In this episode, you’ll be treated to a live performance of The Panpsycast. The event took place at Liverpool’s beautiful Tung Auditorium on 20th May 2022. Over three hundred of you purchased tickets to the event, with some of our most loyal patrons travelling thousands of miles to be with us in person. Before you listen to the audio, we just wanted to say a huge thank you to those who came along, as well as all of our wonderful panellists – Rowan Williams, Anil Seth, Laura Gow, and Philip Goff – for participating in the debate. A special thank you to Q Quartet, The Department of Philosophy at Liverpool University, and Premier Christian Radio for making this episode possible – as well as all of our incredible patrons. Thank you again for your support; we hope you enjoy the show. Contents Part I. The Debate Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Department of Philosophy, University of Liverpool Unbelievable? Premier Radio Anil Seth Laura Gow Rowan Williams Jack Symes Philip Goff
In this episode, you’ll be treated to a live performance of The Panpsycast. The event took place at Liverpool’s beautiful Tung Auditorium on 20th May 2022. Over three hundred of you purchased tickets to the event, with some of our most loyal patrons travelling thousands of miles to be with us in person. Before you listen to the audio, we just wanted to say a huge thank you to those who came along, as well as all of our wonderful panellists – Rowan Williams, Anil Seth, Laura Gow, and Philip Goff – for participating in the debate. A special thank you to Q Quartet, The Department of Philosophy at Liverpool University, and Premier Christian Radio for making this episode possible – as well as all of our incredible patrons. Thank you again for your support; we hope you enjoy the show. Contents Part I. The Debate Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Department of Philosophy, University of Liverpool Unbelievable? Premier Radio Anil Seth Laura Gow Rowan Williams Jack Symes Philip Goff
Introduction The flight of a hummingbird, the sprint of a cheetah, the breath of a whale, a daisy turning towards the sunlight. Given the complexity of the natural world, we can understand why – before the publication of Charles Darwin’sOn the Origin of Species – people believed that the universe was the work of an intelligent designer. These days, however – although creationism continues to be defended by religious fundamentalists – the scientific consensus is that the world’s organisms evolved through the long and arduous process of natural selection. ‘With a complete physical explanation,’ say the new atheists, ‘there’s no need to appeal to the supernatural.’ In this interview, we’ll be discussing atheism with Professor Richard Dawkins. It’s no exaggeration to say that Richard Dawkins is one of the most influential scientists, andthemost famous atheist, of all time. Alongside his invaluable contributions to evolutionary biology, his books – includingThe Selfish Gene,The Blind Watchmaker, and The God Delusion – have a readership in the tens of millions, resulting in numerous prestigious awards and recognition as ‘the world’s top thinker’. ‘Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin’, says Dawkins, ‘Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.’It is time we seized that possibility: that we embrace the godless universe, craft our own meaning, and stop suffering fools gladly. Contents Part I. Why I'm an Atheist Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion. Richard Dawkins, Outgrowing God. Richard Dawkins, Flights of Fancy. www.richarddawkins.com www.richarddawkins.net
Introduction The flight of a hummingbird, the sprint of a cheetah, the breath of a whale, a daisy turning towards the sunlight. Given the complexity of the natural world, we can understand why – before the publication of Charles Darwin’sOn the Origin of Species – people believed that the universe was the work of an intelligent designer. These days, however – although creationism continues to be defended by religious fundamentalists – the scientific consensus is that the world’s organisms evolved through the long and arduous process of natural selection. ‘With a complete physical explanation,’ say the new atheists, ‘there’s no need to appeal to the supernatural.’ In this interview, we’ll be discussing atheism with Professor Richard Dawkins. It’s no exaggeration to say that Richard Dawkins is one of the most influential scientists, andthemost famous atheist, of all time. Alongside his invaluable contributions to evolutionary biology, his books – includingThe Selfish Gene,The Blind Watchmaker, and The God Delusion – have a readership in the tens of millions, resulting in numerous prestigious awards and recognition as ‘the world’s top thinker’. ‘Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin’, says Dawkins, ‘Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.’It is time we seized that possibility: that we embrace the godless universe, craft our own meaning, and stop suffering fools gladly. Contents Part I. Why I'm an Atheist Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion. Richard Dawkins, Outgrowing God. Richard Dawkins, Flights of Fancy. www.richarddawkins.com www.richarddawkins.net
Introduction Art is created by people, but people are fallible. When the art we love is tainted by the brush of an artist’s biography, we must ask whether the shift in our aesthetic experience is reasonable. One might also wonder whether artworks can do wrong in and of themselves. If artworks can be intended as conveyers of truth, can they convey falsehoods or – more awkwardly – lies? These aren’t just conceptual problems. If artworks lie and immoral artists are inseparable from their artworks, how should we respond? Should we censor all art, some art, or no art at all? In this episode, we’ll be discussing the ethics of art with Cambridge University’s Dr Daisy Dixon. Dixon’s work, which explores the nature of (and responses to) unethical art, invites us to place art within its context – to consider artworks in relation to their artists, truth-functionality in relation to an artwork’s surroundings, and dangerous artworks in relation to their curation. If we do so, says Dixon, we’ll not only gain a better understanding of art but how we can bring about a better world. Contents Part I. Time Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Daisy Dixon, Website. Daisy Dixon, University Profile. Daisy Dixon, Conflicted art: how to approach works by morally bad artists. Daisy Dixon, Lies in Art. Daisy Dixon, Should we censor art?: a philosophical guide on how to manage dangerous art.
Introduction Art is created by people, but people are fallible. When the art we love is tainted by the brush of an artist’s biography, we must ask whether the shift in our aesthetic experience is reasonable. One might also wonder whether artworks can do wrong in and of themselves. If artworks can be intended as conveyers of truth, can they convey falsehoods or – more awkwardly – lies? These aren’t just conceptual problems. If artworks lie and immoral artists are inseparable from their artworks, how should we respond? Should we censor all art, some art, or no art at all? In this episode, we’ll be discussing the ethics of art with Cambridge University’s Dr Daisy Dixon. Dixon’s work, which explores the nature of (and responses to) unethical art, invites us to place art within its context – to consider artworks in relation to their artists, truth-functionality in relation to an artwork’s surroundings, and dangerous artworks in relation to their curation. If we do so, says Dixon, we’ll not only gain a better understanding of art but how we can bring about a better world. Contents Part I. Time Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Daisy Dixon, Website. Daisy Dixon, University Profile. Daisy Dixon, Conflicted art: how to approach works by morally bad artists. Daisy Dixon, Lies in Art. Daisy Dixon, Should we censor art?: a philosophical guide on how to manage dangerous art.
Introduction Enjoying a holiday in a small coastal village, a New York banker finds herself walking along a tranquil pier when she comes across a fisherman in a small, wooden boat. Inside the boat she spotted several rainbow-coloured fish. ‘Congratulations on a fine score. How long did it take you to catch them?’ ‘Only a little while,’ the fisherman replied. ‘That’s great,’ said the banker, ‘so, why don’t you stay out longer and catch a few more?’ The fisherman explained that he only caught what he needed to put fish on the table and a roof over his family’s heads. ‘But’, the puzzled banker enquired, ‘what do you do with the rest of your time?’ The fisherman smiled: ‘I sleep in late, I read books, I go dancing with my wife, and I write jokes about Adam Sandler.’ The banker scoffed, ‘You know, I could offer you my assistance with your fishing business.’ The fisherman raised his eyebrows. ‘If you spent more time fishing, you could sell more fish and buy a bigger boat. You’d catch more fish, buy more boats, and soon enough you could buy a fleet! Instead of selling your catch to a middleman, you would sell directly to the processor, and eventually open a cannery.’ The fisherman paused for a moment… ‘Right, but how long will this all take?’ The banker replied: ‘Ten to fifteen years?’ ‘But what then?’ asked the fisherman. The banker looked confused, ‘Then you could enjoy some time off: sleep in late, read books, go dancing with your wife, and write jokes about Adam Sandler.’ The fisherman smiled, ‘I suggest you stick around for a while. Have you been fishing before? Ha! Why don’t you climb aboard?’ Contents Part I. Time Part II. How to Use It Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Oliver Burkeman, Four Thousand Weeks. Bertrand Russell, In Praise of Idleness. Seneca, On the Shortness of Life.
Introduction Enjoying a holiday in a small coastal village, a New York banker finds herself walking along a tranquil pier when she comes across a fisherman in a small, wooden boat. Inside the boat she spotted several rainbow-coloured fish. ‘Congratulations on a fine score. How long did it take you to catch them?’ ‘Only a little while,’ the fisherman replied. ‘That’s great,’ said the banker, ‘so, why don’t you stay out longer and catch a few more?’ The fisherman explained that he only caught what he needed to put fish on the table and a roof over his family’s heads. ‘But’, the puzzled banker enquired, ‘what do you do with the rest of your time?’ The fisherman smiled: ‘I sleep in late, I read books, I go dancing with my wife, and I write jokes about Adam Sandler.’ The banker scoffed, ‘You know, I could offer you my assistance with your fishing business.’ The fisherman raised his eyebrows. ‘If you spent more time fishing, you could sell more fish and buy a bigger boat. You’d catch more fish, buy more boats, and soon enough you could buy a fleet! Instead of selling your catch to a middleman, you would sell directly to the processor, and eventually open a cannery.’ The fisherman paused for a moment… ‘Right, but how long will this all take?’ The banker replied: ‘Ten to fifteen years?’ ‘But what then?’ asked the fisherman. The banker looked confused, ‘Then you could enjoy some time off: sleep in late, read books, go dancing with your wife, and write jokes about Adam Sandler.’ The fisherman smiled, ‘I suggest you stick around for a while. Have you been fishing before? Ha! Why don’t you climb aboard?’ Contents Part I. Time Part II. How to Use It Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Oliver Burkeman, Four Thousand Weeks. Bertrand Russell, In Praise of Idleness. Seneca, On the Shortness of Life.
Introduction Enjoying a holiday in a small coastal village, a New York banker finds herself walking along a tranquil pier when she comes across a fisherman in a small, wooden boat. Inside the boat she spotted several rainbow-coloured fish. ‘Congratulations on a fine score. How long did it take you to catch them?’ ‘Only a little while,’ the fisherman replied. ‘That’s great,’ said the banker, ‘so, why don’t you stay out longer and catch a few more?’ The fisherman explained that he only caught what he needed to put fish on the table and a roof over his family’s heads. ‘But’, the puzzled banker enquired, ‘what do you do with the rest of your time?’ The fisherman smiled: ‘I sleep in late, I read books, I go dancing with my wife, and I write jokes about Adam Sandler.’ The banker scoffed, ‘You know, I could offer you my assistance with your fishing business.’ The fisherman raised his eyebrows. ‘If you spent more time fishing, you could sell more fish and buy a bigger boat. You’d catch more fish, buy more boats, and soon enough you could buy a fleet! Instead of selling your catch to a middleman, you would sell directly to the processor, and eventually open a cannery.’ The fisherman paused for a moment… ‘Right, but how long will this all take?’ The banker replied: ‘Ten to fifteen years?’ ‘But what then?’ asked the fisherman. The banker looked confused, ‘Then you could enjoy some time off: sleep in late, read books, go dancing with your wife, and write jokes about Adam Sandler.’ The fisherman smiled, ‘I suggest you stick around for a while. Have you been fishing before? Ha! Why don’t you climb aboard?’ Contents Part I. Time Part II. How to Use It Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Oliver Burkeman, Four Thousand Weeks. Bertrand Russell, In Praise of Idleness. Seneca, On the Shortness of Life.
Welcome to ‘Episode 105 (Part II of II)’, in which we’ll be analysing Hauskeller’s argument against transhumanist approaches to animals. We are all prisoners of our biology. Whether humans (and our non-human cousins) have the capacity to think, feel, or fly is dictated by their DNA, long before they have a say in the matter. It’s a living lottery that has lifted human beings to lofty heights; that is, above the world’s lowly, lesser creatures. With the emergence of new technologies, the age of the transhumanists is upon us: philosophers and scientists who believe that the lottery should be rigged towards self-design and the elimination of suffering. We have a moral imperative, say the transhumanists, to engineer a world that is better for everybody: to seek out technological solutions to ethical problems, not just for ourselves but the rest of the animal kingdom. After all, the question is not, ‘can they reason?’ – nor ‘can they talk?’ – but ‘can they suffer?’ In this episode, we’ll be discussing animals in transhumanism with Professor of Philosophy and Head of Department at the University of Liverpool, Michael Hauskeller. With over two hundred publications – across a vast range of philosophical questions – in both academic and public philosophy, Professor Hauskeller is, undoubtedly, one of the world’s most prominent philosophers. For Hauskeller, philosophy helps us navigate ourselves towards a better tomorrow: through philosophy, we can discover what kind of people we want to be, in what kind of world we want to live, and how we should steer the futures of our fellow creatures. Our question for today: should we take pity on the world’s poor brutes – those who live such lowly lives – and lift them up to our own lofty heights? Or should we leave them to dance the muddy dance of life? Contents Part I. How to Become a Post-Dog Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Michael Hauskeller, Academia Profile. Michael Hauskeller, How to Become a Post-Dog: Animals in Transhumanism (paper) Michael Hauskeller, Living Like a Dog: Can the Life of Non-Human Animals Be Meaningful? (paper) Michael Hauskeller, University Profile. Nick Bostrom, Golden Retriever – Live on Larry King! (paper)