantly killing up to 80,000 civilians, with another 40,000 dying soon after from burns and radiation poisoning. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki led to the surrender of the Japanese Army, marking the end of the most destructive war in history.

War has been a constant throughout history. Since the dawn of agriculture, humans have waged war against one another. Some argue that war is ingrained in human nature, from our ancestors battling over resources and empires seeking expansion, to biblical genocides and acts of human sacrifice—Homo sapiens are seemingly insatiable for conflict. Others, however, believe war is not inevitable and that we have the capacity for humility, justice, and kindness without resorting to armed conflict.

We must remember that explaining war is not the same as justifying it. While pacifism, as exemplified by Jesus and Gandhi, is often seen as noble, is non-violence truly effective against regimes intent on ethnic cleansing? If not, how do we determine when war is justified and what defines proportional force? Can the killing of innocent civilians ever be justified? And, if not, how do they differ from innocent combatants? War, huh, good god, what is it good for?

Links

A.C. Grayling, War: An Enquiry (book)

Richard Overy, Why War? (book)

Jeff Mcmahan, Killing in War (book)

Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars (book)

Carl von Clausewitz, On War (book)

War, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

They say money can't buy happiness, but it can buy power, freedom, and security. The one per cent – who control nearly half of the world's wealth – understand this better than anyone. In capitalist democracies, corporations spend billions on political donations and lobbying to influence economic policies in line with their own interests. The trillions spent by governments in propping up the banks following the 2008 financial crash – and the bailing out of the largest corporations through the Covid Corporate Financing Facility – speak volumes: the state and the economy are not separate entities. The goal of the state is clear: "Steady the ship and maintain course."

Corporations don't just pose a threat to our economic freedoms, but the future of the natural world. Just a handful of firms are responsible for over seventy per cent of carbon emissions, and despite public pressure, corporate action on the climate crisis has been largely ineffective. We shouldn't be surprised; after all, industry holds the power, and turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

Links

Grace Blakeley (website)

Grace Blakeley (twitter)

Grace Blakeley, Vulture Capitalism: Corporate Crimes, Backdoor Bailouts and the Death of Freedom

Philosophy is about concepts – what it is to be moral, to be in love, or belong to the human species – and these concepts pervade every aspect of our lives. Yet, what images come to mind when you think of Immanuel Kant, David Hume, or René Descartes? For many of us, we imagine Descartes in his armchair, Hume at his desk, and Kant on one of his solitary walks. We certainly don't imagine these figures, wearing boiler suits…

For Mary Midgley, the image of a philosopher withdrawn from the realities of everyday affairs represents precisely where philosophy has gone wrong. For Midgley, philosophy is best understood – not as an exercise of self-indulgent scholarship – but as a sort of plumbing. Our concepts run through our societies like the pipes through our homes, and it's the job of the philosopher – that is, the plumber – to examine the pipes and keep the water from swamping the kitchen floor. For Midgley, we need philosophy, just as we need plumbing…philosophy's not a luxury; it's a necessity.

Joining us to discuss the philosophy of Mary Midgley is Dr Ellie Robson. Dr Robson is a British Society for the History of Philosophy Postdoctoral Fellow and Teaching Associate at Nottingham University. Ellie – whose work primarily focuses on the history of philosophy and meta-ethics – is one of the leading scholars of philosophy on Mary Midgley's life and work. In this episode, she'll illustrate Midgley's meta-philosophy and meta-ethics through her analysis of the concept of beastliness.

Let's dig up the floorboards and see what's leaking.

Contents

Part I. The Roots of Human Nature

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Links

Ellie Robson (website)

Ellie Robson, Mary Midgley's Beast and Man: The Roots of Human Nature: a re-appraisal (paper)

Ellie Robson, Mary Midgley on Water and Thought: Is Public Philosophy Like Plumbing? (article)

Mary Midgley, The Concept of Beastliness (paper)

Mary Midgley, Beast and Man (book)

Mary Midgley, The Myths We Live By (book)

Mary Midgley, What Is Philosophy For? (book)

Gregory McElwain, Mary Midgley: An Introduction (book)

Philosophy is about concepts – what it is to be moral, to be in love, or belong to the human species – and these concepts pervade every aspect of our lives. Yet, what images come to mind when you think of Immanuel Kant, David Hume, or René Descartes? For many of us, we imagine Descartes in his armchair, Hume at his desk, and Kant on one of his solitary walks. We certainly don't imagine these figures, wearing boiler suits…

For Mary Midgley, the image of a philosopher withdrawn from the realities of everyday affairs represents precisely where philosophy has gone wrong. For Midgley, philosophy is best understood – not as an exercise of self-indulgent scholarship – but as a sort of plumbing. Our concepts run through our societies like the pipes through our homes, and it's the job of the philosopher – that is, the plumber – to examine the pipes and keep the water from swamping the kitchen floor. For Midgley, we need philosophy, just as we need plumbing…philosophy's not a luxury; it's a necessity.

Joining us to discuss the philosophy of Mary Midgley is Dr Ellie Robson. Dr Robson is a British Society for the History of Philosophy Postdoctoral Fellow and Teaching Associate at Nottingham University. Ellie – whose work primarily focuses on the history of philosophy and meta-ethics – is one of the leading scholars of philosophy on Mary Midgley's life and work. In this episode, she'll illustrate Midgley's meta-philosophy and meta-ethics through her analysis of the concept of beastliness.

Let's dig up the floorboards and see what's leaking.

Contents

Part I. The Roots of Human Nature

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Links

Ellie Robson (website)

Ellie Robson, Mary Midgley's Beast and Man: The Roots of Human Nature: a re-appraisal (paper)

Ellie Robson, Mary Midgley on Water and Thought: Is Public Philosophy Like Plumbing? (article)

Mary Midgley, The Concept of Beastliness (paper)

Mary Midgley, Beast and Man (book)

Mary Midgley, The Myths We Live By (book)

Mary Midgley, What Is Philosophy For? (book)

Gregory McElwain, Mary Midgley: An Introduction (book)

Birds sing joyfully, dogs smile as they fetch their sticks, and philosophers laugh at their own jokes on podcasts. It is a happy world after all. In fact, if we ponder upon such delights for long enough, it is possible to infer – even during our darkest days – that these are gifts bestowed by a benevolent creator, for these are not necessary for our survival but are gratuitous goods.

Yet, says another, what if these delights are no more proof of a benevolent creator than they are a malevolent one? What if these goods are given just to amplify our suffering when they are inevitably taken from us? And, what if, for every reason given for believing in a good-god, there was room for an evil-god to just as easily take his place?

In this episode, we'll be exploring the evil-god challenge with Dr Jack Symes, teacher and researcher at Durham University and editor Bloomsbury's popular book series, Talking about Philosophy. According to Symes, whilst the evil-god challenge has its merits, we should be sceptical about its attempts to draw parallel arguments to those in favour of god's goodness. Ultimately, for Symes, there are enough asymmetries in these parallel arguments that we should consider the evil-god challenge defeated.

Contents

Part I. Defeating the Evil-God Challenge

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Links

Jack Symes (website)

Jack Symes, Defeating the Evil-God Challenge: In Defence of God's Goodness (book)

Birds sing joyfully, dogs smile as they fetch their sticks, and philosophers laugh at their own jokes on podcasts. It is a happy world after all. In fact, if we ponder upon such delights for long enough, it is possible to infer – even during our darkest days – that these are gifts bestowed by a benevolent creator, for these are not necessary for our survival but are gratuitous goods.

Yet, says another, what if these delights are no more proof of a benevolent creator than they are a malevolent one? What if these goods are given just to amplify our suffering when they are inevitably taken from us? And, what if, for every reason given for believing in a good-god, there was room for an evil-god to just as easily take his place?

In this episode, we'll be exploring the evil-god challenge with Dr Jack Symes, teacher and researcher at Durham University and editor Bloomsbury's popular book series, Talking about Philosophy. According to Symes, whilst the evil-god challenge has its merits, we should be sceptical about its attempts to draw parallel arguments to those in favour of god's goodness. Ultimately, for Symes, there are enough asymmetries in these parallel arguments that we should consider the evil-god challenge defeated.

Contents

Part I. Defeating the Evil-God Challenge

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Links

Jack Symes (website)

Jack Symes, Defeating the Evil-God Challenge: In Defence of God's Goodness (book)

In the early part of the twentieth century, three thinkers – Nishida Kitarō, Tanabe Hajime, and Nishitani Keiji – founded the Kyoto School of Philosophy, a group of scholars working at the intersection of Japanese and European thought. The Kyoto School, deeply influenced by the German tradition, wrote extensively on the works of Kant, Hegel, and Heidegger exploring themes such as the limits of our reason and the nature of nothingness. Tanabe, himself a student of Heidegger, explored such topics at length, building on the rich body of thought and – as we shall see – igniting his own philosophy.

In this episode, we'll be investigating the profound insights of Tanabe's philosophy with two of the world's leading Tanabe scholars: Associate Professor of Philosophy at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Gregory S. Moss and Lecturer in Non-Western Philosophy at the University of Edinburgh, Takeshi Morisato.

As we explore Tanabe's work, we'll see Japan's, Kyoto School's, and Tanabe's histories, unique philosophical paths, and the many questions they illuminate along the way. As we do so, we'll uncover the invaluable insights of their work and the legacy they left behind.

Contents

Part I. The Kyoto School

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Links

Gregory S. Moss (website)

Takeshi Morisato (website)

The Dialectics of Absolute Nothingness: The Legacies of German Philosophy in the Kyoto School (book)

In the early part of the twentieth century, three thinkers – Nishida Kitarō, Tanabe Hajime, and Nishitani Keiji – founded the Kyoto School of Philosophy, a group of scholars working at the intersection of Japanese and European thought. The Kyoto School, deeply influenced by the German tradition, wrote extensively on the works of Kant, Hegel, and Heidegger exploring themes such as the limits of our reason and the nature of nothingness. Tanabe, himself a student of Heidegger, explored such topics at length, building on the rich body of thought and – as we shall see – igniting his own philosophy.

In this episode, we'll be investigating the profound insights of Tanabe's philosophy with two of the world's leading Tanabe scholars: Associate Professor of Philosophy at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Gregory S. Moss and Lecturer in Non-Western Philosophy at the University of Edinburgh, Takeshi Morisato.

As we explore Tanabe's work, we'll see Japan's, Kyoto School's, and Tanabe's histories, unique philosophical paths, and the many questions they illuminate along the way. As we do so, we'll uncover the invaluable insights of their work and the legacy they left behind.

Contents

Part I. The Kyoto School

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Links

Gregory S. Moss (website)

Takeshi Morisato (website)

The Dialectics of Absolute Nothingness: The Legacies of German Philosophy in the Kyoto School (book)