Podcasts about Bernard Williams

In this episode Miles is joined by Lesley Chamberlain to discuss her newly-published monograph, 'Undoing the Moral Empire: Moral Philosophy in post-War Britain'. https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/undoing-the-moral-empire-9781350457751/ After 1945, Britain wanted to be a new country. The authority of state and church were giving way, the Empire was dismantled, and it was no longer clear who was leading whom in matters of morals. Individuals were left to reinvent their ethical lives anew. The lives and works of the philosophers discussed in this book were caught up this sea-change. Bernard Williams, Philippa Foot, Iris Murdoch, Richard Wollheim, Charles Taylor and Alasdair MacIntyre were all characters in search of a moral England, with a particular vision of the good society. From communitarianism to swinging Sixties' individualism, and radical theories of art – which understood questions of ambiguity, error and forgiveness more than the state ever could – this is the story of their sometimes convergent but often discrepant ideas on ethical life in the second half of the twentieth century. Undoing the Moral Empire is a work of biography, social history and the history of ideas that masterfully reconstructs the shifting sentiments of the post-war era, reconfiguring enduringly relevant questions of freedom, virtue, and society. Lesley is an author, literary critics and translator whose work has focused on Rilke, Nietzsche, German philosophy, Conservative Modern Russia, Heidegger, Van Gogh, Lenin, Freud, travel writing, cuisine in Russia and Poland, journalism and fiction – twelve books in all. She's also the author of the forthcoming chapter on Murdoch and Russian Literature in the Oxford Handbook of Iris Murdoch. This new book marks a homecoming for Lesley. You can find out much more about her work at her website: http://lesleychamberlain.co.uk/

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

Do you ever worry that you're not serious enough for academia? That you're constantly playing whack-a-mole with hiding your many frivolous and unimpressive traits as you try to convince everyone that you deserve your place at the table? That you're a big old fake because you need to curate yourself so much in order to seem like you belong? If so, you're not alone - and it's not because you're flawed. It's because you're yet to uncover academia's dirty little secret: that it's just a job. If you can get your head around that, life will be much less stressful.ReferencesGoffman, Erving. 1956: The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (University of Edinburgh Social Sciences Research Centre).Guignon, Charles. 2004: On Being Authentic (London: Routledge). (Bernard Williams quotation on page viii.)Hawley, Katherine. 2019: 'What is impostor syndrome?', Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 93/1: 203–226.Kelsky, Karen. 2021: 'Academia is a cult', TEDx Talks.Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1770: The Confessions of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Lester Crocker (ed.) (New York: Pocket Books, 1957).Sartre, Jean-Paul. 1943: Being and Nothingness (New York: Washington Square Press, 1992).

Today's episode explores the ideas of two late-twentieth-century thinkers who argued that political philosophy needs to be concerned with more than just justice. David talks to Paul Sagar about why Bernard Williams thought we should focus on questions about legitimacy and why Judith Shklar believed we should spend more time worrying about cruelty. Is the fundamental political question about how to achieve the best or is it about how to avoid the worst? And if it's the second, where should we start? Out tomorrow on PPF+: a bonus episode to accompany this series in which David and Paul talk about how personal experience shapes our political and philosophical outlook – a conversation exploring luck, accidents, human frailty and human connection. To get this and all our bonus episodes plus ad-free listening for £5 a month or £50 for the year, sign up to PPF+ now https://www.ppfideas.com/join-ppf-plus Paul Sagar's Substack is called Diary of a Punter – it is highly recommended https://substack.com/@diaryofapunter Next Time: Where Are We Going? Nuclear Weapons You can find out everything you need to know about this podcast – who we are, what we do, plus merch, events and full lists of our episodes and PPF+ bonus episodes on our website https://www.ppfideas.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In the third part of our series David and Paul Sagar explore what the German writer and sociologist Max Weber can teach us about the pitfalls of political life and political philosophy. Why is doing politics so hard? Why is it so hard to know what to do for the best when all the options are bad ones? How can we still do our best when the only means at our disposal is violence? And where does all this leave the prospects for lasting political change? Next Time: Learning from Bernard Williams and Judith Shklar You can find out everything you need to know about this podcast – who we are, what we do, plus merch, events and full lists of our episodes and PPF+ bonus episodes on our website https://www.ppfideas.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Nevena and Macca are joined live on the phone by Peter Kurti, Director of the Culture, Prosperity & Civil Society program and is also Adjunct Associate Professor in the School of Law and Business at the University of Notre Dame Australia. He has written extensively about issues of religion, liberty, culture and civil society in Australia, and appears frequently as a commentator on television and radio. In addition to having written many newspaper articles, he is also the author or editor of a number of books, including The Tyranny of Tolerance: Threats to Religious Liberty in Australia; Euthanasia: Seven Questions about Voluntary Assisted Dying; Sacred & Profane: Faith and Belief in a Secular Society; and Beyond Belief: Rethinking the Voice to Parliament. Peter is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, and an ordained minister in the Anglican Church of Australia. In his most recent paper, Kurti, argues that, “that Australia's democratic institutions must learn to manage, rather than resolve, deep moral disagreement. Building on the pluralist tradition of Isaiah Berlin, John Gray and Bernard Williams, this report contends that conflict between legitimate but incompatible values is a permanent feature of free societies. It warns against the illusion that political consensus can be achieved through neutrality, proceduralism or abstract ideals alone”. “Liberal democracies must instead draw defensible lines — imperfect, contested, but necessary — that allow diverse groups to live together under common rules”. https://www.cis.org.au/publication/drawing-the-line-moral-conflict-and-the-fragility-of-liberal-tolerance/ The post Sat, 13th, Dec, 2025: Peter Kurti, Centre for Ind. Studies; Drawing The Line; Australia's Democratic Institutions Must Manage, Not Resolve, Moral Disagreement appeared first on Saturday Magazine.

We had an absolute blast Saturday at our most recent aesthetic miniseries livestream! Thanks to our replay crew and please share it far and wide with us!We are hoping to reach 500 subscribers by Christmas so thank you for being part of our show- the best part !More on this miniseries, here:In this, the fourth episode of our miniseries for All About Aesthetics on Isiah Berlin's theory of Romanticism and its great effects, I discuss the many philosophic stances concerning individual had collective human conduct. We discuss the concepts of Sincerity and Authenticity, largely inventions of the Romantic revolution. Denis Diderot and Jean Jacques Rousseau's relationship and books are read as metaphors for opposing views. The great 20th century philosopher Bernard Williams will be a guide of sorts to these discussions - the implications of which remain as powerful today, four centuries later.#IsaiahBerlin #aesthetics #romanticism

Strach nás spojuje víc než rozum či řeč, říká Judith Shklarová. Dokud žijeme, obáváme se ublížení – tělesného, duševního i duchovního. Na tomto prostém vhledu staví svůj „liberalismus strachu“. Esej stejného jména vyšel roku 1989, v době, kdy Francis Fukuyama oznamoval „konec dějin“.Shklarová odmítá politický romantismus i spásné příběhy. Liberalismus podle ní nevyrůstá ze vznešených ideálů ani ze svobodného trhu, ale z potřeby chránit lidi před fanatismem a krutostí. Je to zřízení, v němž se lze svobodně rozhodovat beze strachu – a minimem, bez něhož svoboda nemůže existovat, je schopnost státu zabránit krutosti. Úkolem státu proto není uskutečnit summum bonum, nejvyšší dobro, ale bránit summum malum, nejvyššímu zlu.I proto je Shklarová „fenomenoložkou negativity“. Jak sama připomíná, často nevíme, kým chceme být, natož co je nejvyšší dobro. Zato víme, kým být nechceme, čeho se na sobě samých bojíme a čemu se chceme vyhnout – jako jednotlivci i jako společnost. Ctnostné jednání začíná často ne tím, že přesně víme, co udělat, ale tím, že si přiznáme, že tady „něco nehraje“.Ve své knize Obyčejné neřesti (jediné dostupné česky, v překladu Daniely a Karla Theinových) pojmenovává Shklarová krutost, pokrytectví, snobství, zradu a misantropii jako hlavní praskliny, jimiž do demokracie proniká strach. A přece: neřesti nemáme jen nenávidět. S výjimkou krutosti v sobě leckdy nesou i zrno dobra. Pokrytectví je zavrženíhodné, ale tam, kde jsou vysoké nároky, je přítomné nevyhnutelně – a jen cynik si může dovolit tvářit se, že se ho netýká. Ale cynik je krutosti blíže než pokrytec.Problémem není sama existence neřestí, ale to, že nás otupují a tím nás činí náchylnějšími k jediné absolutně zavrženíhodné neřesti, jíž je krutost. Politika svobody proto nezačíná vymýcením neřestí, nýbrž rozhodnutím být vnímavější vůči každodenní krutosti. Vůči té jsme ostatně zranitelní všichni – jako její oběti i jako její původci. Zkrátka: máme se čeho bát – a to je to jediné, co nás spojuje.KapitolyI. „Bolest nesmíme nechat přenechat biologům“ [začátek až 25:40]II. Judith Shklarová? Fenomenoložka negativity [25:40 až 47:25]III. Politická filozofie musí začít od krutosti [47:25 až 58:00]IV. Pozor na nenávist neřestí [58:00 až konec]BibliografieHannes Bajohr, „Am Leben zu sein heißt Furcht zu haben“, in: Judith Shklar, Liberalismus der Furcht, Berlin: Matthes Seitz, 2013, str. 131–167.Hannes Bajohr – Rieke Trimçev, ad Judith Shklar. Leben – Werk – Gegenwart, Hamburg: Europäische Verlagsanstalt, 2024.Judith N. Shklar, The Liberalism of Fear, in: Nancy L. Rosenblum (vyd.), Liberalism and the Moral Life, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989.Judith Shklar, Obyčejné neřesti, přel. Karel Thein – Daniela Theinová, Praha: Karolinum, 2023.Simone Weil, La personne et le sacré, Paris: Payot, 2017.Bernard Williams, „The Liberalism of Fear“, G. Hawthorn (vyd.), In the Beginning Was the Deed: Realism and Moralism in Political Argument, Princeton: Princeton University, Press, 2005, str. 52–61.

He reached the top of the corporate world -- and then gave it up to become a writer, with books that probed our deepest questions, and influenced millions of people. Gurcharan Das joins Amit Varma in episode 425 of The Seen and the Unseen to discuss his life and learnings. (FOR FULL LINKED SHOW NOTES, GO TO SEENUNSEEN.IN.)   Also check out: 1. Gurcharan Das on Amazon, Wikipedia, Twitter, LinkedIn, Times of India and his own website. 2. Another Sort of Freedom -- Gurcharan Das. 3. India Unbound -- Gurcharan Das. 4. The Difficulty of Being Good -- Gurcharan Das. 5. Kama: The Riddle of Desire -- Gurcharan Das. 6. Three Plays: Larins Sahib, Mira, 9 Jakhoo Hill -- Gurcharan Das. 7. A Fine Family -- Gurcharan Das. 8. The Elephant Paradigm -- Gurcharan Das. 9. India Grows At Night -- Gurcharan Das. 10. The Dilemma of an Indian Liberal -- Gurcharan Das. 11. The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali. 12. Rashomon -- Akira Kurosawa. 13. Toba Tek Singh -- Sadat Hasan Manto. 14. Imagined Communities -- Benedict Anderson. 15. A Treatise of Human Nature -- David Hume. 16. Tales from the Kathasaritsagara -- Soma Deva (translated by Arshia Sattar). 17. What These Labels Mean -- Episode 107 of Everything is Everything. 18. Economic Facts and Fallacies -- Thomas Sowell. 19. The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression -- Amity Shlaes. 20. In Search of Lost Time -- Marcel Proust. 21. Anna Karenina -- Leo Tolstoy. 22. War and Peace -- Leo Tolstoy. 23. Pedro Páramo -- Juan Rulfo. 24. Don Quixote -- Miguel De Cervantes. 25. The Great Books of the Western World -- Edited by Mortimer J Adler. 26. The Double 'Thank You' Moment -- John Stossel. 27. From Imperial to Adaptive Firms -- Episode 37 of Everything is Everything. 28. The Life and Times of Montek Singh Ahluwalia — Episode 285 of The Seen and the Unseen. 29. The Nature of the Firm -- Ronald Coase. 30. The Reformers — Episode 28 of Everything is Everything. 31. The Importance of the 1991 Reforms — Episode 237 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Shruti Rajagopalan and Ajay Shah). 32. The Life and Times of Montek Singh Ahluwalia — Episode 285 of The Seen and the Unseen. 33. The Forgotten Greatness of PV Narasimha Rao — Episode 283 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Vinay Sitapati). 34. Naushad Forbes Wants to Fix India — Episode 282 of The Seen and the Unseen. 35. The 1991 Project. 36. The Future of War -- Episode 112 of Everything is Everything. 37. Perpetual Peace -- Immanuel Kant. 38. The Bhagawad Gita. 39. Four Quartets -- TS Eliot. 40. Walden -- Henry David Thoreau. 41. Essays on the Gita -- Sri Aurobindo. 42. Sri Bhagavadgita Rahasya -- Bal Gangadhar Tilak. 43. Many Threads of Hinduism -- Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyaya. 44. Bourgeois Dignity -- Deirdre McCloskey. 45. The Makropulos Case -- Karel Capek. 46. The Makropulos case: reflections on the tedium of immortality -- Bernard Williams. 47. Don't Punish Victimless Crimes -- Episode 73 of Everything is Everything. 48. The Mahabharata. 48. Plato, Aristotle and Karl Marx. 49. Charulata -- Satyajit Ray. 50. The Apu Trilogy -- Satyajit Ray. 51. The Calcutta Trilogy -- Satyajit Ray. 52. Shatranj ke Khiladi -- Satyajit Ray. 53. Duvidha -- Mani Kaul. 54. Cinema Paradiso -- Giuseppe Tornatore. 55. Amarcord -- Federico Fellini. 56. Stolen Kisses -- François Truffaut. 57. Last Year at Marienbad -- Alain Resnais. 58. The Garden of the Finzi-Continis -- Vittorio De Sica. 59. The Prince -- Niccolò Machiavelli. 60. The Leopard -- Giuseppe Tomasi Di Lampedusa. 61. The Leopard -- Luchino Visconti. 62. Mozart, Bach, Chopin, Debussy, Kishori Amonkar and Mallikarjun Mansur on Spotify. 63. The plays of Anton Chekhov. 64. The short stories of Anton Chekhov. 65. Four Major Plays -- Federico García Lorca. 66. The Great Gatsby -- F Scott Fitzgerald. 67. Waiting for Godot -- Samuel Beckett. 68. Madame Bovary -- Gustave Flaubert. 69. The Brothers Karamazov -- Fyodor Dostoevsky. 70. The Stranger -- Albert Camus. 71. The Black Paintings -- Francisco Goya. 72. The Light in Winter -- Episode 97 of Everything is Everything. 73. Virasat-e-Khalsa. This episode is sponsored by CTQ Compounds. Check out The Daily Reader and FutureStack. Use the code UNSEEN for Rs 2500 off. Amit Varma and Ajay Shah have launched a new course called Life Lessons, which aims to be a launchpad towards learning essential life skills all of you need. For more details, and to sign up, click here. Amit and Ajay also bring out a weekly YouTube show, Everything is Everything. Have you watched it yet? You must! And have you read Amit's newsletter? Subscribe right away to The India Uncut Newsletter! It's free! Also check out Amit's online course, The Art of Clear Writing. Episode art: ‘Two Birds' by Simahina.

“America's top secret weapon.”   “Navy SEALs is a 1990 American military action film, directed by Lewis Teague, written by Chuck Pfarrer and Gary Goldman, and produced by Brenda Feigen and Bernard Williams with consultant William Bradley.”   Show Links Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhIvjL3pccY   Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navy_SEALs_(film)   Just Watch: https://www.justwatch.com/us/movie/navy-seals   Socials Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/moviewavepod.bsky.social   Buy Me A Coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/moviewavepod   Letterboxd: https://letterboxd.com/moviewavepod/   Mastodon: https://mastodon.social/@moviewavepod   Intro/Outro Sample Credits “Aiwa CX-930 VHS VCR Video Cassette Recorder.wav” by Pixabay “Underwater Ambience” by Pixabay “waves crashing into shore parkdale beach” by Pixabay   Movie Wave is a part of Pie Hat Productions.

Jakou roli hraje riziko v našem morálním rozhodování? Už sám fakt, že riziko je relativně nové slovo, mnohé napovídá. Ve starověké filozofii se pracovalo s náhodou, možností, s týché – neuchopitelnou souhrou okolností. Až moderní doba proměnila nejistotu v něco měřitelného, pravděpodobného, plánovatelného.Riziko se stalo strukturou. Vyhovuje to naší potřebě jistoty, jak dokládá známá historka z druhé světové války: poté, co ekonom Kenneth Arrow upozornil americkou armádu, že její meteorologické předpovědi jsou bezcenné, dostal odpověď: „Ale to my víme, že nefungují. Ale stejně je potřebujeme – pro plánování.“Podle Bernarda Williamse se iracionální touha po racionalizaci otiskla i do moderní etiky. V novověku se formulovaly morální systémy sestávající z povinností, které mají platit obecně a vždy, nehledě na leccos, co jednající nemůže ovlivnit, nehledě na členitý terén života. Podle Williamse to jsou pokrytecké systémy odpoutané od života: předstíráme, že se řídíme něčím, co ve skutečnosti ignorujeme a co je dobré maximálně pro filozofický seminář a moralizování.Britský filozof to ilustruje na fenoménu morálního štěstí. Tím se rozumí situace, kdy je člověk považován za morálně dobrého (nebo špatného) na základě okolností, které nemá pod kontrolou. Jinými slovy: může být třeba chválen za to, že shodou okolností stál na správné straně. Podle většiny moderních morálních teorií by něco takového nemělo existovat – člověk má být hodnocen pouze za to, co učinil vědomě a svobodně. Williams však namítá, že pokud bychom tuto podmínku vzali vážně, mohli bychom morálně hodnotit máloco. Ani náš charakter, výchova či sklony nejsou výlučně naším dílem. Ať si to připouštíme nebo ne, ve skutečnosti hodnotíme druhé i podle toho, jestli prostě měli štěstí.Vezměte si příklad slavného burzovního makléře: opustí pětičlennou rodinu, nechá ji nezajištěnou a odjíždí na Tahiti, protože chce malovat. Kdyby mu jeho risk nevyšel, byl by sobec. Ale protože mu risk vyjde – ten muž se jmenuje Paul Gaugin –, jeho úspěch jej zpětně aspoň zčásti ospravedlní. Není to skandální?Je. Etika je skandální. V etice totiž nejde o to, jestli plníme pravidla. V etice neodpovídáme jen za to, co je správné, ale také na to, kým jsme a jak chceme žít. Zatímco morálka nás vyzývá k poslušnosti vůči neosobním pravidlům, etika se ptá na smysl a na to, kým jsme. Bernard Williams nás vrací k tomu, že etika nezačíná pravidlem, ale životem. Součástí etického života je proto i odvaha. A ta s sebou nese ochotu riskovat. Za to nám ale zprvu málokdo zatleská. Čeká se, zda uspějeme. Jestli ano, budeme spíše za hrdiny; jestli ne, za padouchy. Nemorální? Možná. Ale takoví jsme.KapitolyI. Raději lež než nejistotu! [počátek až 15:35]II. Skutečné riziko? Vytvořit z nejistoty vnitřní katastrofu [15:35 až 32:50]III. Když se z rizika stane systém [32:50 až 44:20]IV. Cena za prevenci [44:20 až 59:00]V. Smíme se na druhé vykašlat? [59:00 až konec]BibliografieUlrich Beck, Risikogesellschaft: Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne, Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, 1986.Alex Bojanowski, „Die Prognosen waren korrekt – nur das Wetter hat nicht mitgespielt“, in: Die Welt, 31. 7. 2025, https://www.welt.de/debatte/plus688484330e680a76f4e96135/Sommer-2025-Die-Prognosen-waren-korrekt-nur-das-Wetter-hat-nicht-mitgespielt.htmlCaroline Cramptonové, A Body Made of Glass. A History of Hypochondria, London: Granta Publications, 2024.Friedrich Nietzsche, Radostná věda, přel. Věra Koubová, Praha: Aurora, 2001.Bernard Williams, Moral Luck: Philosophical Papers 1973–1980, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.Juli Zeh, Fragen zu Corpus Delicti, München: btb, 2020.

Noah vs. Tebogo Face‑Off – The hosts recap highlights from their latest showdown, spotlighting standout plays and player's strengths. Quincy's Big Moment – A segment celebrating Quincy's remarkable performance, showcasing key moments when he “did it again” on the court. Gout Gout Rumors – Banter around whether Gout Gout is avoiding challenges (“ducking smoke”), with the crew weighing in. Guest Commentary – Bernard "BW" Williams joins the discussion, giving expert takes on the matchups and adding insider insight.

We dive further into the text of lectures 1 and 2 of The Sources of Normativity (1996). We give Korsgaard's account of the idea of reflective endorsement through Hume and Bernard Williams to get to her own view. When you come to know the origins of your moral sentiments, do you still stand behind them? Get more at partiallyexaminedlife.com. Visit partiallyexaminedlife.com/support to get ad-free episodes and tons of bonus discussion. Learn more about Mark's fall online political philosophy class at partiallyexaminedlife.com/class. Sponsor: Visit functionhealth.com/PEL to get the data you need to take action for your health.

How to sustain an international system of cooperation in the midst of geopolitical struggle? Can the international economic and legal system survive today's fractured geopolitics? Democracies are facing a drawn-out contest with authoritarian states that is entangling much of public policy with global security issues. In Global Discord: Values and Power in a Fractured World Order (Princeton University Press, 2024), Paul Tucker lays out principles for a sustainable system of international cooperation, showing how democracies can deal with China and other illiberal states without sacrificing their deepest political values. Drawing on three decades as a central banker and regulator, Tucker applies these principles to the international monetary order, including the role of the U.S. dollar, trade and investment regimes, and the financial system. Combining history, economics, and political and legal philosophy, Tucker offers a new account of international relations. Rejecting intellectual traditions that go back to Hobbes, Kant, and Grotius, and deploying instead ideas from David Hume, Bernard Williams, and modern mechanism-design economists, Tucker describes a new kind of political realism that emphasizes power and interests without sidelining morality. Incentives must be aligned with values if institutions are to endure. The connecting tissue for a system of international cooperation, he writes, should be legitimacy, creating a world of concentric circles in which we cooperate more with those with whom we share the most and whom we fear the least. Paul Tucker is a fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School and the author of Unelected Power (Princeton). He is a former central banker and regulator at the Bank of England, and a former director at Basel's Bank for International Settlements, where he chaired some of the groups designing reforms of the international financial system after the Global Financial Crisis. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

How to sustain an international system of cooperation in the midst of geopolitical struggle? Can the international economic and legal system survive today's fractured geopolitics? Democracies are facing a drawn-out contest with authoritarian states that is entangling much of public policy with global security issues. In Global Discord: Values and Power in a Fractured World Order (Princeton University Press, 2024), Paul Tucker lays out principles for a sustainable system of international cooperation, showing how democracies can deal with China and other illiberal states without sacrificing their deepest political values. Drawing on three decades as a central banker and regulator, Tucker applies these principles to the international monetary order, including the role of the U.S. dollar, trade and investment regimes, and the financial system. Combining history, economics, and political and legal philosophy, Tucker offers a new account of international relations. Rejecting intellectual traditions that go back to Hobbes, Kant, and Grotius, and deploying instead ideas from David Hume, Bernard Williams, and modern mechanism-design economists, Tucker describes a new kind of political realism that emphasizes power and interests without sidelining morality. Incentives must be aligned with values if institutions are to endure. The connecting tissue for a system of international cooperation, he writes, should be legitimacy, creating a world of concentric circles in which we cooperate more with those with whom we share the most and whom we fear the least. Paul Tucker is a fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School and the author of Unelected Power (Princeton). He is a former central banker and regulator at the Bank of England, and a former director at Basel's Bank for International Settlements, where he chaired some of the groups designing reforms of the international financial system after the Global Financial Crisis. 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

How to sustain an international system of cooperation in the midst of geopolitical struggle? Can the international economic and legal system survive today's fractured geopolitics? Democracies are facing a drawn-out contest with authoritarian states that is entangling much of public policy with global security issues. In Global Discord: Values and Power in a Fractured World Order (Princeton University Press, 2024), Paul Tucker lays out principles for a sustainable system of international cooperation, showing how democracies can deal with China and other illiberal states without sacrificing their deepest political values. Drawing on three decades as a central banker and regulator, Tucker applies these principles to the international monetary order, including the role of the U.S. dollar, trade and investment regimes, and the financial system. Combining history, economics, and political and legal philosophy, Tucker offers a new account of international relations. Rejecting intellectual traditions that go back to Hobbes, Kant, and Grotius, and deploying instead ideas from David Hume, Bernard Williams, and modern mechanism-design economists, Tucker describes a new kind of political realism that emphasizes power and interests without sidelining morality. Incentives must be aligned with values if institutions are to endure. The connecting tissue for a system of international cooperation, he writes, should be legitimacy, creating a world of concentric circles in which we cooperate more with those with whom we share the most and whom we fear the least. Paul Tucker is a fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School and the author of Unelected Power (Princeton). He is a former central banker and regulator at the Bank of England, and a former director at Basel's Bank for International Settlements, where he chaired some of the groups designing reforms of the international financial system after the Global Financial Crisis. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

How to sustain an international system of cooperation in the midst of geopolitical struggle? Can the international economic and legal system survive today's fractured geopolitics? Democracies are facing a drawn-out contest with authoritarian states that is entangling much of public policy with global security issues. In Global Discord: Values and Power in a Fractured World Order (Princeton University Press, 2024), Paul Tucker lays out principles for a sustainable system of international cooperation, showing how democracies can deal with China and other illiberal states without sacrificing their deepest political values. Drawing on three decades as a central banker and regulator, Tucker applies these principles to the international monetary order, including the role of the U.S. dollar, trade and investment regimes, and the financial system. Combining history, economics, and political and legal philosophy, Tucker offers a new account of international relations. Rejecting intellectual traditions that go back to Hobbes, Kant, and Grotius, and deploying instead ideas from David Hume, Bernard Williams, and modern mechanism-design economists, Tucker describes a new kind of political realism that emphasizes power and interests without sidelining morality. Incentives must be aligned with values if institutions are to endure. The connecting tissue for a system of international cooperation, he writes, should be legitimacy, creating a world of concentric circles in which we cooperate more with those with whom we share the most and whom we fear the least. Paul Tucker is a fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School and the author of Unelected Power (Princeton). He is a former central banker and regulator at the Bank of England, and a former director at Basel's Bank for International Settlements, where he chaired some of the groups designing reforms of the international financial system after the Global Financial Crisis.

How to sustain an international system of cooperation in the midst of geopolitical struggle? Can the international economic and legal system survive today's fractured geopolitics? Democracies are facing a drawn-out contest with authoritarian states that is entangling much of public policy with global security issues. In Global Discord: Values and Power in a Fractured World Order (Princeton University Press, 2024), Paul Tucker lays out principles for a sustainable system of international cooperation, showing how democracies can deal with China and other illiberal states without sacrificing their deepest political values. Drawing on three decades as a central banker and regulator, Tucker applies these principles to the international monetary order, including the role of the U.S. dollar, trade and investment regimes, and the financial system. Combining history, economics, and political and legal philosophy, Tucker offers a new account of international relations. Rejecting intellectual traditions that go back to Hobbes, Kant, and Grotius, and deploying instead ideas from David Hume, Bernard Williams, and modern mechanism-design economists, Tucker describes a new kind of political realism that emphasizes power and interests without sidelining morality. Incentives must be aligned with values if institutions are to endure. The connecting tissue for a system of international cooperation, he writes, should be legitimacy, creating a world of concentric circles in which we cooperate more with those with whom we share the most and whom we fear the least. Paul Tucker is a fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School and the author of Unelected Power (Princeton). He is a former central banker and regulator at the Bank of England, and a former director at Basel's Bank for International Settlements, where he chaired some of the groups designing reforms of the international financial system after the Global Financial Crisis. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/economics

How to sustain an international system of cooperation in the midst of geopolitical struggle? Can the international economic and legal system survive today's fractured geopolitics? Democracies are facing a drawn-out contest with authoritarian states that is entangling much of public policy with global security issues. In Global Discord: Values and Power in a Fractured World Order (Princeton University Press, 2024), Paul Tucker lays out principles for a sustainable system of international cooperation, showing how democracies can deal with China and other illiberal states without sacrificing their deepest political values. Drawing on three decades as a central banker and regulator, Tucker applies these principles to the international monetary order, including the role of the U.S. dollar, trade and investment regimes, and the financial system. Combining history, economics, and political and legal philosophy, Tucker offers a new account of international relations. Rejecting intellectual traditions that go back to Hobbes, Kant, and Grotius, and deploying instead ideas from David Hume, Bernard Williams, and modern mechanism-design economists, Tucker describes a new kind of political realism that emphasizes power and interests without sidelining morality. Incentives must be aligned with values if institutions are to endure. The connecting tissue for a system of international cooperation, he writes, should be legitimacy, creating a world of concentric circles in which we cooperate more with those with whom we share the most and whom we fear the least. Paul Tucker is a fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School and the author of Unelected Power (Princeton). He is a former central banker and regulator at the Bank of England, and a former director at Basel's Bank for International Settlements, where he chaired some of the groups designing reforms of the international financial system after the Global Financial Crisis. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How to sustain an international system of cooperation in the midst of geopolitical struggle? Can the international economic and legal system survive today's fractured geopolitics? Democracies are facing a drawn-out contest with authoritarian states that is entangling much of public policy with global security issues. In Global Discord: Values and Power in a Fractured World Order (Princeton University Press, 2024), Paul Tucker lays out principles for a sustainable system of international cooperation, showing how democracies can deal with China and other illiberal states without sacrificing their deepest political values. Drawing on three decades as a central banker and regulator, Tucker applies these principles to the international monetary order, including the role of the U.S. dollar, trade and investment regimes, and the financial system. Combining history, economics, and political and legal philosophy, Tucker offers a new account of international relations. Rejecting intellectual traditions that go back to Hobbes, Kant, and Grotius, and deploying instead ideas from David Hume, Bernard Williams, and modern mechanism-design economists, Tucker describes a new kind of political realism that emphasizes power and interests without sidelining morality. Incentives must be aligned with values if institutions are to endure. The connecting tissue for a system of international cooperation, he writes, should be legitimacy, creating a world of concentric circles in which we cooperate more with those with whom we share the most and whom we fear the least. Paul Tucker is a fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School and the author of Unelected Power (Princeton). He is a former central banker and regulator at the Bank of England, and a former director at Basel's Bank for International Settlements, where he chaired some of the groups designing reforms of the international financial system after the Global Financial Crisis. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How to sustain an international system of cooperation in the midst of geopolitical struggle? Can the international economic and legal system survive today's fractured geopolitics? Democracies are facing a drawn-out contest with authoritarian states that is entangling much of public policy with global security issues. In Global Discord: Values and Power in a Fractured World Order (Princeton University Press, 2024), Paul Tucker lays out principles for a sustainable system of international cooperation, showing how democracies can deal with China and other illiberal states without sacrificing their deepest political values. Drawing on three decades as a central banker and regulator, Tucker applies these principles to the international monetary order, including the role of the U.S. dollar, trade and investment regimes, and the financial system. Combining history, economics, and political and legal philosophy, Tucker offers a new account of international relations. Rejecting intellectual traditions that go back to Hobbes, Kant, and Grotius, and deploying instead ideas from David Hume, Bernard Williams, and modern mechanism-design economists, Tucker describes a new kind of political realism that emphasizes power and interests without sidelining morality. Incentives must be aligned with values if institutions are to endure. The connecting tissue for a system of international cooperation, he writes, should be legitimacy, creating a world of concentric circles in which we cooperate more with those with whom we share the most and whom we fear the least. Paul Tucker is a fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School and the author of Unelected Power (Princeton). He is a former central banker and regulator at the Bank of England, and a former director at Basel's Bank for International Settlements, where he chaired some of the groups designing reforms of the international financial system after the Global Financial Crisis. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/finance

On The Sources of Normativity (1996), lectures 1 and 2. How are facts related to obligations? We don't want to merely explain our moral impulses, but justify them. Korsgaard walks us through the views of Hobbes, Hume, Bernard Williams and others to arrive at her own breed of Kantianism, which we'll lay out in ep. 371. Get more at partiallyexaminedlife.com. Visit partiallyexaminedlife.com/support to get ad-free episodes and tons of bonus discussion. Sponsor: Don't wait until the next bite—protect your home with Bzigo. Go to bzigo.com/discount/BUZZ10 to save 10%.

In this episode, we talk about Chapters 2 and 3 of Rachel Cusk's Outline alongside a chapter from Williams's book Truth and Truthfulness. The chapter considers the differences between sincerity and authenticity as contending ideals of truthfulness about the self. These two ideals, on Williams's argument, entail different ways of thinking about the self. We contrast Williams's notion of authenticity with that invoked by various characters in Outline. Speaker names: • Dr. Scarlett Baron, Associate Professor in the English Department at UCL. • Alice Harberd, PhD Student in the Philosophy Department at UCL.

Leadership as Masterpiece Creation: What Business Leaders Can Learn from the Humanities about Moral Risk-TakingHow leaders can take the moral risks necessary to create “masterpieces”—admirable, distinctive, and high-achieving businesses that create meaningful lives for customers, employees, and themselves.In Leadership as Masterpiece Creation, Charles Spinosa, Matthew Hancocks, and Haridimos Tsoukas show how the humanities can help leaders create profitable, masterpiece organizations. Such organizations, they assert, are ones that possess the emotional and moral sensibilities of an artist, the wisdom of a statesperson, and the technical know-how of commerce. The authors draw on the works of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Bernard Williams, Shakespeare, and Machiavelli to conceptualize moral risk-taking, and then on the actions of Churchill, Madam C. J. Walker, Anita Roddick, Jeff Bezos, and others to show how the humanities can help create admirable businesses today.As management consultants and educators steeped in the humanities themselves, the authors discuss their experiences helping business leaders achieve successful masterpieces that bring good lives to many. After describing our contemporary business environment and examples of leaders who have created masterpiece organizations, the book turns to the basic skills of masterpiece creation: managing moods, building trust, listening for difference, and speaking truth to power. Then come the senior skills: moral risk-taking and creating a masterpiece organizational culture, strategy, and leadership style. Last, the authors explain why their leaders build an economy of gratitude.Want to be a guest on Book 101 Review? Send Daniel Lucas a message on PodMatch, here: https://www.podmatch.com/hostdetailpreview/17372807971394464fea5bae3 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Future Processing US Spotlight Series, Vinay Patel and Bernard Williams from OIC Advisors, bringing their extensive corporate leadership experience, sit down with Mike Zamarski and Konrad Bałys, our tech and digital transformation consultants, to explore the evolving role of consultancy and technology in delivering business value. Hosted by Paula Lipnick, the conversation dives into:the best methods of achieving the right mix of consultancy and tech expertise to deliver measurable outcomes and business value,the advantages of tackling increasing business complexities with a tech-driven consultancy,strategies to enhance communication and streamline collaboration between tech and business teams,predictions for the future in an AI-driven, hybrid-work environment.This discussion sheds light on how organisations can combine strategic advisory with technical expertise to achieve measurable, long-term results.

In this episode, Megan and Frank tackle the growing trend of "hacking" one's biology to increase longevity and possibly attain immortality. Are biohackers right to fear death, though? Would immortality be desirable? And is the human condition worth preserving? Thinkers discussed include: Epicurus, Bernard Williams, Schopenhauer, John Martin Fischer, Martha Nussbaum, and J.R.R. Tolkien.-----------------------Hosts' Websites:Megan J Fritts (google.com)Frank J. Cabrera (google.com)Email: philosophyonthefringes@gmail.com-----------------------Bibliography:What Is Biohacking And How Does It Work? – Forbes HealthChallenging Bryan Johnson On His “Never Die” Biohacking Protocol (youtube.com)Letter to Menoeceus by Epicurus (mit.edu)Is Death Bad for You? by Shelley Kagan (chronicle.com)Williams on Immortality.pdf (nd.edu)John Martin Fischer Response to WilliamsGift of Ilúvatar | The One Wiki to Rule Them All | FandomNussbaum - Mortal immortalsSchopenhauer - The vanity of existenceBrooke Alan Trisel, Human extinction and the value of our effortsBeing and Becoming in Modern Physics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)Megan Fritts, Arresting Time's Arrow: Death, Loss, and the Preservation of Real Union-----------------------Cover Artwork by Logan Fritts-------------------------Music from #Uppbeat (free for Creators!):https://uppbeat.io/t/simon-folwar/neon-signsLicense code: DEKZTEGOGV2Q0TH7

In Shame and Necessity,  Bernard Williams interrogates what we can still glean about the universal character of human action and the notion of responsibility from a study of the Ancient Greeks. William provides a philosophical interpretation of the historical circumstances of the Greek understanding, expressed in the tragedies, of agency, responsibility, and the role of luck in human affairs.  His claim is that our modern concept of moral responsibility does not deserve its presumed role as a paragon case of human action. A theory of action need not be exclusively a theory of distinctly moral motivation. The Greek ethical sensibility differs from our modern one in emphasizing shame rather than guilt as the fitting response to agents as causes. Shame is directed at the failure to be seen by others and ourselves as individuals worthy of our established character. Importantly, for Williams, our concept of guilt as inextricably tied to moral responsibility does not represent a progressive development in our moral consciousness, but a contemporary prejudice. Can modernity dispense with metaphysically deep concepts like free will and still account for our ethical lives? What is the scope of our distance from the Greeks?

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Unpacking Martin Sandbu's recent(ish) take on EA, published by JWS on January 20, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. The original article is here: https://www.ft.com/content/128f3a15-b048-4741-b3e0-61c9346c390b Why respond to this article? When browsing EA Twitter earlier this month, someone whose opinions on EA I respect quote-tweeted someone that I don't (at least on the topic of EA[1]). The subject of both tweets was an article published at the end of 2023 by Martin Sandbu of the Financial Times titled "Effective altruism was the favoured creed of Sam Bankman-Fried. Can it survive his fall?" Given that both of these people seem to broadly endorse the views, or at least the balance, found in the article I thought it would be worthwhile reading to see what a relatively mainstream commentator would think about EA. The Financial Times is one of the world's leading newspapers and needs very little introduction, and Sandbu is one of its most well-known commenters. What gets printed in the FT is often repeated across policy circles, not just in Britain but across the world, and especially in wonky/policy-focused circles that have often been quite welcoming of EA either ideologically or demographically. As always, I encourage readers to read and engage with the original article itself to get a sense of whether you think my summarisation and responses are fair. Reviewing Sandbu's Article Having read the article, I think it's mainly covering two separate questions related to EA, so I'll discuss them one-at-a-time. This means I'll be jumping back-and-forth a bit across the article to group similar parts together and respond to the underlying points, though I've tried to edit Sandbu's points down as little as possible. 1) How to account for EA's historical success? The first theme in the article is an attempt to give a historical account of EA's emergence, and also an attempt by Sandbu to account for its unexpected success. Early on in the article, Sandbu clearly states his confusion at how a movement with the background of EA grew so much in such a short space of time: "Even more puzzling is how quickly effective altruism rose to prominence - it is barely a decade since a couple of young philosophers at the University of Oxford invented the term ... nobody I knew would have predicted that any philosophical outlook, let alone this one, would take off in such a spectacular way." He doesn't explicitly say so, but I think a reason behind this is EA's heavy debt to Utilitarian thinkers and philosophy, which Sandbu sees as having been generally discredited or disconfirmed over the 20th century: "In the 20th century, Utilitarianism… progressively lost the favour of philosophers, who considered it too freighted with implausible implications." The history of philosophy and the various 20th century arguments around Utilitarianism are not my area of expertise, but I'm not really sure I buy that argument, or even accept how much it's a useful simplification (a potted history, as Sandbu says) of the actual trends in normative ethics. First, Utilitarianism has had plenty of criticism and counter-development before the 20th century.[2] And even looking at the field of philosophy right now, consequentialism is just as popular as the other two major alternatives in normative ethics.[3] I suspect that Sandbu is hinting at Bernard Williams' famous essay against utilitarianism, but I don't think one should consider that essay the final word on the subject. In any case, Sandbu is telling a story here, trying to set a background against which the key founding moment of EA happens: "Then came Peter Singer. In a famous 1972 article... [Singer] argued that not giving money to save lives in poor countries is morally equivalent to not saving a child drowning in a shallow pond... Any personal luxury...

Welcome back fellow Jackasses! In this episode we talk about this week's top NFL news; Giants and Commanders locker rooms at FedEx Field had no Hot Water for Showers after the game on Sunday.  The Eagles have released Bernard Williams, Their 1994 first round pick 49ers Head coach Kyle Shanahan confirmed today that Talanoa Hufanga did in fact tear his ACL during Sunday win over Tampa Bay  Aaron Rodgers planning to return to practice December 2nd  Starting next week in week 12 and for the rest of the season, Monday night football will have flex-scheduling for the first time ever + MORE We also gave our breakdown of how Week 13 went in the NFL and in out fantasy football league, “The League of Ordinary Jackasses” ----------------------------- JOIN OUR PIGSKIN PICK 'EM https://fantasy.espn.com/free-prize-games/sharer?from=espn&challengeId=230&context=GROUP_INVITE&edition=espn-en&groupId=05962ed3-e3b7-4885-bc7d-9b4e28a9ad22 (If the link doesn't work/copy just look up Fantasy Jack Podcast) ___________________________________ Thank you for listening! We really hope you enjoyed it. For more content, please follow us @FantasyJackassPodcast on Instagram! Continue being Jackasses --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/fantasyjackasspodcast/support

Semana de Thanksgiving significa semana de familia, amigos, comida y por supuesto también de football. Aquí sabrás por qué y desde cuándo tenemos este maridaje. También rastrearemos las razones por las que Lions y Cowboys cada año reciben un juego en este especial día. Además Bernard Williams formó parte de los Philadelphia Eagles durante 29 años. Entérate de cómo lo logró.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Semana de Thanksgiving significa semana de familia, amigos, comida y por supuesto también de football. Aquí sabrás por qué y desde cuándo tenemos este maridaje. También rastrearemos las razones por las que Lions y Cowboys cada año reciben un juego en este especial día. Además Bernard Williams formó parte de los Philadelphia Eagles durante 29 años. Entérate de cómo lo logró.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sermon Notes: https://bible.com/events/49170292 CONNECT WITH Linked UP Church! Connection Card: https://bit.ly/ConnCardBlue Request Live Prayer: wecare@linkedupchurch.com Online Giving: https://www.linkedupchurch.com/give

Jalen Hurts will be the man in the spotlight when the Eagles head to Kansas City for their Super Bowl rematch. And without Dallas Goedert, the passing game figures to funnel through A.J. Brown and DeVonta Smith more than ever. But this could have the makings of a big game for D'Andre Swift and the Eagles' running game. Like Bradley Roby, Bo Wulf and Zach Berman are primetime players who make primetime plays in primetime games. They preview the big matchup, predict what's going to happen in Goose Wisely and then go on the record with their Crystal Bald Eagle predictions. Toke up like Bernard Williams and enjoy the show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sermon Notes: https://bible.com/events/49148804 CONNECT WITH Linked UP Church! Connection Card: http://bit.ly/LUCConnect Request Live Prayer: wecare@linkedupchurch.com Online Giving: https://www.linkedupchurch.com/give

Drive By Diagnosis The term "Drive-By Diagnoses" accurately captures the shared experiences of countless caregivers. It's as though passersby morph into experts, leaning out the window to offer advice on caring for loved ones, irrespective of their connection or expertise. Comments like "Have you considered a new drug?" or "I know someone who swears by this" often emerge. One might even stumble upon stories of the latest extract from a miracle plant thriving solely in some guy's backyard in New Guinea. Worse still, discussions occasionally veer into divine judgment, implying wrongdoing as the cause of affliction. "What did you do that God would do this to you?!"  Despite many of these drive-by assessments arising from an unfortunate blend of ignorance and hubris, a few spring from well-intentioned hearts - albeit with clumsy delivery. Navigating unsolicited guidance proves a challenging path for caregivers. Fueled by desperation for relief, caregivers often teeter on the precipice of panic, and it takes little to drive them to yet another mirage in the desert of suffering. However, caregivers gradually realize that genuine comfort doesn't sprout from the latest potion, pill, or charismatic figure waging war on television against the "demon of sickness." Peace emerges when embracing difficulties with measured acceptance while selecting the companionship of those who walk alongside with compassion and humility - rather than merely hurling suggestions as they drive by. Scriptures remind us that even walking “…in the valley of the shadow of death," fear diminishes in God's presence. Yet, while God offers assurance, many opt for speculation and suggestions. Life remains rife with pain, suffering, solitude, and heartache – inescapable facets of the human journey. The book of Job teaches that more is going on than we can possibly understand – and hearts find strength, and circumstances become bearable when intentional companionship transcends uninvited consultations. “Unsolicited advice is the junk mail of life.” – Bernard Williams    

Good day! You are listening to Quirk of the Day podcast by host, Autumn Simmons. Episode eighty-one, Movies That Are Comedies - Who's That Girl? Starring Madonna, Griffin Dunne, Haviland Morris, John McMartin, Robert Swan and Dru Pillsbury Directed by James Foley. Produced by Rosilyn Heller and Bernard Williams. Songs on Quirk of the Day, performed by Madonna - "Who's That Girl?" and Madonna - "Causing A Commotion." Be sure to be nosey enough to purchase my humorous memoir and essay, I, Quirky Girl, by Autumn Simmons, who won two honorable mentions, December 27th 2022, from the Royal Dragonfly Book Award. Enjoy now!!! --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/autumn-simmons/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/autumn-simmons/support

Bernard A. Williams is the founder of the Company Counsel, LLC, where he focuses his practice on representing local and regional small business owners. His areas of specialization include complex commercial litigation and business disputes, general civil litigation, management consulting, and employment law. Before forming Company Counsel, Mr. Williams was a Partner at the Legis Group, LLC, a law firm located in Philadelphia. Before joining the Legis Group, Mr. Williams was the owner and general counsel of More Likely To Succeed, Inc., an educational services company in the greater Philadelphia area that specialized in test preparation and college counseling. Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/bernardawilliams/ Company Counsel: https://companycounsel.law/ Learn more about EmotionTrac and our AI-driven Emotional Intelligence Platform: https://emotiontrac.com/calendly/

"There was never a night or problem that could defeat sunrise or hope" Bernard Williams

Sermon Notes: https://bible.com/events/48997229 CONNECT WITH Linked UP Church! Connection Card: http://bit.ly/LUCConnect Request Live Prayer: wecare@linkedupchurch.com Online Giving: https://www.linkedupchurch.com/give

When we plant corn seeds, they become sprouts, then stalks, then corn. We don't know exactly how it works but it works! God built us the same way. We are designed to grow. Much like a seed needs water and sunshine to grow, our hearts have certain requirements as well. But when we meet the growth conditions that our heart requires, growth is a force of nature that cannot be stopped. Today Bernard Williams teaches us how to tend the soil of our hearts. If you enjoyed this message, please review and share this message with someone who needs it. Connect with us at www.FamilyLife.cc If you would like to support our mission financially, here are some ways you can donate to our church: Tap the text to the right to give via our Church Center App. Venmo/Zelle: Send to info@familylife.cc Text any amount to 84321 Visit www.FamilyLife.cc/Giving for more options. Thank you for listening and thank you for your generosity.

Our selves are nebulous, the world is complex and the times they are a-changin'. Pratap Bhanu Mehta joins Amit Varma in episode 300 of The Seen and the Unseen for a freewheeling chat about how to make sense of all of this.  (For full linked show notes, go to SeenUnseen.in.) Also check out: 1. The Hunter Becomes the Hunted -- Episode 200 of The Seen and the Unseen, where Amit Varma answers questions from his guests. 2. Pratap Bhanu Mehta on Twitter, Amazon and the Indian Express. 3. What Have We Done With Our Independence? -- Episode 186 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Pratap Bhanu Mehta). 4. Self-Esteem (and a Puddle) — Amit Varma's post with Douglas Adams's puddle quote. 5. The End of History? — Francis Fukuyama's essay. 6. The End of History and the Last Man — Francis Fukuyama's book. 7. Francis Fukuyama on Amazon. 8. Ideas of India: The Theory of Moral Sentiments -- Pratap Bhanu Mehta discusses Adam Smith with Shruti Rajagopalan. 9. Conversation and Society -- Russ Roberts discusses Adam Smith with Amit Varma in episode 182 of The Seen and the Unseen. 10. Human — Michael S Gazzaniga. 11. The Interpreter — Amit Varma. 12. Free Will on Wikipedia, Britannica and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 13. Free Will — Sam Harris. 14. Immanuel Kant on Amazon, Wikipedia, Britannica and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 15. The Median Voter Theorem. 16. 'Thinking and Reflecting' and 'The Thinking of Thoughts': Gilbert Ryle's essays on 'thick description' and Winks vs Twitches, also found in Collected Essays. 17. Thick Description: Towards an Interpretive Theory of Culture -- Clifford Geertz. 18. Fighting Fake News -- Episode 133 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Pratik Sinha). 19. The Greater India Experiment: Hindutva and the Northeast -- Arkotong Longkumer. 20. Memories and Things -- Episode 195 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Aanchal Malhotra). 21. Remnants of a Separation — Aanchal Malhotra. 22. Don't think too much of yourself. You're an accident -- Amit Varma's column on Chris Cornell's death. 23. Alice Evans Studies the Great Gender Divergence -- Episode 297 of The Seen and the Unseen. 24. Scientism. 25. Ludwig Wittgenstein on Amazon, Wikipedia, Britannica and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 26. Wanting — Luke Burgis. 27. René Girard on Amazon and Wikipedia. 28. Jean-Jacques Rousseau on Amazon, Wikipedia, Britannica and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 29. A Meditation on Form -- Amit Varma. 30. Agarkar's Donkeys: A Meditation on God -- Amit Varma. 31. Faust, as portrayed by Christopher Marlowe and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. 32. The Measure of a Man -- Episode 9, Season 2, Star Trek: The Next Generation (Wikipedia entry). 33. Ex Machina -- Alex Garland. 34. Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy -- David Chalmers. 35. Yoga Vasistha. 36. On a Certain Blindness in Human Beings -- William James. 37. Capitalism and Freedom -- Milton Friedman. 38. The Experience Machine -- Robert Nozick. (Wikipedia entry.) 39. Utilitarianism: For and Against -- JJC Smart and Bernard Williams. 40. Reasons and Persons -- Derek Parfit. 41. Episode of The Seen and the Unseen with Ajay Shah: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 42. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy -- Bernard Williams. 43. Bernard Williams on Amazon, Wikipedia, Britannica and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 44. India's Greatest Civil Servant -- Episode 167 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Narayani Basu, on VP Menon). 45. A Life in Indian Politics -- Episode 149 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Jayaprakash Narayan). 46. Friedrich Hayek on Amazon, Econlib, Wikipedia, Britannica and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 47. The Dark Side of Democracy -- Michael Mann. 48. Jayaprakash Narayan on proportional representation. 49. Pakistan or the Partition of India — BR Ambedkar. 50. Don't Insult Pasta (2007) — Amit Varma. 51. Manish Sisodia invokes ‘Rajput' caste amidst CBI probe -- Janta Ka Reporter. 52. Caste, Capitalism and Chandra Bhan Prasad -- Episode 296 of The Seen and the Unseen. 53. Defying the Odds: The Rise of Dalit Entrepreneurs — Devesh Kapur, D Shyam Babu and Chandra Bhan Prasad. 54. Beware of Half Victories -- Pratap Bhanu Mehta. 55. Hussain Haidry, Hindustani Musalmaan -- Episode 275 of The Seen and the Unseen. 56. Carl Schmitt on Amazon, Wikipedia, Britannica and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 57. Raghu Sanjaylal Jaitley's Father's Scooter -- Episode 214 of The Seen and the Unseen. 58. Justin Amash on why he left the Republican Party. 59. Kashi Ka Assi — Kashinath Singh. 60. Rational Ignorance. 61. The Economics of Voting — Amit Varma on Rational Ignorance. 62. Karthik Muralidharan Examines the Indian State -- Episode 290 of The Seen and the Unseen. 63. Lessons from an Ankhon Dekhi Prime Minister -- Amit Varma on the importance of reading.   64. John Aubrey's biography of Thomas Hobbes. 65. Ludwig van Beethoven, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, George Frideric Handel and Felix Mendelssohn on Spotify. 66. Digital Concert Hall -- Berliner Philharmoniker. 67. Berliner Philharmoniker on YouTube, Twitter and their own website. 68. Nikhil Banerjee on Spotify, YouTube and Wikipedia. 69. Wolf Hall, Bring Up the Bodies and The Mirror and the Light -- The Wolf Hall Trilogy by Hilary Mantel. 70. The World of Premchand: Selected Short Stories — Munshi Premchand (translated and with an introduction by David Rubin). 71. Premchand's Kazaki And Other Marvellous Tales — Munshi Premchand (translated and with an introduction by Sara Rai). 72. Sara Rai Inhales Literature -- Episode 255 of The Seen and the Unseen. 73. Yeh Premchand Hai -- Apoorvanand. This episode is sponsored by CTQ Compounds. Check out The Daily Reader and FutureStack. Use the code UNSEEN for Rs 2500 off. Check out Amit's online course, The Art of Clear Writing. And subscribe to The India Uncut Newsletter. It's free! Episode art: ‘Radiant Knowledge' by Simahina.

On this episode of The Report Card, Nat speaks with Richard Reeves, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do about It. Nat and Richard discuss redshirting, changing gender disparities, why many education interventions don't help men, Jordan Peterson, conscientiousness, why boys' standardized test scores are better than their grades, Bernard Williams, meritocracy, the modern male's need for a better life script, the prefrontal cortex, monarchy, the feminization of schooling, and more. Show Notes: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0815739877/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_GPYWY4J6DG4EXJCFW4P8 (Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do about It) https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/10/boys-delayed-entry-school-start-redshirting/671238/ (Redshirt the Boys) https://www.amazon.com/Dream-Hoarders-American-Leaving-Everyone/dp/081572912X (Dream Hoarders: How the American Upper Middle Class Is Leaving Everyone Else in the Dust, Why That Is a Problem, and What to Do About It) https://www.aei.org/podcast/ilana-horwitz-on-the-impact-of-religion-on-student-outcomes/ (Ilana Horwitz on the Impact of Religion on Student Outcomes) https://www.amazon.com/Truth-Truthfulness-Genealogy-Bernard-Williams/dp/0691117918/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1664914888&sr=1-1 (Truth and Truthfulness)

The way that you live your life will either draw people into the Kingdom or repel people from it. Bernard Williams implores us to live a life that is appealing to others as well as honoring to God.

Karel Čapek's 1922 play The Makropulos Affair about a famous singer who has lived for over 300 years was adapted into an opera by the composer Leoš Janáček and premiered in 1926. George Bernard Shaw's play Back to Methuselah, which premiered in 1922, also looks at human destiny and ideas about long life. As Welsh National Opera's new touring production of The Makropulos Affair opens in Cardiff, Matthew Sweet and guests New Generation Thinker Sarah Dillon, classicist Charlotte Higgins and philosopher Rebecca Roache explore the quest for endless youth in literature, film and myth and discussions of the idea by philosophers including Bernard Williams. The Makropulos Affair opens at the Wales Millennium Centre, Cardiff on Friday 16th September for three performances and then goes on tour to Llandudno, Plymouth, Birmingham, Southampton and Oxford. Professor Sarah Dillon is working on a student guide How to Study the Contemporary and researching a literary history of AI. Her books include Storylistening: Narrative Evidence and Public Reasoning and she is on the editorial boards of C21: Journal of Twenty-First Century Writing and Fantastika. Charlotte Higgins' books include Greek Myths: A New Retelling and Red Thread: On Mazes and Labrynths Producer: Torquil MacLeod The Free Thinking programme website has a playlist called Free Thinking the Future which includes discussions about AI, robots and an interview with Ray Kurzweil https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03zwn4d

Bernard Williams | 5MF on 7-3-22

Sermon Notes: https://bible.com/events/48914896 CONNECT WITH Linked UP Church! Connection Card: http://bit.ly/LUCConnect Request Live Prayer: wecare@linkedupchurch.com Online Giving: https://www.linkedupchurch.com/give

At a climactic—and, indeed, incendiary—moment in Bernard Williams' classic essay, “Internal and External Reasons,” Williams says that those who advance moral criticisms by appealing to so-called external reasons are engaging in “bluff”. Williams thus alleges that condemning certain actions of others as somehow not only immoral, but also irrational or contrary to reason is nothing more than a kind of pretense. To say that a favorite pastime that so many of us happily engage in is empty, well—to use an American colloquialism—“them's fightin' words!” Indeed, in criticizing certain moral criticisms in this way, Williams' words are fightin' words about fightin' words. Why does Williams proffer these meta-fightin' words? Readers—and indeed perhaps Williams himself—have struggled to articulate a precise argument for this claim that there are no external reasons and that those who try to invoke them in criticism of others are engaging in bluff. Thus, the force of Williams' point has remained, at best, elusive, perhaps even to Williams himself. In this paper, I first want to defend Williams' claim that the appeal to external reasons is illegitimate. But I will do so from a perspective that is radically different from the ones usually at work in considering Williams' position. Indeed, this perspective is one that may or may not (probably not!) be in the spirit of Williams' actual reasons for rejecting external reasons, so it is important to keep in mind (as I will remind you from time to time) that I am not offering an interpretation of Williams here. The distinctive aspect of my approach is that I argue that a rationalist line of thought can support Williams' claims. To bring out this line of thought, I will examine the metaphysical commitments of those who engage in what Williams calls bluff. I will then reject those commitments on powerful and widely popular rationalist grounds. I will, in other words, endeavor to support Williams' charge of bluff by investigating what I call the metaphysics of bluff and by offering a rationalist critique of that metaphysics. Michael Della Rocca is Andrew Downey Orrick Professor of Philosophy at Yale University. He has published widely in early modern philosophy and in contemporary metaphysics. His most recent book, The Parmenidean Ascent (Oxford 2020), defends a radical form of monism in metaphysics, philosophy of action, epistemology, and philosophy of language. This podcast is an audio recording of Dr Della Rocca's talk - "Moral Criticism and the Metaphyscis of Bluff" - at the Aristotelian Society on 6th June 2022. This recording was produced by the Backdoor Broadcasting Company.

In Amia Srinivasan's book The Right To Sex she discusses some of the most hotly controversial topics of today: sex work, pornography, the nature of sexual liberation. What can and should a philosopher bring to these debates? Also, we explore one of the philosophical techniques informing Srinivasan's work: genealogy. First named by Friedrich Nietzsche (although arguably practiced by philosophers before him) and developed by Michel Foucault and Bernard Williams, amongst others, genealogy seeks to investigate concepts and institutions by looking at the contingent historical situations in which they arose and that have shaped them over time. Christopher Harding in conversation with Amia Srinivasan, Caterina Dutilh Vovaes and Christoph Schurinnga. Producer: Luke Mulhall

In this episode we have a loose discussion about our Christmas and Near Year's while covid-positive. Later, we share meaningful memories and rituals associated with these holidays. Happy Holidays, Friends! If you like what you hear, find us on Patreon at patreon.com/therilkeanzoo for more content. Text: Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, ed. Bernard Williams, trans. Josefine Nauckhoff (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 194-195. 

Sermon Notes: http://bible.com/events/48818551 CONNECT WITH Linked UP Church! Connection Card: http://bit.ly/LUCConnect Request Live Prayer: wecare@linkedupchurch.com Online Giving: https://www.linkedupchurch.com/give