Podcasts about Anscombe

What a lot of fun I had talking to Zena Hitz about Gulliver's Travels. As well as discussing Swift, slavery, genocide, rationality, Christianity, and science, Zena told me that good philosophy is like a box of cake mix and that a liberal education requires you to be freed of false expertise. I also took Zena on a detour to discuss Iris Murdoch, the Catherine Project, and modern philosophy. TRANSCRIPTHENRY OLIVER: Today I am talking to Zena Hitz. Zena is a tutor at St. John's College. She is a philosopher, the author of Lost in Thought. She runs the Catherine Project. She's famous on Twitter. We don't know how she does it all. Zena, welcome.ZENA HITZ: Thank you, Henry. It's great to be here.OLIVER: And we're talking about Gulliver's Travels because it is 300 years since it was published, and it's a book that you love.HITZ: A book that I've loved for a long time.First Encounter with Gulliver's TravelsOLIVER: So tell me, when did you first read it?HITZ: Well, it was an important moment for me. I was in high school, and I was admitted to a scholarship summer program which offered college courses at different campuses. There were some normal-looking college courses at normal-looking colleges. And then there was this course at St. John's called Science as Literature, Literature as Science. [laughs] It had this description that was just unbelievable. And I thought to myself, “This is the one, obviously the one to go to.”So I went, and we read books that no one in their right mind would assign to high school students now, and maybe not then. The fragments of Parmenides, Plato's Timaeus, selections from Aristotle's Physics, Gulliver's Travels. After reading a number of—preface to Ptolemy's Almagest, geocentric astronomy. And we read Gulliver's Travels after reading selections from Hooke's Micrographia, so the inventor of the microscope, and Galileo's Starry Messenger, which is one of the great first uses of the telescope to discover the nature of the moon and the satellites of Jupiter.So then we read Gulliver's Travels. We also read Emma and Flannery O'Connor and various other things. And one of the faculty who was running it said at one point, “Well, we thought we'd throw a bunch of things together and see what you could do, what you could make of it. We didn't actually have an idea of how these all fit together,” which I think was probably true.At any rate, I think I came to Gulliver's Travels thinking about these scientists who were looking at very large things and very small things, and thinking in general about the follies of human perception, whether that was shown in literature or philosophy or what have you, the ways in which human perception and knowledge don't work very well. And I think Swift is still one of the best people to—Gulliver's Travels is still one of the best books about that because it's in the mode of a travel diary, an eyewitness account.Gulliver is trained as a surgeon, by his own account. He at one point says he was a bit of a projector in his younger days, someone who undertook scientific projects. And he's a terrible observer, the worst imaginable observer, and Swift so brilliantly lets us see through his eyes, lets us see all the things he doesn't see. And I think it's not just about seeing and knowing. It has a very profound, I think, moral and political set of commitments. So it's a very humane book. It's social criticism, but from a point of view of a very deep humanity. So I've always loved the book for these reasons since then.I came back to it more recently because it is part of the curriculum at St. John's. So when I came back to teach there, I began to reread it. The other experience I had was that I wrote a long essay on it when I was an undergraduate. So those are my—I'm not any kind of expert. My knowledge of the historical context of the book is limited. It's not zero, but it's limited. But I have always loved it as an account of human understanding and its failures and the way that might impact how we live and how happy we can be.The Houyhnhnm ProblemOLIVER: Have you changed how you think about it as you've taught it?HITZ: I have not really changed the way I think about it. It gets more—like all of these books, the more you read them, the more comes out of them, the more details come up. Hilarious. The more jokes you get, the more . . .I think the one more recent insight I had was, I hadn't understood the full horror of the Houyhnhnms in the last book until relatively recently. I think that took me some time to really take on. It's one of the cases where Gulliver's misperceptions are a bit harder to see, and I think many readers just assume that Swift is endorsing the praise of the Houyhnhnms in some sense or other.OLIVER: There are some very serious critics in the past who have called them Swift's ideal beings. Which at this point in history seems unthinkable, but it has been a belief among serious readers.HITZ: Yes, yes. And also common among students. Yes, it's absolutely one of the wrongest opinions you could have about anything, I think.OLIVER: Why does Swift allow us to make that mistake? Are we bad readers out of the context, or has he made too good a job of his diversions and concealments and ironies?HITZ: That's a great question, and I'll just take a stab at it. I think that he has hit on a mode of misperception which is very deep to us, and it's something that we're much more guilty of. We could imagine that if we were in a place where everyone was small or everyone was large, we might make mistakes like Gulliver makes. But we all live, I think, in communities that are a bit like the Houyhnhnms. And so we are all very subject to these kinds of deceptions, and I think that's how he gets us.That's not to really excuse the bad readings because, you know, Gulliver does leave the land of the Houyhnhnms with a boat made out of human skin, which should—I think that moment should make you realize, if you haven't yet, that something is very seriously wrong with Gulliver. Gulliver has been kind of destroyed as a person by his travels, and especially by this last trip. But if you pass over that little detail, maybe you think, “Oh, wow, he found some very simple beings.”OLIVER: Well, there's also the great council where they debate the genocide of the Yahoos.HITZ: [laughs] Yes.OLIVER: And it directly contradicts several things Gulliver has come to believe about the Houyhnhnms, about the Yahoos, and about himself. And he's completely unaware of these contradictions and so in awe of the Houyhnhnms that he doesn't quite understand, I think, that he's accounting a genocide.HITZ: That's right. That's right.OLIVER: Even though he uses a phrase from Genesis that's very unmistakable. It's a sort of remarkable moment of—particularly to us, having had the 20th century. I think that's why Swift came back into favor in a way, because people used to say, Swift's unbearable view of human nature . . .This is a great bit in Boswell's Life of Johnson where, when they're traveling through Scotland, they're with a lady, and she says to Johnson, “Is any man naturally good?” And Johnson says, “No, no more than a wolf.” And Boswell says, “Well, sir, what about ladies?” And Johnson says, “God, no, absolutely not.” And this woman says, “Oh my God, this is worse than Swift,” utterly horrific view of human nature.But of course, we can actually say, did he go far enough? [laughter] I mean, Swift clearly understands something very real and deep. The council of genocide is horrifyingly familiar to us. And I think that's much to Swift's credit that he can see that, and to show that Gulliver would blind himself to it. And people still blind themselves to it, right?HITZ: That's right. And I wonder—you would know more about this than me because it is a bit of a historical question, but my understanding is that quite a lot of the savagery, the worst parts of rule over men that we see in Gulliver's Travels are pictures of Ireland in the 17th, 18th centuries. And I wonder if that took some time to reveal itself to the British, and in some ways it's still not really as known as it might be. We think of the colonial project as being something that was directed at India and Africa—OLIVER: Faraway countries.HITZ: —faraway countries where people looked really different. And we're not as familiar with the kinds of things that were done to the cuddly Irish with their nice music, and who we don't think of as being people that you would savagely oppress like that. So I think—OLIVER: So, I think partly the English are not interested in their own history in the way that they are expected to be. And partly the English interest in Irish history has become very focused on the more recent events. And it's very hard to get back past that. And it all becomes very complicated, and it's a sort of different country. So there's some of that, but I think generally we don't want to know what we did, yes.HITZ: Well, and I think in anglophone countries in general, there's going to be a history of something like that. To attribute it to the British is not to say that—I mean, Americans have chattel slavery and the genocide of the natives, and the Australians have their own situation. All of the anglophone countries have something like this on their conscience.I think that obscures the meaning of that final book. I think we don't recognize—and that's really to Swift's credit, to have a social critique that is so real and so deep that you may not even recognize yourself in the picture.Slavery in Gulliver's TravelsOLIVER: Yes. When I read it again—I read it as an undergraduate, but I really was actually more interested in the other parts of Swift's work. And I thought it was brilliant, and then I read it again. And it was more recently that—I didn't understand how I couldn't have seen it, but it's basically a book about slavery, as I come back to it.And in each of the books there is enslavement of a different sort. So, to begin with, Gulliver is the one being kept in a box or kept in a house, or he's chained up by the Lilliputians or Glumdalclitch.HITZ: Right. That's right.OLIVER: She's a very nice sort of master, as it were, [laughter] but he has that box that can be sealed, and the dwarf has him swiping at the wasps. And then the enslavement that the flying island has of the country below is like England and Ireland. And then in the final book, you know, the Houyhnhnms are whipping the Yahoos.HITZ: That's right.OLIVER: The slavery thing gets worse and worse as the book goes on. And one of the things that's clever is that it's funny when Gulliver is enslaved, right? When the wasps are let out and he has to—and Swift sort of does that clever thing where he undermines things by making it a joke at the end. By the book of the Houyhnhnms, there is really very little humor. And the twist at the end is always dark.Gulliver can't see that—he can see that he's a bit like the Yahoos. But he can't see that they've been enslaved in the way that he—the farmer wanted to take him around the kingdom and show him off, and he says, “I couldn't possibly have had children in that condition because I couldn't have it on my conscience that I had begotten a slave, someone born into slavery. I couldn't do that.”HITZ: Right.OLIVER: Then he's in the Houyhnhnms and he can't—it's quite remarkable.HITZ: [laughs] Yes. I don't think it's quite true that in the end there's no humor. I read it with some Catherine Project group a couple of years ago, and one of the readers pointed out that it's not obvious Gulliver isn't leaving his home and sitting out in the ocean and always landing on England every single time; just every time, he lands there.And there's something hilarious about an Englishman that discovers a place where there's all horses, [laughter] and his love of horses overwhelms him, and he becomes persuaded that they're the only rational beings that there are. I mean, that is funny.OLIVER: Yes, I agree. There's a lot of irony and stuff. But I think it's in Lilliput when he describes their manner of writing. And he says they don't write from left to right as we do in England, or from right to left, or up-down like the Chinese, but from one corner to the other, as the ladies do in England. This is very funny, dry humor, and that sort of thing is gone. And the things that surprise you at the end of a sentence or a paragraph are more like, “Oh, and of course I used Yahoo skin to cover the boat.” And you're like, oh my God, this is not a joke anymore.You know, in A Modest Proposal, he makes real humor out of those kind of horrors. And with the Houyhnhnms, I think he actually refuses the joke to make you feel the disgust, in a way.HITZ: Yes, that might be right. That might be right.Swift and PhilosophyOLIVER: What do you think about the idea that the Houyhnhnms are drawn from the Phaedrus and Socrates's idea of the soul with the two horses? And there's the good, rational horse and the vulgar, passionate horse, and the Yahoos are the other horse. You see what I mean?HITZ: Yes, yes.OLIVER: Is Swift showing us the two sides, and Gulliver's mistake is to prefer the one and not the—HITZ: Right, I think I have heard something like this before. I'm a bit skeptical. Swift doesn't strike me as someone who uses philosophy in quite that way. I think he's much more interested in Gulliver's—the Houyhnhnms' self-deception about the kinds of beings they are. They do not say “the thing which is not,” yet Gulliver's master hides from him this conversation about the genocide for quite some time. And maybe we don't know if he tells him quite the whole truth about it. So there's—OLIVER: And he also conceals the fact that the others don't like Gulliver because he's a partial—a reasonable Yahoo, as it were.HITZ: Right. So their self-deception, Gulliver's being taken in by their self-deception, the ways in which they—this is one of the ways that I think it's profound about the nature of slavery. And to cheer us all up, I'll make a Holocaust analogy, as you also did.When I was traveling in Germany some years ago, in one of their Holocaust museums, there was an image from a Nazi-era German newspaper of Jewish people living in complete squalor in the ghetto. And of course, they had forced them into squalor. But somehow they forced them into squalor, and then this reinforces the sense that they're these rat-like beings.And there's something very similar that the Houyhnhnms do to the Yahoos. They force them into this animal state, and then they say, “Oh God, look, these people are disgusting. They just don't know how to act.” That seems to me the kind of level at which Swift is working. He is interested in the nature of a human being, but not in the abstract Platonic sense, I don't think.He strikes me as someone who believes in common sense, common decency, basic freedom, and basic use of reason. And he finds in his time that there's distorting teachings, distorting ways of behavior that have gotten people far off track. To me, that's what it feels like it comes from. It doesn't feel like Plato is in the background to me.OLIVER: Is there an extent to which, though, it's a work of sort of anti-philosophy? As you say, Swift, he likes common sense. He likes ordinary reason, and he likes what he would call the revealed truth of Christianity. So he talks, in his sermons about people, it comes to you from God like a light. It's revealed to you. And he doesn't like this idea that the philosophers can work it all out.And in a way, that's the same sort of mistake that the scientists think they can discover all this stuff, and they go in these crazy ways. And the Houyhnhnms are a bit like that. If you had philosopher-kings, they would end up being perverted examples of rationality because they're ignoring the—so do you think it's anti-philosophy in a way? The book is saying, “No, no, I don't want philosophers”?Criticizing Elite Intellectual CultureHITZ: That's definitely a plausible reading. But it's hard to tell whether it's anti-philosophy or anti a particular style of thinking. It's worth pointing out, in that light, that Gulliver, when he arrives in the land of the Houyhnhnms, before he even meets a horse, he sees a Yahoo who, from what I can tell from the text, is trying to wave at him and say hello, who recognizes him. And he's horrified. He sees him instantly as a monster.So I think immediately upon landing, he sees the Yahoos as monstrous, and that tells me that he must already be off kilter. So he's not just corrupted by the Houyhnhnms; he's been somehow led off track, away from the capacity to recognize fellow human beings before that.And he's come from this—the third book is all about various kinds of inquiry, scientific endeavors, practical endeavors, talking to the greats of the past, necromancy, and various kinds of inquiry into wisdom or things like wisdom. And somehow that's the thing that seems to push him to the point where he can no longer tell what a human being is.OLIVER: One of my favorite parts is when he's with the wizards, and he asks to be shown Homer and Aristotle and all their commentators. And he says that there were vast rooms full of these commentators, endless numbers of them. But Homer and Aristotle didn't recognize any of them because they were all so ashamed of the terrible things they'd said about these great men's works that they kept themselves forever in a different part of the underworld. They couldn't bear the shame of being revealed to having told lies and said second-rate things.It's very, very funny. And I think that's another sort of angle on which the book says, “You're so tempted to make a comment and have an idea and be a philosopher, and you should just accept the revealed truth of what is known. Just stop it. Just stop it.” [laughter]HITZ: Well, I suppose maybe I would also put it this way, that Swift sees the condition of 18th-century Ireland, which is quite poor, very bad. And it's ruled in a savage way by the English, who have a quite flourishing intellectual culture, as it happens, at this time.So I think what he might be is not a critic of philosophy so much as a critic of intellectual culture. Because intellectual culture seems to not only not help with existential concerns like slavery and oppression and savage poverty, but even serves to mask and hide and create illusions behind it.So that's, I guess, how it strikes me, as a book that's hostile to what you'd now call elite intellectual culture. And I don't know how fundamental that critique is, in light of its inability to solve problems for real human beings or to obscure the causes of what's going on with real human beings.OLIVER: I think it's quite fundamental because outside of Gulliver's—I think this comes into Gulliver's Travels, but what he might have said more explicitly elsewhere is, there are people starving in the streets of Dublin. And we've got corrupt politicians and intellectuals saying all these things, but you know, here she is starving. You don't need to work that out. [laughter] There's no question—the reveal—just be a Christian and, like, for goodness' sake . . .HITZ: Yes.OLIVER: And when, for example, he talks to the king of Brobdingnag, and there's that wonderful satire of the English government and everything. And he says, “Those people understood mathematics and poetry and whatever, but I could never drive into their head any sense of the abstract or any of these speculative—they simply didn't know what that was. They didn't know what I was saying.” [laughter]And so in a way, his ideal government is anti-philosophical because it would just look at the human problem in front of it. It wouldn't do speculative science. It wouldn't think of itself as rational, all this Platonic stuff. It would just—she's in rags, she has bare feet, you know?HITZ: Yes, that's right.OLIVER: What do we need a philosopher-king? Like, what are you talking about?HITZ: Exactly.OLIVER: The priest understands this because he's there in the city doing it. And is there something of that in the book, that constant resistance of the cleverness of people who cannot see daily life?HITZ: I think that's absolutely true, and I think it's probably one of the things I love about the book, because I think this somehow gets to something in my own heart. Even though I'm a professional intellectual—I have been my whole life—the distance between the concerns of professional intellectuals and the concerns of living, real people in various parts of the world is very large.And it's even worse when, as it was when I was coming up in grad school, there's a ton of explicit concern and various operations underway to improve life for others, which have zero connection with anything that anyone actually does. So I think the Laputans, which is the beginning of the third book, when Gulliver—OLIVER: The flying island.HITZ: Yes, when Gulliver visits the people on the flying island, who have one eye towards the heavens and one eye pointed inward. And they study music and mathematics, and they live in a giant flying saucer, which has the—OLIVER: And the flappers.HITZ: That's right. [laughter] When someone needs to talk to them, someone flaps their ears so that they pay attention. And their wives all run off with working people because they can't bear to be treated the way they are by men like this. And the flying saucer is not just distant. It also has the power to crush the towns underneath it if it judges them to be rebellious.This image will stick with you for the rest of your life. I mean, it's absolutely perfect, and the perfect image of bad government of a kind when intellectual culture is prized. And it's hinted early on in the book in Lilliput, when the rulers in Lilliput have to do these elaborate dances with ropes.OLIVER: Oh, with the king and the chief minister hold the pole, funny angles, and if you get under it, you get a green ribbon or a red ribbon.HITZ: Exactly. [laughter] And they have these athletic contests of grace and various colored ribbons, and that determine how far you get in the halls of power.OLIVER: Yes. Are you a cabinet minister or a junior minister? Yes, yes.HITZ: Exactly. So there, it's all just a funny joke. But it develops, I think, into the Laputans, people who have kinds of expertise that are actually hostile to them doing any kind of humane governing. So yes, that seems right to me.Christianity in GulliverOLIVER: To what extent is it a Christian book?HITZ: That's an interesting question. I've never found a strong Christian element in it myself. There are satires of religious wars, both in Lilliput, where Lilliput's at war with its neighboring city. Oh, wait a second, there's two different disputes in Lilliput. One is about what side you cut your egg on.OLIVER: There are the Little-Endians and the Big-Endians,HITZ: Right. And then there's also one about heel size. So there's two different kinds of disputes.OLIVER: With the marvelous image that the king is a Short-Heeler. But they think that the heir to the throne might be favorable to the High-Heelers because he has one heel slightly higher than the other, and he walks with a wobbly gait.HITZ: [laughs] That's right. This, again, in Lilliput is just utterly hilarious, outrageous, very silly, obviously a parody of religious wars between different kinds of Christians. But it resurfaces towards the end. It's the Houyhnhnms, where he talks to the Master Horse—OLIVER: And the horse sort of pretends to this great rationality, simply can't understand that men would kill each other over the question of whether flesh is bread or bread is flesh.HITZ: That's right. That's right. That's right. So there's definitely disparaging remarks about religious wars. And as you're talking about it, where along with Swift's praise of common sense, there's a kind of basic Christian morality, which is that the poor and the suffering need attention. That all strikes me as Christian. Apart from that, I'm not sure. If you have a religious take, I'd be interested to hear it.OLIVER: I find it very interesting that Swift had quite strict beliefs. He was not in favor of Catholics. He thought Dissenters should be tolerated, but he wanted the Test Act. He was very particular about all these things. And in his other works, he's quite direct about that. But in this book, he achieves a kind of high ambivalence. And he's not a Little-Ender or a Big-Ender.HITZ: That's right.OLIVER: And he says the religious text on which this is based simply says that you must break the egg at the most convenient end.HITZ: [laughs] That's right.OLIVER: Now, of course, in reality, he's a Little-Ender, and he's very committed to the Reformation, and he thinks it's all terrible that they're not. And it's interesting that someone with such angry, insistent beliefs on the Anglican Church would take this ambivalent position.And he satirizes so much. But the anti-slavery stuff, the description of the Laputans bringing the island down, and then he says, “I've never seen so much want and misery, and there's a wild look in their eyes, and they're wearing rags.” I mean, this is Dublin, right? This is just, along with the slavery, this basic Christian concern for the oppressed, the poor, the suffering.HITZ: Yes, that's right.OLIVER: And so I don't quite know. It's almost like the book is saying, again with this anti-intellectual thing, all these doctrinal disputes and which church this and who believes that. And here we have slaves and poor people and beggars and starving people.HITZ: Right.OLIVER: Christianity should deal with that first. So is the implicit criticism of his fellow Christians, in a way, that they're more interested in these disputes than in the fact that there are enslaved people and suffering people and—you see what I mean?HITZ: Yes, that's right.OLIVER: And Gulliver—the Houyhnhnms are highly rational but not Christian, which is a significant omission. And by the end, are you supposed to wonder if Gulliver actually isn't very much of a Christian? Because he can see this suffering and not respond to it at all.HITZ: Right, when maybe the—is the best person in the book the King of Brobdingnag? Does that seem right? The person with the—at least who says the best things?OLIVER: He says the best things. I think the best person is Glumdalclitch. She shows real charity and real love towards him.HITZ: What about the Houyhnhnm, the one who likes him, who says, “Fare thee well, gentle Yahoo”? It's tear-jerking—OLIVER: Oh, the sorrel nag.HITZ: The sorrel nag. I can literally weep at that moment when she says, “Fare thee well, gentle Yahoo.”OLIVER: That's true. That's true. She and Glumdalclitch are maybe more similar characters. Yes, yes, yes.HITZ: They're similar characters. Okay.OLIVER: And they have that basic, you don't need to call it Christian. You don't need—it doesn't need theology.HITZ: Humane. I would call it humane. Yes.OLIVER: They have that basic love of their fellow. You know, Glumdalclitch doesn't say, “Oh, how amusing this little man is, or how entertaining, or I can make—” She says, “He must be cared for. He looks a bit like me. He must be cared for.”HITZ: Right.OLIVER: And the sorrel nag, again, has the love of the fellow creature.HITZ: That's right. That's right.OLIVER: So I think Swift might be bringing in this, what he thinks of as the revealed truth of Christianity. Like, you shouldn't need telling, you shouldn't need to argue. It's there.HITZ: Right. This is just me making things up, which is what I'm here for. We're podcasting. Yes.OLIVER: Yes, of course. Also, is that not what the philosophers would do? That's what Swift would say.HITZ: But if I was going to make something up, what I would say is something like this: that Swift to me, from the testimony of Gulliver's Travels, which is the book of his I really know the best. I don't know much about the rest of it. He has a level of self-awareness and sophistication. So, he knows that that religious difference is being used as a pretext. He knows that it is obscuring the suffering of these people. So, for the purposes of the book, he says, “Look, if you're a smart person, if you're a smart ruler, if you're an actually humane, intelligent, commonsensical ruler, you know that the fact that they have the wrong religious views is not a reason for them to be enslaved and oppressed and starved.” So that would be my suspicion.And that's why I think, to me, the religion is so light, because it's not really a religious problem. It's actually just a human problem and a political problem that is, how do you run your country so that these subject peoples are allowed to be free and develop themselves and be full human beings? That would be my made-up guess.Students' Views of GulliverOLIVER: What do undergraduates think? What is it that they find interesting in the book, and what do they like or dislike?HITZ: It's been a couple of years. I think they like this idea that—we all think travel is very broadening, a great way to think about the world. You know, you can learn so much about one's fellow human beings. And whatever else is going on in Gulliver's Travels, travel does not necessarily produce enlightenment.So I think they like the attention to the ways in which, even when we are trying to learn, we fail to learn. And the ways in which structures of learning, like traveling or studying science, might actually make you worse and not better, things like that. But it's not a book—I think it's fair to say it's not one of the favorite books of the undergraduates.OLIVER: Okay.HITZ: I think they find it a little bit distant, and I'm not sure why that is.OLIVER: Is it because it sort of looks like a novel, but it's not what we have come to expect a novel to be? And it sort of has that—HITZ: I think that's right.OLIVER: The pre–Jane Austen novel is kind of weird to us now.HITZ: Well, they love Don Quixote.OLIVER: Okay.HITZ: And that is a challenge of a similar kind. It's a novel which doesn't quite read like a novel, and the humor is kind of old. I mean, it's also true—undergraduates, in my experience, in general—I hope they'll forgive me for saying this on a podcast—they're not always good at comedy. They tend to think that serious things must be tragic.OLIVER: You can't get an A by making a joke.HITZ: Well, more that they have a sense that an intellectual life is something serious. It's serious.OLIVER: Oh, yes. Okay. And the syllabus slightly reinforces that, doesn't it?HITZ: Well, it's sort of self-reinforcing because we used to read more Aristophanes. We used to read Rabelais.OLIVER: If you do Shakespeare, it'll be the tragedies.HITZ: No, no, we do Shakespeare comedies.OLIVER: Oh, you do? Okay.HITZ: Yes. We have As You Like It and The Tempest. And do we have more tragedies? Maybe one more tragedy than comedy, but not a terrible imbalance.OLIVER: Well, that's good.HITZ: It's not Shakespeare-type comedy that's—maybe, correct me if I'm wrong, a Shakespeare comedy is something that ends in a marriage, more or less.OLIVER: More or less.HITZ: It's things that are funny—they don't necessarily think that humor is a way of thinking.OLIVER: Do they struggle with irony?HITZ: No, not usually. As long as it's serious irony, Anyway, I'm not sure why. I think I'm making things—I'm going too far out of the grounds for drawing conclusions.Favorite Parts of the BookOLIVER: Sure. Do you have a favorite passage?HITZ: One of my favorites is the part—is it Balnibarbi where they have people who try to speak with objects?OLIVER: Oh, yes, yes, yes.HITZ: And they have to carry around wagons full of things because they never know what you might want to talk about. [laughter] That's so weird. Because I think I spent a lot of time studying with philosophers, there's a bit of—something's on the nose about this.OLIVER: Yes.HITZ: You know, it's like, “No, you've got to say exactly—no, that's too imprecise. You have to say exactly what you mean.” Bernard Williams, the great philosopher, has something complaining about how contemporary philosophers are very controlling of their readers. They don't want anyone to make the slightest mistake about what they mean by a particular word. That's how the people who speak by objects strike me.OLIVER: Do you think that is a problem of contemporary philosophy?HITZ: Oh, sure. Yes, absolutely. Yes. The way Williams puts it is that when you write something, it should be like a cake mix, and the reader should be able to put their own egg and bake the cake themselves.OLIVER: Oh, I see. You mean like a box of mix, yes.HITZ: Yes, yes, exactly. It's like a box of cake mix. Whereas making the cake painstakingly and force-feeding it bite by bite to the reader is not actually an—OLIVER: Telling them how it tastes.HITZ: Telling them how it tastes is not an educational endeavor.OLIVER: When does this become too dominant in philosophy?HITZ: It's a feature of 20th-century analytic philosophy to be very careful with the meanings of words. And it's by no means universal; it's just a natural vice to the territory.Iris MurdochOLIVER: Is this a problem for someone like Iris Murdoch, or is it more the A. J. Ayer type?HITZ: No, it's the A. J. Ayer type, not Iris Murdoch. No, Iris Murdoch is heterodox outside of the—OLIVER: Do you like her philosophy?HITZ: I do, yes.OLIVER: What do you like about it? Platonic?HITZ: Now, see, I came here to talk about Swift. [laughter]OLIVER: I know, but you made such a good point about the satire of philosophers.HITZ: I like her writing for a more general educated audience, her not making assumptions about the philosophical training of her readers, and her use of Plato for sure, which is quite interesting and creative. She sort of ingests Plato and does something with it that I think is very interesting.OLIVER: Is she properly appreciated as a Platonist, or do you think there's more attention to be paid?HITZ: There's probably more attention to be paid, but she gets some attention. She gets some attention. I also don't think it was particularly helpful, these two books that came out a couple of years ago about Murdoch, Foot, Midgley, and Anscombe.OLIVER: Oh, yes, yes, yes. I only read one of those. It was quite good.HITZ: It might be quite good, but those four women are quite different from one another. So it's an example of where attention to identity could obscure as much as it—OLIVER: Well, one of the books was more about the ideas—they were both obviously about the ideas—and one of them was more about the fact that they were together in Oxford. And that they benefited from hanging out, talking, doing different sorts of work, sleeping with each other's husbands, et cetera.HITZ: Yes, all the good stuff.OLIVER: And from the more sociological point of view, it was very interesting to see that, actually, a lot of what Murdoch did was bound up with her friendships and relationships, in that the argument basically is, A. J. Ayer and the others get sent away because of the war. So these four women are actually—they've been banned from this seminar and told they're not allowed.Well, now they can sit around and do what they want to do. And it worked, and they all produced very interesting things. So from that point of view, I think it was—but I agree with you, Elizabeth Anscombe and Iris Murdoch are not the same. [laughter]HITZ: Not even particularly similar. I also feel like I've read enough of Murdoch's novels to have a sense of what the sociological situation was like.OLIVER: You like the novels?HITZ: I do like them, yes.OLIVER: Do you have favorites?HITZ: I can't remember the name of my favorite because I haven't read them for years. It's one of the things I read years ago, the one—I'd remember it if I saw the title. There's an LSD trip at the beginning of it.OLIVER: Oh, The Good Apprentice. I love that book.HITZ: The Good Apprentice, yes. I think that was my favorite. But I never fell in love with it. I just liked it, and I found it interesting, and I found the sociology interesting. Okay, this is what academics at this time period were doing.What to Pair with SwiftOLIVER: We got diverted.HITZ: “We” got diverted. [laughs]OLIVER: We did. If Swift is on a great books syllabus, what is it good to pair him with? If people are reading Swift, on or off a syllabus, do you think there are other—Hooker, you said, which I think would be interesting.HITZ: No, Hooke. It's Hooke.OLIVER: Hooke. Hooke. That's a very good point.HITZ: The guy who wrote Micrographia, who has the enormous picture of the flea.OLIVER: Yes, yes, yes. So that would be good. But any other? Is it worth reading Plato alongside him?HITZ: Well, I like to—he's on the list for something we called Life of the Mind Seminar at Catherine Project, which is our introduction to the life of the mind.OLIVER: And just to tell people, the Catherine Project—this is not a university. Anyone can join a seminar.HITZ: That's right. It's an open online readers community. Consists of small, high-quality conversations, mostly on Zoom, some in person.OLIVER: You could be some kid, an accountant, a dentist, whatever, and you come and do a—you've got a PhD running a seminar, and you get that experience.HITZ: Right. Some of them are peer led, so they're not necessarily PhDs running them. The reading groups are not necessarily run by PhDs. But the core program in which the Life of the Mind Seminar is—either a PhD or an ABD [all but degree] or someone with some academic experience is usually leading that. We have it there, and we have it there with a set of books that are meant to disorient rather than to orient.So one of the difficulties with reading great books with more or less random selections of adults is that people feel uncertain, out of place. And they bring expertise, real or fake, to the table, which makes it very difficult to have a conversation. It's usually fake expertise, for what it's worth.OLIVER: Give us an example of what you mean by fake expertise.HITZ: Well, so someone will have—we'll be, say, reading Hamlet. Someone will have taken a class on Shakespeare in college, and they'll say, “Actually, we're asking this question. But what I learned, my professor told me, is that Hamlet actually symbolizes—he has an Oedipus complex and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and then this is what this means, and this is what that means.” And then your conversation's over, because you need to focus just on the text that's shared between the—OLIVER: It's not a crossword puzzle.HITZ: Exactly. It's not a crossword puzzle, and it's not something where—or the other—people often, again, they feel a bit on their back feet. So they'll google a bunch of stuff about the author, and they'll start tossing out random facts about the book or about the author, about the context. And again, you don't get really into the meat of the book that way.So, Gulliver's Travels is there to help us think about ways in which we might not be expert in things we're expert. Ways in which we might think we understand something and not understand it. And ways in which people who, with every appearance of seriousness and scientific principle, can just say unbelievably stupid things.So it's a very, very good book for that, where in that sense, it's I think very good for any liberal education program. It's liberating that way. One of the things we need to be liberated from is false expertise.OLIVER: You're talking really about these secondhand opinions that you haven't interrogated and come to understand yourself.HITZ: Exactly. Exactly, exactly, exactly.OLIVER: This is what Mill says. Everything is new to someone, and the real genius is that you find it out.HITZ: Exactly.OLIVER: You don't get taught it. Yes, yes.HITZ: Exactly, exactly. So real learning is things you find for yourself. Anyway, that's what I like it with. As for pairing it, yes, I think it would just depend on what you were—I don't have a clear thought about that. I think it'd be good to pair it with Galileo's Starry Messenger and preface to Hooke's Micrographia.But you could also pair it with Emma. Be quite good, actually, because Emma is also about someone who really doesn't know what they're doing and has no idea. Thinks they know what's going on; they really have no idea what's going on.OLIVER: Yes. Hamlet as well, in fact.HITZ: I guess so. Does he not know what's going on?OLIVER: Who's diverting now? [laughter] Well, there's an interesting question, isn't there, about whether Hamlet has legitimate doubts. So he says, “This ghost could be a demon. I should be careful. I don't know what I'm doing. I'm going to pretend to be mad. I'm going to find out.” Or whether he just doesn't want to see the truth in front of him, and he quote-unquote “delays” because of that. I don't know if you have a view.HITZ: I don't think he's deluded. I think the problem is something different, but I haven't thought enough about it recently to know what his volitional obstacle is. But I don't think he's deluded. I think he sees what's going on, but there's something about acting that doesn't work for him.OLIVER: An internal—HITZ: Something internal. Something internal. In a way, I find the play very hard. I don't know what, for instance, what does that obstacle have to do with Ophelia? What's going on with that? Anyway, he's very mysterious, but I don't—yes, that'd be my sense, is that he's not—OLIVER: Do you buy this idea that he's a nihilist?HITZ: No, although he's definitely faced with something like nihilism. He has to look at it. And of course, the play does end with everyone dead, [laughs] so it's not obvious that he's wrong.Sympathy for GulliverOLIVER: This question hangs over Gulliver as well. Is the problem by the end that he's basically become a nihilist? His response to the Yahoos is to deny meaning, deny the possibility of meaning, to shut himself away.HITZ: He is a true misanthrope. He hates human beings and refuses to interact with them and in that sense, in some way, removes himself from any further mistakes. In another way, the mistake that he's in is so massive that that hardly seems like a consolation. But yes, he's definitely stuck, and he's stuck in a place where who he is—because he's a human being. We have to remember that.So he's in a place of total self-hatred and the hatred of his neighbor, what you'd call from the Christian perspective a total loss of charity. Is that nihilist? I don't know, but it's definitely bad. It's not a good state to be in. Maybe I don't know what you mean by nihilism exactly.OLIVER: Are we supposed to disapprove of him at the end or sympathize with him?HITZ: Disapprove, I think.OLIVER: Yes? You don't feel sorry for him?HITZ: I do a bit.OLIVER: But not much.HITZ: Well, should I?OLIVER: I have come to believe—yes, this is what I've come to feel in subsequent readings, is that Gulliver, as you say, is very mistaken. He thinks he understands things that he does not understand. He has the sort of pretense of rationality, but he lacks any sort of meta rationality to see what his limits are.And he becomes, therefore—he doesn't advocate genocide, and he doesn't take any pleasure in using Yahoo skin, but he's just completely null to it. There's a sort of void there where human feeling ought to be. And it's tragic for him. It's a tragic ending that he is so isolated. And we can't sympathize with him, as it were, but we can feel sort of awful that he's shriveled into this state rather than judging or blame.I think one of the persistent themes of the book is, as I say, this kind of basic love of fellow creature, the Glumdalclitch or the sorrel. And if you take that from the book, you will wish you could bring Gulliver back.HITZ: Right. What you're saying reminds me that there is an interesting parallel in Plato's dialogues that I hadn't thought of before, Plato's Parmenides, which is perhaps the most difficult Plato's dialogue. So it's a conversation between young Socrates and the philosopher Parmenides. The first third of it is relatively clear, some arguments against what people think of as Plato's theory of forms.Then there's an extensive, insane dialectical process where various theses about the connection between being and oneness are both argued for and then refuted, and argued for and then refuted, pages and pages and pages and pages of it. So this seems to be—it's Parmenides and Zeno who are running Socrates through this ringer.And the person at the very beginning of the dialogue who they have to go find, to tell him the story of how Socrates met Parmenides, used to study philosophy. But now he just trains horses. [laughs] One of my teachers pointed this out to me, and I've never been able to get over it, that he spent this time doing philosophy, and he's like, “You know what? I'm going to work with horses for the rest of my life. If I never hear another human voice, that's fine with me.”So I think that is an interesting parallel. And I think it is not really that uncommon to see people who are totally disillusioned with relating to humans, who then relate to animals instead, like they devote themselves to animals.OLIVER: But on that reading, it might be a disillusionment with philosophical humanity. It might be philosophy that's killed Gulliver's human feeling.HITZ: That's right. Well, I think that's one possibility, one very strong possibility. That's why I think the Houyhnhnms come after the Laputans. Going to the furthest reaches of his intellectual interests just destroys his humanity.But it doesn't seem like exhaustion in the same way that whoever, I can't remember his name, the character who relates the Parmenides, where you just think he must be exhausted from having heard more than one conversation like this. [laughter] And just in the stable with the horses eating oats, I mean, it's just delightful. It's just so peaceful, you know?OLIVER: Bucolic, pastoral, yes.HITZ: Yes, exactly. Exactly. Maybe you're right that we should be more sympathetic to someone in that situation.OLIVER: Well, next time you read it, you can tell me if you change your mind.HITZ: All right. I will tell you if I change my mind.OLIVER: Very good. Zena Hitz, thank you very much.HITZ: Thank you very much, Henry Oliver. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.commonreader.co.uk

Elizabeth Anscombe, philosophe britannique du XXe siècle, fut une figure aussi brillante qu'inclassable. Élève et proche de Ludwig Wittgenstein, elle s'imposa rapidement comme une voix singulière dans le paysage philosophique, à contre-courant des tendances dominantes de son époque.Pour partir à la découverte de cette philosophe atypique, nous nous entretenons dans cet épisode du Loyola Café, avec Blandine Lagrut, enseignante aux Facultés Loyola Paris et spécialiste d'Elizabeth Anscombe. Elle a notamment publié l'ouvrage Elizabeth Anscombe : une philosophie de l'intégrité (éditions Hermann, 2026) et coorganise, le 28 mai prochain, la soirée-débat Elizabeth Anscombe : un portrait philosophique.Au fil de l'entretien, Blandine Lagrut revient sur le parcours et la pensée d'une philosophe au tempérament affirmé. De ses années à Oxford aux côtés de Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley et Iris Murdoch, jusqu'à ses prises de position publiques marquantes, notamment contre Harry S. Truman après Hiroshima, Anscombe n'a cessé de questionner les fondements de la morale moderne: pourquoi refusait-elle certaines justifications de la guerre ? Pourquoi s'opposait-elle à des notions comme la « reddition inconditionnelle » ? Et en quoi, avec ses contemporaines d'Oxford, a-t-elle contribué à renouveler profondément la philosophie morale ? Aujourd'hui encore, la pensée d'Anscombe résonne et continue d'interroger notre rapport à l'action, à la responsabilité et au bien.Pour plus d'informations sur ou se procurer le livre Elizabeth Anscombe : une philosophie de l'intégrité, visiter : https://www.editions-hermann.fr/livre/elizabeth-anscombe-blandine-lagrutPour pour d'informations sur/ou s'inscrire à la soirée-débat Elizabeth Anscombe : un portrait philosophique, visiter : https://www.loyolaparis.fr/agenda/elizabeth-anscombe-un-portrait-philosophique/Entretien réalisé par Parnel LedagaFacultés Loyola Paris.Hébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

On the RSAC Conference show floor, Tony Anscombe shared how ESET has expanded its threat intelligence offering with ECR reports -- designed to give commercial organizations both machine-readable feeds and human-readable analysis. The reason: threat actors are increasingly hard to attribute, they share tools, run coordinated campaigns, and reinvest profits into more sophisticated operations. Having someone do the research and surface actionable intelligence is no longer a luxury. Anscombe pointed to a telling campaign pattern from last year: threat actors refined attack methods against UK retailers, then rapidly adapted those same techniques against US retailers. The implication is clear -- your business may be unique in its infrastructure, but it is not unique in its sector. Understanding how your sector is being targeted is the foundation of a prevention-first posture. Automation came up as equally non-negotiable. If it takes three days to collect all the information needed to make a determination about an incident, the post-attack phase has already begun. ESET Inspect is designed to flip that equation: when an analyst opens an incident, the forensic analysis is done, the evidence is visualized, and the determination can be made on facts rather than gathered through investigation. Anscombe was careful to draw a line between automation as speed and automation as replacement. ESET's position is that AI should operate alongside human expertise -- trust and verify applies to AI-assisted analysis just as it does to any intelligence feed. Oversight remains essential, even as the tooling gets faster. A preview of upcoming survey data offered one of the more striking moments in the conversation. Roughly 35% of SMBs using MDR are sourcing that service directly from their cyber insurer. Anscombe flagged the monoculture risk: when a large share of businesses in the same sector run identical security stacks, a single point of failure becomes a sector-wide vulnerability. His advice after 30 years in the industry -- different organizations should deliberately choose different platforms to maintain diversity. This is a Brand Spotlight. A Brand Spotlight is a ~15 minute conversation designed to explore the guest, their company, and what makes their approach unique. Learn more: https://www.studioc60.com/creation#spotlight GUEST Tony Anscombe, Chief Security Evangelist, ESET LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tonyanscombe/ RESOURCES ESET: https://www.eset.com ESET Threat Intelligence: https://www.eset.com/int/business/services/threat-intelligence/ Are you interested in telling your story? ▶︎ Full Length Brand Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#full ▶︎ Brand Spotlight Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#spotlight ▶︎ Brand Highlight Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#highlight KEYWORDS Tony Anscombe, ESET, Sean Martin, Marco Ciappelli, brand spotlight, brand marketing, marketing podcast, threat intelligence, cyber resilience, MDR, EDR, XDR, managed detection and response, SMB security, cybersecurity automation, RSAC Conference 2026, prevention-first security, cyber insurance, monoculture risk, ESET Inspect, APT research Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Tony Anscombe has attended RSA Conference since 1998 -- back when it was held at the Fairmont Hotel. That long view informs everything about how ESET approaches threat intelligence. It is not about volume. It is about accuracy, speed, and putting the right signal in front of the right team at the right moment. The ESET eCrime Ecosystem Report comes in two forms: a business-facing summary outlining current risks for leadership, and a long-form technical report for analysts -- complete with IOCs, coding examples, and structured intelligence feeds covering ransomware, crypto scams, malicious email attachments, and infostealer data. These feeds are built to plug directly into SOC workflows and firewall rules, not to create more work for already stretched teams. Tony Anscombe is direct about the quality problem in threat intelligence. Open-source feeds sound appealing -- until you factor in the analyst hours required to clean out the noise. By then, the intelligence is stale. Attacks circle the globe in hours. Near-real-time, verified intelligence is not a premium -- it is the baseline requirement. The threat detection conversation has also moved well past malware. Anscombe walks through how modern attackers often skip the payload entirely -- credential theft gets them in, then slow lateral movement and data exfiltration follow, with ransomware as the final act rather than the first signal. ESET's platform focuses on behavioral anomaly detection across the full environment, with on-site, cloud, and managed deployment options for organizations that cannot or will not go all-in on cloud architecture. At RSAC Conference 2026, ESET will be at booth 5253 in Moscone North. Anscombe has two sessions on the Wednesday agenda: one on supply chain blind spots -- urging security teams to engage directly with the business side to map third-party risk fully -- and a community rant session tackling four things that need to change in cybersecurity, including the cryptocurrency regulation debate. On AI, his message is measured: the real conversation at the show is not about using AI -- it is about securing it. This is a Brand Spotlight. A Brand Spotlight is a ~15 minute conversation designed to explore the guest, their company, and what makes their approach unique. Learn more: https://www.studioc60.com/creation#spotlight GUEST Tony Anscombe, Chief Security Evangelist, ESET LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tonyanscombe/ RESOURCES ESET website: https://www.eset.com ESET threat research blog (WeLiveSecurity): https://www.welivesecurity.com ESET at RSAC Conference 2026 -- Booth 5253, Moscone North Are you interested in telling your story? ▶︎ Full Length Brand Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#full ▶︎ Brand Spotlight Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#spotlight ▶︎ Brand Highlight Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#highlight KEYWORDS Tony Anscombe, ESET, Sean Martin, RSAC Conference 2026, eCrime, threat intelligence, eCrime Ecosystem Report, cybersecurity, endpoint protection, MDR, threat detection, supply chain security, AI security, ransomware, infostealer, brand spotlight, brand marketing, marketing podcast, brand story Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Gwendolyn Dolske interviews Philosophy Professor Benjamin Libscomb (The Women Are Up To Something). How did four women philosophers, Murdoch, Anscombe, Foot, and Midgley shape Ethical Theory?  What was the historical context of their work?  How did they uniquely engage in philosophical discourse and contribute to exploring concrete ethical dilemmas? Get your dose of Philosophy and History with this discussion about these incredible thinkers.  Learn more about Professor Libscomb's work: https://www.houghton.edu/staff-members/benjamin-lipscomb/ Support the pod and get extra content: https://www.patreon.com/c/GoodIsInTheDetails Get in touch: https://www.goodisinthedetails.com

Filosoferna Torbjörn Tännsjö, Jonna Bornemark och Lyra Ekström Lindbäck svarar på lyssnarnas frågor. Lyssna på alla avsnitt i Sveriges Radio Play. Per-Daniel frågar: Varför ska vi bry oss om kommande generationer? De har ju inte gjort särskilt mycket för oss och vi vet inte ens om de kommer att finnas.Efter en sommar av mer eller mindre intensiv samvaro behöver signaturen ”mamman” filosofernas hjälp. Vad är en familj och var börjar och slutar den, frågar hon. De amerikanska atombomberna som detonerade över Hiroshima och Nagasaki 1945 krävde 100 000-tals japanska dödsoffer, den absoluta majoriteten civila. Anfallet försvarades med att en invasion av Japan hade krävt ännu fler dödsoffer, och att bomberna tvingade fram en kapitulation. Filosofen Elizabeth Anscombe kritiserade detta resonemang och menade att mord på oskyldiga alltid är fel, även om det innebär att färre människor får sätta livet till. Håller ni med Anscombe, undrar Joel.Karin frågar: Hur värderar ni den svenska kulturkanon som nyligen publicerades?  Hur kommer den påverka hur vi svenskar agerar tillsammans?  Medverkande: Torbjörn Tännsjö, Jonna Bornemark och Lyra Ekström LindbäckProgramledare: Cecilia Strömberg WallinProducent: Marie Liljedahl

"Einsame Gegnerin", "Solitary Opponent": So wurde Elizabeth Anscombe vom Manchester Guardian genannt, als sie eine flammende Protestrede gegen die Verleihung der Oxforder Ehrendoktorwürde an Harry S. Truman hielt. Dieser hatte den Befehl zum Einsatz der Atombomben gegeben, die über Hiroshima und Nagasaki abgeworfen wurden. Damals stand Anscombe noch auf verlorenem Posten. Inzwischen hat sich das Urteil der berühmtesten Philosophin des 20. Jahrhunderts durchgesetzt.

"Two attitudes are possible: one, that the world is an absolute jungle and that the exercise of coercive power by rulers is only a manifestation of this; and the other, that it is both necessary and right that there should be this exercise of power, that through it the world is much less of a jungle than it could possibly be without it, so that one should in principle be glad of the existence of such power, and only take exception to its unjust exercise." Elizabeth Anscombe was a prominent 20th-century British philosopher, known for her influential work in ethics and her deep commitment to Catholic doctrine. In her essay ‘War and Murder,' Anscombe considers the morality of violent coercive power, critiques the influence of pacifist ideology, and defends the moral prohibition against killing the innocent -- grounding her arguments in the principle of double effect and its crucial distinction between intended and foreseen consequences. Read “War and Murder” https://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/classes/188/spring06/papers/anscombeWarAndMurder.pdf SIGN UP for Catholic Culture's newsletter http://www.catholicculture.org/newsletter DONATE at http://www.catholicculture.org/donate/audio Theme music: "2 Part Invention", composed by Mark Christopher Brandt, performed by Thomas Mirus. ©️2019 Heart of the Lion Publishing Co./BMI. All rights reserved.

In this episode of the Sportin Wales podcast, Dillon Lewis begins his 'trial period' as Alex Cuthbert's co-host. A glutton for punishment, Gareth Anscombe joins the podcast again, who receives another brutal round of roasting at the hands of our hosts. They chat about Dragons' winning pre-season games, Bayonne's great start to the Top14 tournament, Danny Wilson's appointment as forwards coach and answer questions submitted by the listeners!    This podcast is sponsored by Sinclair Group.   

Bayonne est l'équipe surprise de la saison 2024-2025, avec une qualification dans le dernier carré. Cet été, les Basques se sont montrés actifs avec un recrutement bien ciblé : Fischer, Jantjies, Anscombe... De là à viser un nouveau top 4 ? Extrait de l'émission du 28 août 2025.

On this week's episode of the Sportin Wales podcast, host Alex Cuthbert welcomes former Wales and Cardiff Rugby teammates Gareth Anscombe and Dillon Lewis.  They chat about Gareth's recent move to Bayonne, discuss pre-season with the Dragons and chat about the WRU's proposed changes for regional rugby.    ---  This podcast is sponsored by the Sinclair Group. 

On Monday's Rugby Daily, Richie McCormack brings you all the reaction to yesterday's pulsating Investec Champions Cup clash of La Rochelle and Leinster. We hear from both head coaches - Leo Cullen and Ronan O'Gara. Richie has the latest on Peter O'Mahony's fitness ahead of Munster's trip to Franklin's Gardens, a game you can hear live and exclusive on Off The Ball. Wales coach Warren Gatland explains his Six Nations squad, which does not include some experienced and notable names. The IRFU have taken another step towards building front row depth across the country. And a former Cheetahs prop is murdered in South Africa.

On Monday's Rugby Daily, Richie McCormack brings you all the reaction to yesterday's pulsating Investec Champions Cup clash of La Rochelle and Leinster. We hear from both head coaches - Leo Cullen and Ronan O'Gara. Richie has the latest on Peter O'Mahony's fitness ahead of Munster's trip to Franklin's Gardens, a game you can hear live and exclusive on Off The Ball. Wales coach Warren Gatland explains his Six Nations squad, which does not include some experienced and notable names. The IRFU have taken another step towards building front row depth across the country. And a former Cheetahs prop is murdered in South Africa.

More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/elizabeth-anscombe. Elizabeth Anscombe made hugely influential contributions to contemporary action theory, moral theory, and philosophy of mind. She also famously protested Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb when he was awarded an honorary degree at Oxford. Josh and Ray explore her life and thought with Rachael Wiseman from the University of Liverpool, co-author of Metaphysical Animals: How Four Women Brought Philosophy Back to Life. Part of the "Wise Women" series, generously supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.

The first thing you'll see in my home when you enter is a framed portrait of Abraham Lincoln. Below the image of America's 16th president, a man who arguably refounded the United States and became one of its most consequential figures, is a list of his numerous failures. The guy posted a lot of L's. This list of Lincoln failures is pretty well known, so you might have seen this before. Here is the text I have framed in our doorway. “Lincoln”Lost job in 1832.Defeated for state legislature in 1832.Failed in business in 1833.Elected to state legislature in 1834.Sweetheart died in 1835.Had a nervous breakdown in 1836.Defeated for Speaker in 1838.Defeated for nomination for Congress in 1843.Elected to Congress in 1846.Lost renomination in 1848.Rejected for land officer in 1849.Defeated for U.S. Senate in 1854.Defeated for nomination for Vice President in 1856.Again defeated for U.S. Senate in 1858.Elected President in 1860.Geeky Stoics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.This piece always catches my eye, particularly in the morning when I'm having coffee and thinking about the day ahead. Today is no exception. Last night I lost my race for City Council in Manassas, Virginia. It was my first foray into politics, and I'd never run in this city before for anything. I've lived here about 10 years, whereas all my opponents pretty much grew up here or have lifelong roots in town. That counts for something when a small town of 45,000 people vote. In reality, only about 8,000 people vote in elections around here. It's kind of crazy. I'm not launching into some narrative in which I'm a Lincoln figure in the making. It's just that I've had a lot of strikeouts at the plate lately. Let me run through them. My career has been a pretty wild ride since 2015 when I started a semi-popular podcast called Beltway Banthas. It opened the door to me doing something almost no one gets to do, which is go on TV and talk politics on some of the biggest news networks in the country. From 2016 to 2022 I had a really active and exciting run as a political commentator. All of this led to me securing a book deal with Hachette Publishing for How The Force Can Fix The World, another rare professional notch on the belt that not many people get to experience. It's special, and that's not lost on me. Especially when there are so many better writers out there. At the same time, I was selected to host a political talk show for an international news network. Here's the thing though. By objective measures, in every single one of these ventures, I “failed”. As a podcaster, Banthas never generated revenues. As a commentator, I secured no contributor contracts or invites to the “major leagues” for top shows in the world in the mainstream or alternative media. My debut book had a niche audience but was not a best seller on any list of “importance” in the publishing world. My talk show was canceled after one year. We couldn't find an audience for it. After that, I entered a professional wilderness for almost 2 years. Luckily, a friend offered me a job right when I needed it, but it was a job I ended up being very bad at. As I started looking around for a better fit and interviewing, I felt untouchable. I couldn't secure a job after all of this. No one wanted to hire me. I landed on my feet in the end at a really great nonprofit, one where I still work. That was by virtue of managing my relationships and having a good reputation for hard work and honesty. But it was a really hard road. Then this year I finally ran for office, a dream of mine since I was a kid, and I lost. Not only did I lose, I was the lowest vote-getter in the city. Deep sigh. NEW VIDEO FROM GEEKY STOICSWhat I told my wife last night when the results came in was that it's not that I feel like some kind of loser who never has any wins. No, it's not that. Because in many ways I keep making it to Championship matches (big opportunities), and then striking out when I step up to the plate. I think that people go on these journeys in life where they think they've found “the thing” they were called to do and it turns out to have been a mirage. I imagine it like a long hallway of locked doors. You have the keyring in your hand and a hundred keys on it. You fumble around to find the right key for the right door, you open it, and then it's just a wall behind the door. That wasn't the door for you. I think I'm just good at feeling around for certain keys to certain doors.Part of this thought reminds me of one of Geeky Stoics' central pillars, the life and ideas of C.S. Lewis. As you know, Lewis is famous, immortal really, because of The Chronicles of Narnia. The first book was published in 1950, at a time when Lewis was almost completely drained of his self-confidence and hope. Lewis had become an international superstar in the 1940s for his wartime radio broadcasts on the BBC and Mere Christianity, his most cherished nonfiction work making the case for Christian morality. Then there was The Screwtape Letters, making him even more of a star and the voice of Christian apologetics. Yet, when he was invited onto the BBC in 1950 to discuss faith, Lewis declined saying, “Like the old fangless snake in The Jungle Book, I've largely lost my dialectal power.”Lewis had become a symbol of Christian thought and argumentation but had “failed” to convert his own friends and family. In fact, the woman in his life (Mrs. Moore) only grew more hostile to faith over time. He felt powerless in his own sphere of influence. Just a year before declining the BBC, Lewis participated in a Socratic debate at Oxford against a young woman named Elizabeth Anscombe about “naturalism” and Christian belief. Anscombe was a Catholic and fan of Lewis, but she disagreed strongly with some of Lewis' cherished conclusions in his book, Miracles. Long story short, Anscombe defeated and embarrassed Lewis in his own dojo during that debate in 1948. In front of his colleagues, fans, critics, and students, Lewis was dismantled. But it wasn't just Lewis, it was the premise of one of his great books.Like a good man with an open mind, Lewis knew he lost and he knew then that Miracles was deeply flawed. For a man like Lewis, it's the kind of thing that keeps you up at night. He entered a dark period at this time. Friends of his were dying of age or illness. His ideas were being beaten back by younger thinkers. His famous friendship with J.R.R Tolkien was in disrepair. He'd lost his zeal to write. He was still quite financially strapped, for many reasons. And because Oxford was as hostile to faith as it still is today, Lewis had a target on his back at his university. He was passed over again and again for new roles at Oxford. Disparaged by department heads and treated like the plague. Academics at elite universities tend to hate their colleagues who have mainstream success, which Mere Christianity was by a large margin. Lewis was in the shadowlands of his career. Then he came across a door in that long hallway, opened it, and crossed a threshold into something new. In 1950, C.S. Lewis published The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. The rest is history. In his lowest moment, C.S. Lewis' purpose was revealed to him. All the work that he had poured into Christian argumentation in his nonfiction books became the basis for his fictional work in Narnia. The ideas he tested on atheists and believers for 15 years became the story of Wardrobe, Aslan, and White Witch. Reading over the lives of Lincoln and Lewis, you get the sense that these men considered giving up. Lewis drank too much and was pretty depressed for a period of time. Lincoln's depression is well-known. But they held on. Their purpose was revealed to them. One of C.S. Lewis' central arguments about God is that if you set out to find Him, it will always be He who finds you first. The hunter becomes the hunted. But it doesn't happen unless you're open, aware, and searching. God, I'm listening. Geeky Stoics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Hey Geeky Stoics, right now I'm reading The Creative Act by music producer Rick Rubin. This book is lovely. Two-page chapters that are all about artistic expression and connecting with your ability to create. It's like Meditations, really. The Creative Act is a book about the idea I described above. Being open, aware, and searching. If you're distracted, numb, drunk, overstimulated, or fearful, you won't hear your call when it comes. That call may be a painting, a business idea, a song, or a message for a political campaign. Check it out! You won't regret it. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.geekystoics.com/subscribe

"For we don't invent marriage... any more than we invent human language. It is part of the creation of humanity and if we're lucky we find it available to us and can enter into it. If we are very unlucky, we may live in a society that has wrecked or deformed this human thing." Elizabeth Anscombe was a prominent 20th-century British philosopher, known for her influential work in ethics and her deep commitment to Catholic doctrine. In her essay 'Contraception and Chastity'—one of the earliest defenses of Pope Paul VI's encyclical, Humanae Vitae—Anscombe expertly explains the evil of contraception and contrasts its use with that of methods of natural family planning.  Read by Karina Majewski Links Contraception and Chastity full text: https://global.uwi.edu/sites/default/files/bnccde/PH19B/conchastity.html SUBSCRIBE to Catholic Culture Audiobooks https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/catholic-culture-audiobooks/id1482214268 SIGN UP for Catholic Culture's newsletter http://www.catholicculture.org/newsletter DONATE at http://www.catholicculture.org/donate/audio  Theme music: "2 Part Invention", composed by Mark Christopher Brandt, performed by Thomas Mirus. ©️2019 Heart of the Lion Publishing Co./BMI. All rights reserved.

Iestyn Thomas joins the show to run the rule over Wales' options at outside half for the Autumn Series. Anscombe? Costellow? Thomas? Elsewhere we review the URC weekend including a win for the Scarlets in Cardiff. Another narrow defeat for the Dragons and a disappointing loss for the Ospreys. We also look back on the career of Jon Fox Davies. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Bigs is back with Jim & Goodey this week lifting the lid on some of the major goings on in Welsh rugby over the last decade. The lads also discuss the bubbling beef between Ireland and the All Blacks and reminisce over the best sledging they've ever dished out on a rugby pitch. We're also joined by the Welsh half back pairing that's been tearing up the prem for Gloucester, Tomos Williams & Gareth Anscombe chat with the lads about the new Cherry & Whites all out attack and take a trip down memory lane with their old mate Bigs. Combine that with your usual dose of Prem & URC analysis & review and you've got one hell of a show so sit back, enjoy and make sure you've subscribed on Spotify. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In 1956 Oxford University awarded an honorary degree to the former US president Harry S. Truman for his role in ending the Second World War. One philosopher, Elizabeth Anscombe (1919 – 2001), objected strongly.She argued that although dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have ended the fighting, it amounted to the murder of tens of thousands of innocent civilians. It was therefore an irredeemably immoral act. And there was something fundamentally wrong with a moral philosophy that didn't see that.This was the starting point for a body of work that changed the terms in which philosophers discussed moral and ethical questions in the second half of the twentieth century.A leading student of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, Anscombe combined his insights with rejuvenated interpretations of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas that made these ancient figures speak to modern issues and concerns. Anscombe was also instrumental in making action, and the question of what it means to intend to do something, a leading area of philosophical work.WithRachael Wiseman, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of LiverpoolConstantine Sandis, Visiting Professor of Philosophy at the University of Hertfordshire, and Director of Lex AcademicRoger Teichmann, Lecturer in Philosophy at St Hilda's College, University of OxfordProducer: Luke MulhallIn Our Time is a BBC Studios Audio Production

Join us on the Classical Mind podcast as we embark on an intellectual journey into the heart of G.E.M. Anscombe's groundbreaking work, "Intention." Dr. Junius Johnson and Fr. Wesley Walker engage in a stimulating conversation, unraveling the complexities of Anscombe's philosophical insights. In this episode, they delve into the essence of intentionality, exploring its implications for human action, free will, and moral responsibility. Whether you're a seasoned philosopher or simply curious about the nature of human intention, this episode offers a rich and enlightening discussion. Tune in to the Classical Mind podcast and expand your understanding of this pivotal philosophical work. End notes: * Junius: Vantage Point * Wesley: * Wittgenstein's Tractatus* Dr. Jennifer Frey on Anscombe Get full access to The Classical Mind at www.theclassicalmind.com/subscribe

Send us a Text Message.She protested WWII and abortion. She was the pupil of Ludwig Wittgenstein and the eventual conservator of his work. She turned moral philosophy on it's head with her paper Modern Moral Philosophy. She was a Catholic convert. And she's Andrew's philosophical hero. Join us this week for another installment of the Oxford Four series, this time featuring Elizabeth Anscombe. Sign up for our newsletter here! Open Door Philosophy NewsletterContact us via email at contact@opendoorphilosophy.com Open Door Philosophy on Instagram @opendoorphilosophyOpen Door Philosophy website at opendoorphilosophy.com

Marketing in confidential services comes with distinct challenges and requires a strategic approach to establish and sustain trust.  In this episode of the Passle CMO Series Podcast, Cam Dobinson explores these intricacies with Elizabeth Anscombe, Chief Business Development & Marketing Officer at Nardello & Co. Lizzie offers her insights on how Nardello & Co. informs its audience about its highly specialized services, the significance of maintaining a client-focused approach despite confidentiality limitations, and the methods employed to establish and maintain trust in a field often enveloped in secrecy. Lizzie and Cam cover: Lizzie's diverse career background and how it has influenced her approach to marketing in the global investigative space The “cloak and dagger” image of the investigation sector and the importance of transparency  The strategies employed for building and maintaining trust with clients  The role of consistent service and brand messaging Advice for marketers looking to build trust with their clients 

The story of four remarkable women who shaped the intellectual history of the 20th century: Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley, and Iris Murdoch. On the cusp of the Second World War, four women went to Oxford to begin their studies: a fiercely brilliant Catholic convert; a daughter of privilege longing to escape her stifling upbringing; an ardent Communist and aspiring novelist with a list of would-be lovers as long as her arm; and a quiet, messy lover of newts and mice who would become a great public intellectual of our time. They became lifelong friends. At the time, only a handful of women had ever made lives in philosophy. But when Oxford's men were drafted in the war, everything changed. As Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley, and Iris Murdoch labored to make a place for themselves in a male-dominated world, as they made friendships and families, and as they drifted toward and away from each other, they never stopped insisting that some lives are better than others. They argued that courage and discernment and justice--and love--are the heart of a good life. The Women Are Up to Something: How Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley, and Iris Murdoch Revolutionized Ethics (Oxford UP, 2021) presents the first sustained engagement with these women's contributions: with the critique and the alternative they framed. Drawing on a cluster of recently opened archives and extensive correspondence and interviews with those who knew them best, Benjamin Lipscomb traces the lives and ideas of four friends who gave us a better way to think about ethics, and ourselves. Benjamin J. B. Lipscomb is Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Honors Program at Houghton University. He lives with his family in Fillmore, New York, when his teaching doesn't call him to London for a season. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The story of four remarkable women who shaped the intellectual history of the 20th century: Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley, and Iris Murdoch. On the cusp of the Second World War, four women went to Oxford to begin their studies: a fiercely brilliant Catholic convert; a daughter of privilege longing to escape her stifling upbringing; an ardent Communist and aspiring novelist with a list of would-be lovers as long as her arm; and a quiet, messy lover of newts and mice who would become a great public intellectual of our time. They became lifelong friends. At the time, only a handful of women had ever made lives in philosophy. But when Oxford's men were drafted in the war, everything changed. As Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley, and Iris Murdoch labored to make a place for themselves in a male-dominated world, as they made friendships and families, and as they drifted toward and away from each other, they never stopped insisting that some lives are better than others. They argued that courage and discernment and justice--and love--are the heart of a good life. The Women Are Up to Something: How Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley, and Iris Murdoch Revolutionized Ethics (Oxford UP, 2021) presents the first sustained engagement with these women's contributions: with the critique and the alternative they framed. Drawing on a cluster of recently opened archives and extensive correspondence and interviews with those who knew them best, Benjamin Lipscomb traces the lives and ideas of four friends who gave us a better way to think about ethics, and ourselves. Benjamin J. B. Lipscomb is Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Honors Program at Houghton University. He lives with his family in Fillmore, New York, when his teaching doesn't call him to London for a season. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

The story of four remarkable women who shaped the intellectual history of the 20th century: Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley, and Iris Murdoch. On the cusp of the Second World War, four women went to Oxford to begin their studies: a fiercely brilliant Catholic convert; a daughter of privilege longing to escape her stifling upbringing; an ardent Communist and aspiring novelist with a list of would-be lovers as long as her arm; and a quiet, messy lover of newts and mice who would become a great public intellectual of our time. They became lifelong friends. At the time, only a handful of women had ever made lives in philosophy. But when Oxford's men were drafted in the war, everything changed. As Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley, and Iris Murdoch labored to make a place for themselves in a male-dominated world, as they made friendships and families, and as they drifted toward and away from each other, they never stopped insisting that some lives are better than others. They argued that courage and discernment and justice--and love--are the heart of a good life. The Women Are Up to Something: How Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley, and Iris Murdoch Revolutionized Ethics (Oxford UP, 2021) presents the first sustained engagement with these women's contributions: with the critique and the alternative they framed. Drawing on a cluster of recently opened archives and extensive correspondence and interviews with those who knew them best, Benjamin Lipscomb traces the lives and ideas of four friends who gave us a better way to think about ethics, and ourselves. Benjamin J. B. Lipscomb is Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Honors Program at Houghton University. He lives with his family in Fillmore, New York, when his teaching doesn't call him to London for a season. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/gender-studies

The story of four remarkable women who shaped the intellectual history of the 20th century: Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley, and Iris Murdoch. On the cusp of the Second World War, four women went to Oxford to begin their studies: a fiercely brilliant Catholic convert; a daughter of privilege longing to escape her stifling upbringing; an ardent Communist and aspiring novelist with a list of would-be lovers as long as her arm; and a quiet, messy lover of newts and mice who would become a great public intellectual of our time. They became lifelong friends. At the time, only a handful of women had ever made lives in philosophy. But when Oxford's men were drafted in the war, everything changed. As Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley, and Iris Murdoch labored to make a place for themselves in a male-dominated world, as they made friendships and families, and as they drifted toward and away from each other, they never stopped insisting that some lives are better than others. They argued that courage and discernment and justice--and love--are the heart of a good life. The Women Are Up to Something: How Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley, and Iris Murdoch Revolutionized Ethics (Oxford UP, 2021) presents the first sustained engagement with these women's contributions: with the critique and the alternative they framed. Drawing on a cluster of recently opened archives and extensive correspondence and interviews with those who knew them best, Benjamin Lipscomb traces the lives and ideas of four friends who gave us a better way to think about ethics, and ourselves. Benjamin J. B. Lipscomb is Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Honors Program at Houghton University. He lives with his family in Fillmore, New York, when his teaching doesn't call him to London for a season. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biography

The story of four remarkable women who shaped the intellectual history of the 20th century: Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley, and Iris Murdoch. On the cusp of the Second World War, four women went to Oxford to begin their studies: a fiercely brilliant Catholic convert; a daughter of privilege longing to escape her stifling upbringing; an ardent Communist and aspiring novelist with a list of would-be lovers as long as her arm; and a quiet, messy lover of newts and mice who would become a great public intellectual of our time. They became lifelong friends. At the time, only a handful of women had ever made lives in philosophy. But when Oxford's men were drafted in the war, everything changed. As Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley, and Iris Murdoch labored to make a place for themselves in a male-dominated world, as they made friendships and families, and as they drifted toward and away from each other, they never stopped insisting that some lives are better than others. They argued that courage and discernment and justice--and love--are the heart of a good life. The Women Are Up to Something: How Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley, and Iris Murdoch Revolutionized Ethics (Oxford UP, 2021) presents the first sustained engagement with these women's contributions: with the critique and the alternative they framed. Drawing on a cluster of recently opened archives and extensive correspondence and interviews with those who knew them best, Benjamin Lipscomb traces the lives and ideas of four friends who gave us a better way to think about ethics, and ourselves. Benjamin J. B. Lipscomb is Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Honors Program at Houghton University. He lives with his family in Fillmore, New York, when his teaching doesn't call him to London for a season. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

The story of four remarkable women who shaped the intellectual history of the 20th century: Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley, and Iris Murdoch. On the cusp of the Second World War, four women went to Oxford to begin their studies: a fiercely brilliant Catholic convert; a daughter of privilege longing to escape her stifling upbringing; an ardent Communist and aspiring novelist with a list of would-be lovers as long as her arm; and a quiet, messy lover of newts and mice who would become a great public intellectual of our time. They became lifelong friends. At the time, only a handful of women had ever made lives in philosophy. But when Oxford's men were drafted in the war, everything changed. As Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley, and Iris Murdoch labored to make a place for themselves in a male-dominated world, as they made friendships and families, and as they drifted toward and away from each other, they never stopped insisting that some lives are better than others. They argued that courage and discernment and justice--and love--are the heart of a good life. The Women Are Up to Something: How Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley, and Iris Murdoch Revolutionized Ethics (Oxford UP, 2021) presents the first sustained engagement with these women's contributions: with the critique and the alternative they framed. Drawing on a cluster of recently opened archives and extensive correspondence and interviews with those who knew them best, Benjamin Lipscomb traces the lives and ideas of four friends who gave us a better way to think about ethics, and ourselves. Benjamin J. B. Lipscomb is Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Honors Program at Houghton University. He lives with his family in Fillmore, New York, when his teaching doesn't call him to London for a season. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies

The story of four remarkable women who shaped the intellectual history of the 20th century: Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley, and Iris Murdoch. On the cusp of the Second World War, four women went to Oxford to begin their studies: a fiercely brilliant Catholic convert; a daughter of privilege longing to escape her stifling upbringing; an ardent Communist and aspiring novelist with a list of would-be lovers as long as her arm; and a quiet, messy lover of newts and mice who would become a great public intellectual of our time. They became lifelong friends. At the time, only a handful of women had ever made lives in philosophy. But when Oxford's men were drafted in the war, everything changed. As Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley, and Iris Murdoch labored to make a place for themselves in a male-dominated world, as they made friendships and families, and as they drifted toward and away from each other, they never stopped insisting that some lives are better than others. They argued that courage and discernment and justice--and love--are the heart of a good life. The Women Are Up to Something: How Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley, and Iris Murdoch Revolutionized Ethics (Oxford UP, 2021) presents the first sustained engagement with these women's contributions: with the critique and the alternative they framed. Drawing on a cluster of recently opened archives and extensive correspondence and interviews with those who knew them best, Benjamin Lipscomb traces the lives and ideas of four friends who gave us a better way to think about ethics, and ourselves. Benjamin J. B. Lipscomb is Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Honors Program at Houghton University. He lives with his family in Fillmore, New York, when his teaching doesn't call him to London for a season. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The story of four remarkable women who shaped the intellectual history of the 20th century: Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley, and Iris Murdoch. On the cusp of the Second World War, four women went to Oxford to begin their studies: a fiercely brilliant Catholic convert; a daughter of privilege longing to escape her stifling upbringing; an ardent Communist and aspiring novelist with a list of would-be lovers as long as her arm; and a quiet, messy lover of newts and mice who would become a great public intellectual of our time. They became lifelong friends. At the time, only a handful of women had ever made lives in philosophy. But when Oxford's men were drafted in the war, everything changed. As Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley, and Iris Murdoch labored to make a place for themselves in a male-dominated world, as they made friendships and families, and as they drifted toward and away from each other, they never stopped insisting that some lives are better than others. They argued that courage and discernment and justice--and love--are the heart of a good life. The Women Are Up to Something: How Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley, and Iris Murdoch Revolutionized Ethics (Oxford UP, 2021) presents the first sustained engagement with these women's contributions: with the critique and the alternative they framed. Drawing on a cluster of recently opened archives and extensive correspondence and interviews with those who knew them best, Benjamin Lipscomb traces the lives and ideas of four friends who gave us a better way to think about ethics, and ourselves. Benjamin J. B. Lipscomb is Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Honors Program at Houghton University. He lives with his family in Fillmore, New York, when his teaching doesn't call him to London for a season. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/british-studies

Tom Bodrovics welcomes Tony Anscombe, ESET Chief Security Evangelist, to discuss cybersecurity in the mining sector. With over three decades in IT and cybersecurity, Anscombe stresses that security fundamentals remain crucial despite technological advancements. He highlights vulnerabilities from remote locations, outdated technology, third parties, and activists/nation states. Mining companies face significant risks, including potential for fatalities and financial losses. A comprehensive cybersecurity framework is necessary, along with advanced technologies like EDR systems. The financial cost of cyber attacks can reach $14 trillion by 2027, affecting industries, including mining. Companies must prioritize cybersecurity and involve third parties to adhere to security policies. Anscombe also touches on the ethical implications and potential international collaboration in AI development. Time Stamp References:0:00 - Introduction0:30 - Tony's Background2:03 - Industrial Security6:47 - Potential Risks10:37 - Attack Vectors12:32 - 3rd Party Liability14:30 - AI & Cyber Security17:30 - Practical Solutions19:50 - Capable People20:58 - Global Impacts & Costs24:16 - Reporting & Regulations27:02 - Technical Glitches?30:04 - AI Risks & Benefits33:57 - Restricting AI?36:19 - Wrap Up Talking Points From This Episode Mining companies face significant cybersecurity risks due to remote locations, outdated technology, third parties, and activists/nation states. A comprehensive cybersecurity framework and advanced technologies like EDR systems are necessary to mitigate mining sector risks. The financial cost of cyber attacks can exceed $14 trillion by 2027, emphasizing the importance of prioritizing cybersecurity for all industries. Guest Linkshttps://www.welivesecurity.com/en/https://twitter.com/TonyAtESET Tony Anscombe is Chief Security Evangelist for ESET. With over 20 years of security industry experience, Anscombe is an established author, blogger and speaker on the current threat landscape, security technologies and products, data protection, privacy and trust, and Internet safety. His speaking portfolio includes industry conferences RSA, Black Hat, VB, CTIA, MEF, Gartner Risk and Security Summit and the Child Internet Safety Summit (CIS). He is regularly quoted in cybersecurity, technology and business media, including BBC, Dark Reading, the Guardian, the New York Times and USA Today, with broadcast appearances on Bloomberg, BBC, CTV, KRON and CBS. Anscombe is a current board member of the NCSA and FOSI. Tony is based in the USA and represents ESET globally.

Wales fly-half Gareth Anscombe joins Gareth Rhys Owen and Lauren Jenkins to talk about his return from injury and his hopes of playing for Wales again ahead of joining Gloucester in the summer. Got a question for the podcast? Send them in to scrumv@bbc.co.uk.

In this special episode celebrating the Oxford Quartet Miles is joined by Lesley Brown (Somerville College, Oxford) and John Hacker-Wright (University of Guelph, Canada) to discuss the life and work of Philippa Foot, as well as her connections to Anscombe, Midgley and Murdoch. Lesley Brown is Centenary Fellow in Philosophy at Somerville and expert on Ancient Philosophy. She was taught by both Foot and Elizabeth Anscombe and is Foot's literary executor. https://www.some.ox.ac.uk/our-people/lesley-brown/ John Hacker-Wright is a world-leading expert on Foot's work having published 'Philippa Foot's Moral Thought' (Bloomsbury, 2013),Philipp Foot on Goodness and Virtue (Palgrave, 2018) and 'Philippa Foot's Metaethics' (CUP,2021). You can find details of all his work here: https://www.uoguelph.ca/arts/philosophy/people/john-hacker-wright

The IMF on China, Diller on Trump Social, Bitcoin and Beanie Babies, pulled pork on A1M. Also in the Club edition: Cash and Armaguard, Anscombe's Quartet, Regression testing, Tesla veers to the EV slow lane, Ex-defence minister Pyne is Hanwha's man in Canberra, Karoon plots path from oil junior to major through Gulf of Mexico, and a thought experiment about when TK would sell if the stock market didn't give live prices.

A massive thank you to everyone who sent in some questions over the past week. We have decided to focus on the quick fire ones this time round as we want to make sure we have a full house for the more 'in-depth' questions. Gloucester Hartpury continued their unbeaten run in the league, making it 12 from 12 - Jim gives us the lowdown on the game and the key performances. We also chat through the recent rumours surrounding potential incomings, plus the sad announcement by Jake Polledri that he is retiring from Rugby. Ed Price James Eastwood (Snowy) Jim Harley

In this video I argue against the myth, articulated in several biographies, that C.S. Lewis abandoned apologetics after his 1948 debate with Elizabeth Anscombe. Truth Unites exists to promote gospel assurance through theological depth. Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai. SUPPORT: Tax Deductible Support: https://truthunites.org/donate/ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/truthunites FOLLOW: Twitter: https://twitter.com/gavinortlund Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/ Website: https://truthunites.org/

Ben James is joined by the Daily Mail's Alex Bywater in Nice to preview Wales' second World Cup pool match against Portugal. Brought to you by WalesOnline/ReachPLC Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Gareth Rhys Owen and former Wales international Josh Navidi are on the beach in Nice as Wales announce their team to face Portugal on Saturday. Josh predicts the 13 changes and reveals the difference between playing with Biggar or Anscombe at 10. Wales take on Portugal in their second World Cup pool match on Saturday afternoon.

In this brief episode, I discuss Elisabeth Anscombe's argument against the dropping of the atom bomb on Japan and defenses of Harry Truman's actions. But the real purpose is to ask the listeners what they think--was Anscombe right in saying that Truman was a mass murderer? --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/churchcontroversies/message

Shout At The Devil. In this episode, we discuss various questions regarding spiritual warfare while reading Martin Luther's letter to his friend and pupil, Jerome Weller. SHOW NOTES:  Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel https://amzn.to/3Q7EJoO  Peter Santenello https://www.youtube.com/c/PeterSantenello/ Nomad and Gen-X https://www.thegenxfiles.com/tag/nomad/ G.E.M. Anscombe https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anscombe/ Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland by Christopher R. Browning https://amzn.to/44zV36c  High Noon https://www.justwatch.com/us/movie/high-noon Ep. 2369 The No-Babies Problem Is Destroying the World https://tomwoods.com/ep-2369-the-no-babies-problem-is-destroying-the-world/ DELIVER US FROM EVIL: SPIRITUAL WARFARE IN LUTHERAN PERSPECTIVE https://www.doxology.us/spotlight-october-2012/  Of Good Comfort by Stephen Pietsch https://amzn.to/3O67rDQ  The Care of Souls: Cultivating a Pastor's Heart by Harold L. Senkbeil https://amzn.to/3YhD3vb  Weller's Luther Guide for the Proper Study of Theology https://blts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/TRS-Wellers-Luther-Guide.pdf   SUPPORT: Support the Podcast Network Fundraiser http://www.1517.org/donate-podcasts 1517 Podcasts http://www.1517.org/podcasts The 1517 Podcast Network on Apple Podcasts https://podcasts.apple.com/us/channel/1517-podcast-network/id6442751370 1517 on Youtube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChDdMiZJv8oYMJQQx2vHSzg What's New from 1517: The New Quest for Paul and His Reading of the Old Testament by Timo Laato https://shop.1517.org/products/the-new-quest-for-paul-and-his-reading-of-the-old-testament-the-contrast-between-the-letter-the-spirit-in-2-corinthians-3-1-18 Finding God in the Darkness: Hopeful Reflections from the Pits of Depression, Despair, and Disappointment by Bradley Gray https://shop.1517.org/products/finding-god-in-the-darkness-hopeful-reflections-from-the-pits-of-depression-despair-and-disappointment More from the hosts: Donovan Riley https://www.1517.org/contributors/donavon-riley  Christopher Gillespie https://www.1517.org/contributors/christopher-gillespie   MORE LINKS: Tin Foil Haloes https://t.me/bannedpastors Warrior Priest Gym & Podcast https://thewarriorpriestpodcast.wordpress.com   St John's Lutheran Church (Webster, MN) - FB Live Bible Study Group https://www.facebook.com/groups/356667039608511  Gillespie's Sermons and Catechesis: http://youtube.com/stjohnrandomlake  Gillespie Coffee https://gillespie.coffee   Gillespie Media https://gillespie.media     CONTACT and FOLLOW: Email mailto:BannedBooks@1517.org  Facebook https://www.facebook.com/BannedBooksPod/  Twitter https://twitter.com/bannedbooks1517   SUBSCRIBE: YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsvLQ5rlaInxLO9luAauF4A  Rumble https://rumble.com/c/c-1223313  Odysee https://odysee.com/@bannedbooks:5 Apple Podcasts https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/banned-books/id1370993639  Spotify https://open.spotify.com/show/2ahA20sZMpBxg9vgiRVQba  Stitcher https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=214298  Overcast https://overcast.fm/itunes1370993639/banned-books  Google Podcasts https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9iYW5uZWRib29rcy5saWJzeW4uY29tL3Jzcw TuneIn Radio https://tunein.com/podcasts/Religion--Spirituality-Podcasts/Banned-Books-p1216972/  iHeartRadio https://www.iheart.com/podcast/263-banned-books-29825974/ 

War, What Is It Good For? In this pre-show discussion, we warm up with a conversation about Martin Luther, current events and headlines, and spiritual warfare. SHOW NOTES:  Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel https://amzn.to/3Q7EJoO  Peter Santenello https://www.youtube.com/c/PeterSantenello/ Nomad and Gen-X https://www.thegenxfiles.com/tag/nomad/ G.E.M. Anscombe https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anscombe/ Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland by Christopher R. Browning https://amzn.to/44zV36c  High Noon https://www.justwatch.com/us/movie/high-noon Ep. 2369 The No-Babies Problem Is Destroying the World https://tomwoods.com/ep-2369-the-no-babies-problem-is-destroying-the-world/ DELIVER US FROM EVIL: SPIRITUAL WARFARE IN LUTHERAN PERSPECTIVE https://www.doxology.us/spotlight-october-2012/  Of Good Comfort by Stephen Pietsch https://amzn.to/3O67rDQ  The Care of Souls: Cultivating a Pastor's Heart by Harold L. Senkbeil https://amzn.to/3YhD3vb  Weller's Luther Guide for the Proper Study of Theology https://blts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/TRS-Wellers-Luther-Guide.pdf   SUPPORT: Support the Podcast Network Fundraiser http://www.1517.org/donate-podcasts 1517 Podcasts http://www.1517.org/podcasts The 1517 Podcast Network on Apple Podcasts https://podcasts.apple.com/us/channel/1517-podcast-network/id6442751370 1517 on Youtube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChDdMiZJv8oYMJQQx2vHSzg What's New from 1517: The New Quest for Paul and His Reading of the Old Testament by Timo Laato https://shop.1517.org/products/the-new-quest-for-paul-and-his-reading-of-the-old-testament-the-contrast-between-the-letter-the-spirit-in-2-corinthians-3-1-18 Finding God in the Darkness: Hopeful Reflections from the Pits of Depression, Despair, and Disappointment by Bradley Gray https://shop.1517.org/products/finding-god-in-the-darkness-hopeful-reflections-from-the-pits-of-depression-despair-and-disappointment More from the hosts: Donovan Riley https://www.1517.org/contributors/donavon-riley  Christopher Gillespie https://www.1517.org/contributors/christopher-gillespie   MORE LINKS: Tin Foil Haloes https://t.me/bannedpastors Warrior Priest Gym & Podcast https://thewarriorpriestpodcast.wordpress.com   St John's Lutheran Church (Webster, MN) - FB Live Bible Study Group https://www.facebook.com/groups/356667039608511  Gillespie's Sermons and Catechesis: http://youtube.com/stjohnrandomlake  Gillespie Coffee https://gillespie.coffee   Gillespie Media https://gillespie.media     CONTACT and FOLLOW: Email mailto:BannedBooks@1517.org  Facebook https://www.facebook.com/BannedBooksPod/  Twitter https://twitter.com/bannedbooks1517   SUBSCRIBE: YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsvLQ5rlaInxLO9luAauF4A  Rumble https://rumble.com/c/c-1223313  Odysee https://odysee.com/@bannedbooks:5 Apple Podcasts https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/banned-books/id1370993639  Spotify https://open.spotify.com/show/2ahA20sZMpBxg9vgiRVQba  Stitcher https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=214298  Overcast https://overcast.fm/itunes1370993639/banned-books  Google Podcasts https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9iYW5uZWRib29rcy5saWJzeW4uY29tL3Jzcw TuneIn Radio https://tunein.com/podcasts/Religion--Spirituality-Podcasts/Banned-Books-p1216972/  iHeartRadio https://www.iheart.com/podcast/263-banned-books-29825974/ 

In 1956 Oxford University awarded an honorary degree to the former US president Harry S. Truman for his role in ending the Second World War. One philosopher, Elizabeth Anscombe (1919 – 2001), objected strongly. She argued that although dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have ended the fighting, it amounted to the murder of tens of thousands of innocent civilians. It was therefore an irredeemably immoral act. And there was something fundamentally wrong with a moral philosophy that didn't see that. This was the starting point for a body of work that changed the terms in which philosophers discussed moral and ethical questions in the second half of the twentieth century. A leading student of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, Anscombe combined his insights with rejuvenated interpretations of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas that made these ancient figures speak to modern issues and concerns. Anscombe was also instrumental in making action, and the question of what it means to intend to do something, a leading area of philosophical work. With Rachael Wiseman, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Liverpool Constantine Sandis, Visiting Professor of Philosophy at the University of Hertfordshire, and Director of Lex Academic Roger Teichmann, Lecturer in Philosophy at St Hilda's College, University of Oxford Producer: Luke Mulhall

In 1956 Oxford University awarded an honorary degree to the former US president Harry S. Truman for his role in ending the Second World War. One philosopher, Elizabeth Anscombe (1919 – 2001), objected strongly. She argued that although dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have ended the fighting, it amounted to the murder of tens of thousands of innocent civilians. It was therefore an irredeemably immoral act. And there was something fundamentally wrong with a moral philosophy that didn't see that. This was the starting point for a body of work that changed the terms in which philosophers discussed moral and ethical questions in the second half of the twentieth century. A leading student of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, Anscombe combined his insights with rejuvenated interpretations of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas that made these ancient figures speak to modern issues and concerns. Anscombe was also instrumental in making action, and the question of what it means to intend to do something, a leading area of philosophical work. With Rachael Wiseman, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of LiverpoolConstantine Sandis, Visiting Professor of Philosophy at the University of Hertfordshire, and Director of Lex Academic Roger Teichmann, Lecturer in Philosophy at St Hilda's College, University of OxfordProducer: Luke Mulhall

Ben explains G.E.M. Anscombe to Pat.

Colin Redemer is a professor at Saint Mary's College of California and VP of the Davenant Institute. This podcast is all about Virtue Ethics and the Aristotelian ethical tradition. Is Virtue Ethics superior to utilitarianism and effective altruism? What is human excellence? What is eudaimonia? How should one live? We also discuss later developments in Aristotelian ethics, from Aquinas to Anscombe to MacIntyre.✦ Order Colin's new book, The Shining Human Creature✦ Follow Colin on Twitter✦ Learn more about the Davenant InstituteOther Life✦ Subscribe to the coolest newsletter in the world OtherLife.co✦ Get a free Urbit ship at imperceptible.computer✦ Become a member at imperceptible.countryIndieThinkers.org✦ If you're working on an independent project, join the next cohort of IndieThinkers.org

The Sermon on the Mount calls us to be salt, light and a city on a hill. In this episode I will discuss the Sermon on the Mount, the famous philosopher Elizabeth (G.E.M.) Anscombe and what it means to be a metaphysical animal infused with the sanctifying grace of God. How does Christ direct the purpose of moral action and the meaning of human existence. Anscombe's obituary in The Guardian after her death in 2002 said about her opposition to honoring Harry St. Truman, "Two years earlier, in 1956, she had demonstrated in a very practical way her opposition to consequentialism. When it was proposed that Oxford should give President Truman an honorary degree, she and two others opposed this because of his responsibility for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Although overruled, they forced a vote, instead of the customary automatic rubber-stamping of the proposal. "For men to choose to kill the innocent as a means to their ends is always murder," declared Anscombe's pamphlet, Mr Truman's Degree. It sarcastically condoled with the Censor of St Catherine's for having to make a speech "which should pretend to show that a couple of massacres to a man's credit are not exactly a reason for not showing him honour". Elizabeth Anscombe -An exhilarating philosopher, she took to sporting a monocle and smoking cigars , Guardian (UK) Book: Metaphysical Animals: How Four Women Brought Philosophy Back to Life - Kindle Edition by Clare Mac Cumhaill (Author), Rachael Wiseman (Author)  Readings for the Fifth Sunday of Ordinary Time: https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/020523.cfm Music: Clarinet Quintet in A Major, K. 581 (Mozart) by Musicians from Marlboro is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (aka Music Sharing) 3.0 International License.

In this episode, I am joined by Sam Filby, a graduate student in philosophy at Northwestern University. We discuss JM Coetzee's novel, Elizabeth Costello, which is a fictionalized account of a writer who gives a series of lectures on the ethics of eating animals. We simply try to figure out what is going on in this puzzling novel of bad ideas. Sam Filby is a PhD candidate in philosophy at Northwestern University. His dissertation concerns the relationship between history and ethical concepts, with particular emphasis on the work of G.E.M. Anscombe and Friedrich Nietzsche. Outside of ethics, he has published on philosophy of literature and philosophy of religion. Jennifer Frey is an associate professor of philosophy and Peter and Bonnie McCausland Faculty Fellow at the University of South Carolina. She is also a fellow of the Institute for Human Ecology at the Catholic University of America and the Word on Fire Institute. Prior to joining the philosophy faculty at USC, she was a Collegiate Assistant Professor of Humanities at the University of Chicago, where she was a member of the Society of Fellows in the Liberal Arts and an affiliated faculty in the philosophy department. She earned her Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh, and her B.A. in Philosophy and Medieval Studies (with a Classics minor) at Indiana University, in Bloomington, Indiana. She has published widely on action, virtue, practical reason, and meta-ethics, and has recently co-edited an interdisciplinary volume, Self-Transcendence and Virtue: Perspectives from Philosophy, Theology, and Psychology. Her writing has also been featured in Breaking Ground, First Things, Fare Forward, Image, Law and Liberty, The Point, and USA Today. She lives in Columbia, SC, with her husband, six children, and chickens. You can follow her on Twitter @ jennfrey. Sacred and Profane Love is a podcast in which philosophers, theologians, and literary critics discuss some of their favorite works of literature, and how these works have shaped their own ideas about love, happiness, and meaning in human life. Host Jennifer A. Frey is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of South Carolina. The podcast is generously supported by The Institute for Human Ecology at the Catholic University of America and produced by Catholics for Hire.

In this episode, I am joined by Sam Filby, a graduate student in philosophy at Northwestern University. We discuss JM Coetzee's novel, Elizabeth Costello, which is a fictionalized account of a writer who gives a series of lectures on the ethics of eating animals. We simply try to figure out what is going on in this puzzling novel of bad ideas. Sam Filby is a PhD candidate in philosophy at Northwestern University. His dissertation concerns the relationship between history and ethical concepts, with particular emphasis on the work of G.E.M. Anscombe and Friedrich Nietzsche. Outside of ethics, he has published on philosophy of literature and philosophy of religion. Jennifer Frey is an associate professor of philosophy and Peter and Bonnie McCausland Faculty Fellow at the University of South Carolina. She is also a fellow of the Institute for Human Ecology at the Catholic University of America and the Word on Fire Institute. Prior to joining the philosophy faculty at USC, she was a Collegiate Assistant Professor of Humanities at the University of Chicago, where she was a member of the Society of Fellows in the Liberal Arts and an affiliated faculty in the philosophy department. She earned her Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh, and her B.A. in Philosophy and Medieval Studies (with a Classics minor) at Indiana University, in Bloomington, Indiana. She has published widely on action, virtue, practical reason, and meta-ethics, and has recently co-edited an interdisciplinary volume, Self-Transcendence and Virtue: Perspectives from Philosophy, Theology, and Psychology. Her writing has also been featured in Breaking Ground, First Things, Fare Forward, Image, Law and Liberty, The Point, and USA Today. She lives in Columbia, SC, with her husband, six children, and chickens. You can follow her on Twitter @jennfrey. Sacred and Profane Love is a podcast in which philosophers, theologians, and literary critics discuss some of their favorite works of literature, and how these works have shaped their own ideas about love, happiness, and meaning in human life. Host Jennifer A. Frey is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of South Carolina. The podcast is generously supported by The Institute for Human Ecology at the Catholic University of America and produced by Catholics for Hire.

Frederick F. Anscombe is a Senior Lecturer in Contemporary History at Birkbeck, University of London. Fred's research interest lie in the history of the Ottoman empire and post-Ottoman territories, ranging from the late seventeenth to twentieth centuries and from the Middle East to the Balkans. While having a strong interest in Ottoman imperial history, Fred found it helpful to break away from the traditional focus upon the Centre, looking instead at social and political orders in European and Asian provinces. Provincial history offers a useful way to gauge what it meant to be 'Ottoman', to see if and how the sultan's subjects were affected by, and reacted to, politics and policies of the Centre. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/out-of-the-blank-podcast/support

Is knowledge its own end? Or is it a means to something else? In Discourse Five of his The Idea of a University, John Henry Newman juxtaposes Cato and Cicero as opponents on this question, but Newman's juxtaposition is not without its own difficulties. Jonathan's old teacher, Dr. Robert Jackson of the Great Hearts Institute, joins the podcast to talk Newman, knowledge, and education.John Henry Newman's The Idea of a University: https://bookshop.org/a/25626/9780268011505Great Hearts Academies: https://www.greatheartsamerica.org/Great Hearts Institute: https://greathearts.institute/National Symposium for Classical Education: https://classicaleducationsymposium.org/Cicero's Pro Archia Poeta: https://amzn.to/3QxfSbeAristotle's Metaphysics: https://amzn.to/3Cc9pyfNew Humanists Episode XI: Benedict in Regensburg: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/benedict-in-regensburg-faith-reason-and-the/id1570296135?i=1000542008795G.E.M. Anscombe's Modern Moral Philosophy: https://sites.pitt.edu/~mthompso/readings/mmp.pdfNew Humanists is brought to you by the Ancient Language Institute: https://ancientlanguage.com/Links may have referral codes, which earn us a commission at no additional cost to you. We encourage you, when possible, to use Bookshop.org for your book purchases, an online bookstore which supports local bookstores.Music: Save Us Now by Shane Ivers - https://www.silvermansound.com