Podcasts about Bernard Williams

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.

Ve vztahu k přirozenosti kolují na veřejnosti dvě teze. Těžko přitom říct, zda mají své reálné zastánce, anebo se ve skutečnosti přeme o argumentační pahýly, které přisuzujeme oponentům či nepřátelům. Jedni prý tvrdí, že existuje přirozenost, kterou buď zjevil Bůh nebo vědec a my se podle ní máme řídit, protože nám tato přirozenost rovnou i přikazuje, jak žít. Druzí tvrdí, že přirozenost neexistuje, vše je konstrukt; kdo navíc mluví o přirozenosti, usiluje nejčastěji o naši svobodu. Takový člověk chce druhým namluvit, že něco, co záleží jen na libovůli, je ve skutečnosti dané, přirozené, posvátné. Takž: nevěřit mluvčím přirozenosti, jdou po vaší svobodě – a hlavně zůstat hraví! Z filozofického hlediska jsou obě teze přinejmenším sporné. Není pochyb o tom, že moderna začíná odkouzlením. To, co jsme považovali za posvátné, se dává do pohybu, nacházíme v tom příliš lidské prsty. Jenže z tohoto odhalení – tedy z toho, že ledacos, co jsme považovali za dané i nějak přirozené, je ve skutečnosti vytvořené – rozhodně neplyne, že dané není vůbec nic a my si můžeme rozhodnout o všem. Člověk nemusí být kdovíjaký konzervativec, aby tezi o krajním konstruktivismu odmítl. Vzpomenout si lze třeba na Petera Singera. Ten levici nabádá, ať odmítne neudržitelný marxistický předpoklad o tom, že vše je politika, tedy otázka mocenského konstruktu. „Být slepý k faktům o lidské přirozenosti znamená riskovat katastrofu,“ poznamenává v knize Darwinovská levice. Nebo takový Bernard Williamse. Pro tohoto filozofa byl i Immanuel Kant, teology označovaný jako všedrtič, příliš dogmatický. Přesto tvrdil, že třeba kulturní relativismus, tedy představa, že každá společnost si volí takové hodnoty, jaké chce, a my do toho nemáme co kecat, je spíše myšlenkové lajdáctví než projev svobodomyslnosti. Neměli bychom opomenout, že konstruktivismus, tvrzení, že ve všem, co je dané, objevujeme lidskou stopu, dnes spojujeme s liberalismem, ale tradičně se pojil spíše se socialismem, zvláště se zmíněným marxismem, občas i se sociálním inženýrstvím. S ohledem na to, že spor o přirozenost se rozhořel zvláště na otázce genderu, může zaujmout, že třeba Slavoj Brichcín, nestor české sexuologie, poznamenává, že on sám spatřoval v tezi o všeobecné společenské podmíněnosti něco totalitního. Jeho pacienti, kteří nezapadali do normy, byli chápáni jako bytosti deficientní, jako bytosti, které je však možné „předělat“ v žádoucí obraz společnosti. I na tomto pozadí se ukazuje: tvrzení, že s něčím nelze hnout, že něco je dané, nemusí být jen projevem útlaku, ale rovněž zprávou o tom, že některé skutečnosti je třeba přijmout, dokonce nechat být. I to – možná zvláště to – může být projevem svobody a svobodomyslnosti. Kapitoly I. Rodina? Pouhý konstrukt – to je snad jasné, nebo ne? [začátek až 17:10] II. Konstruktivismus Niklas Luhmanna: Realita je to, co mnou otřásá. [17:10 až 40:12] III. Jiný svět, jiný mrav? Nesmysl. [40:12–52:00] IV. Přirozenost samozřejmě existuje. Ale ve vrstvách a je sporná. [52:00 až konec] Bibliografie Slavoj Brichcín, Sexuální delikventi z pohledu psychiatrické sexuologie, Praha: Psychiatrické centrum, 1996. Anne Fausto-Sterling, Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality, New York: Basic Books, 2020. Niklas Luhmann, Realita masmédií, přel. Katrin Vodrážková, Praha: Academia, 2014. Niklas Luhmann, Sociální systémy. Nárys obecné teorie, přel. Pavel Váňa, Brno: CDK, 2006. Paul Preciado, Testojunkie. Sex, Drugs, and Biopolitics in the Pharmacopornographic Era, přel. Bruce Benderson, New York: The Feminist Press, 2013. Peter Singer, Darwinovská levice, přel. Denis Kostomitsopoulos, Praha: Filosofia, 2006. Bernard Williams, Morálka. Úvod do etiky, přel. Šimon Haikl Koukal – Tereza Matějčková, Praha: OIKOYMENH, 2021. Celé epizody na www.forendors.cz/pravdaneexistujetm

Send us a Text Message.Bernard Williams (1929-2003) bu halde ölümsüzlüğün can sıkıcı ve de sonuç olarak anlamsız olacağını söylemiştir. Ölüm olgusu ve ölümün kaçınılmaz oluşu, hayatımıza sahip olduğu manasını büyük oranda kazandıran şeydir.*Instagram: www.instagram.com/oradanburadanbilgi/Youtube: youtube.com/oradanburadanbilgiTwitter: https://x.com/oradanburadanb*Reklam ve İş birlikleri için: oradanburadan7@gmail.comKAYNAKLAR*Bortolotti, L. and Y. Nagasawa. 2009. ‘Immortality without Boredom.' Ratio XXII: pp. 261-77.*Williams, B. 1973. ‘The Makropulos Case: Reflections on the Tedium of Immortality' in Problems of the Self, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973.*Todd May, Ölüm*Yuval Noah Harari, Homo Deus* Gulliver'in Gezileri, Jonathan Swift*Her Şey Ne Anlama Geliyor? Felsefeye Küçük Bir Giriş, Thomas Nagel

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...

Oggi a The Snap parliamo di una release che ha del clamoroso. Gli Eagles qualche settimana fa han rilasciato Bernard Williams. Non ci sarebbe nulla di strano se non fosse che Williams ha 51 anni..

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

Democracies are facing a drawn-out contest with authoritarian states that is entangling much of public policy with global security issues. In Global Discord, Paul Tucker lays out principles for how democracies can approach relations with China and other illiberal states without sacrificing their deepest political values or recklessly risking their safety. Combining history, economics, and political and legal philosophy, Tucker offers a new account of international relations. Rejecting intellectual traditions going 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 argues, 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. Avoiding wishful thinking about the security of our way of life, and drawing on three decades as a domestic and international policy maker, Tucker applies the book's principles to the international monetary order, including the role of the U.S. dollar, trade and investment regimes, and the global financial system. The event featured a discussion with the author, and a panel of three speakers: Richard Bellamy (Professor of Political Science at UCL), Jeff King (Professor of Law at UCL) and Juliet Samuel (Columnist at The Telegraph). 

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/

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

In this final part of a two part series on our ability to morally evaluate historical figures, I continue my look at the work of Bernard Williams. After taking into account Williams' theory of the relativism of distance, I look at British philosopher Miranda Fricker's criticism of Williams. Fricker believes that historical figures are capable of being morally blameworthy according to our lights and even in cases where blame is inappropriate, she sets out conditions where we would be justified in feeling moral disappointment. We can indeed be Kant at the court of King Arthur.

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.

Bernard Williams is an accomplished, versatile, and widely experienced attorney with a reputation for excellence in legal counsel, representation, and business management.Bernard started his own law firm Company Counsel LLC over 5 years ago where he leads a team of high-performing, specialized Attorneys who support small and mid-sized companies in matters related to labor law, intellectual property, and corporate law. Here are a few of the topics we'll discuss on this episode of The Consulting Trap: How Bernard started his own law firm. Producing continued yearly revenue growth through referrals and word of mouth. Different growth models lawyers use. Issues with the traditional growth models. The benefits of working with a team. Resources: Company Counsel LLC BNI Podcast Chef Connecting with Bernard Williams:LinkedInConnecting with the host: Brian Mattocks on LinkedIn Brian Mattocks by email

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 first episode of a two part series, I look at an issue that has been hot of late (are there any non-hot issues in the internet age?) – the issue of how we should judge our historical heritage – particularly the prominent figures of history. Winston Churchill, Christopher Columbus and others have had statues removed in public places along with a reassessment of their historical legacy. Its a healthy dialogue to be having even if it is isn't always carried out in a healthy manner. The dialogue lacks any nuanced underlying theoretical ethical structure that can guide conflicting groups to consensus- which is my way of saying that there has been a lot of shouting. So, in this episode, I look at candidates for theoretical guidance on the ethical judgment of historical figures. Ethical theories tend to assess an agent's actions according to universal standards or contextual, local ones which may be fine for justifying giving the stink eye to your neighbor but doesn't really give us an insight about what a moral choice would have looked like for Genghis Khan. But the ever broad eye of Bernard Williams provides us with some tools to tackle the problems associated with ethical assessment of the historical figures and, in this episode, we see what Williams' 'relativism of distance' theory can offer us.

Se Deus lhe ordenasse matar uma pessoa inocente, essa ação seria moral ou não? Ao esboçarmos uma resposta para esta pergunta, acabamos encontrando outra interessante questão filosófica: Deus ordena algo porque é moral, ou algo é moral simplesmente porque Deus ordena?Faça sua inscrição em nosso curso de introdução à filosofia: https://www.udemy.com/course/introducao-a-filosofia-dos-pre-socraticos-a-sartre/?referralCode=51CAB762A412100AFD38Seja um de nossos apoiadores e mantenha este trabalho no ar: https://apoia.se/filosofiavermelhaNossa chave PIX: filosofiavermelha@gmail.comAdquira meu livro: https://www.almarevolucionaria.com/product-page/pr%C3%A9-venda-duvidar-de-tudo-ensaios-sobre-filosofia-e-psican%C3%A1liseUma das principais dificuldades da discussão moral hoje, no contexto de um mundo relativista, líquido, pós-moderno, reside no problema da fundamentação da moral. Se uma moral é fundamentada numa religião particular, mas outro grupo não compartilha dessa crença, tal doutrina não tem nenhuma força sobre a primeira comunidade. As doutrinas morais religiosas parecem não possuir um caráter tão absoluto quanto seus adeptos acreditam. Neste episódio vamos refletir sobre a relação entre Deus e moralidade nos apoiando em Dostoiévski, Bernard Williams, Immanuel Kant e G. W. F.Hegel. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Un'idea filosofica del miglior mondo possibile. Adriano Palma ci racconta, motiva e spiega un esperimento mentale suggerito dal fu Bernard Williams (no, non lo sprinter) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Williams ============================================================== Art by Susanna Panfili https://www.youtube.com/c/SusannaPanfili Liberi Oltre le Illusioni: http://www.youtube.com/c/liberioltre.

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. 

This episode discusses whether immortality is really as desirable as it often appears to be. It discusses the works of Bernard Williams, focusing on the idea of categorical desires and whether an alternate version, i.e. finite immortality might be more appropriate? --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/adya-singh/message

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

Sermon Notes: CONNECT WITH Linked UP Church! Connection Card: Request Live Prayer: Online Giving: https://www.linkedupchurch.com/give

Francesca Iurlaro, Alexander von Humboldt postdoctoral researcher at Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, joins us to discuss jus gentium, the history of customary international law, Gentili, historiography and hope. Publications mentioned in the episode: Francesca Iurlaro, The Invention of Custom, Natural Law and the Law of Nations, ca. 1550-1750 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming). Martti Koskenniemi, To the Uttermost Parts of the Earth, Legal Imagination and International Power 1300-1870 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021). Francesca Iurlaro, “Disenchanting Gentili: Chapter 3: Italian Lessons. Ius Gentium and Reason of States”, European Journal of International Law 32, no. 3 (2021): 965–72. Francesca Iurlaro, “Between Authority and (In)Authenticity: How Literary Canons Shaped Jus Gentium”, Leiden Journal of International Law, forthcoming. Christopher N. Warren, Literature and the Law of Nations, 1580-1680 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015). Bernard Williams, Truth & Truthfulness: An Essay in Genealogy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004).

Nach Kant verlangt das Sittengesetz von uns pflichtgemäßes Handeln ohne Rücksicht auf eigene Neigungen und Interessen. Philosophen wie Friedrich Nietzsche oder Bernard Williams haben gegen solche Zumutungen der Moral protestiert. Dennoch hat Kant Recht, dass erst das Sittengesetz die Erhabenheit unserer Bestimmung garantiert. Wie es trotzdem gegen jenen Protest erfolgreich verteidigt werden kann, zeigt uns das Christentum, welches das Verhältnis zwischen Gott und Sittengesetz anders denkt als Kant.

What does “cancel culture” really mean, and how big a problem is it? Nick Gillespie, editor at large at Reason, has given these questions more thought than most. Nick is one of the leading lights of libertarian public intellectual life, and just wrote an essay, “Self-Cancellation, Deplatforming, and Censorship” that we dig into here. Nick is worried about the shift towards censorship in politics, in our organizations, including corporations, and in our own lives. We differ on whether the problem is more personal or political, but in the end we do agree that a healthy liberal culture is one that welcomes a robust exchange of diverse views. Along the way, we get into Nick's particular beef with Facebook, some similarities in our backgrounds as journalists, and how his view of the world has some Marxist traces.  Nick Gillespie Nick is an editor at large at Reason, the libertarian magazine and host of The Reason Interview with Nick Gillespie. “Nick Gillespie is to libertarianism what Lou Reed is to rock ‘n' roll, the quintessence of its outlaw spirit,” wrote Robert Draper in The New York Times Magazine. A two-time finalist for digital National Magazine Awards, Nick is co-author, with Matt Welch, of The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong With America (2012). More Gillespie  “Self-Cancellation, Deplatforming, and Censorship” (Sep 2021) The Reason Interview with Nick Gillespie (including his latest here with Steven Pinker) “A Different Approach to Anti-Racism” (Nov 2021) “From Russiagate to the MyPillow Guy, Let's Stop With Electoral Conspiracy Theories” (Sep 2021) Also mentioned My Guardian essay, “Capitalism used to promise a better future. Can it still do that?” The narrator of Adam Thirlwell's 2015 novel Lurid and Cute exclaims of capitalism: “‘Late? It had only just got started!” (I quote the line here). Nick's podcast with Steven Pinker in how “Rationality Has Made Us Richer, Kinder, and More Free” I mentioned Abigail Shrier's controversial 2020 book, Irreversible Damage: Teenage Girls and the Transgender Craze. (Nick's had Abigail on his podcast). Nick mentioned Common Sense with Bari Weiss, on Substack I referred to MIT's cancelation of University of Chicago professor Dorian Abbot who was to give the prestigious Carlson Lecture, which is devoted to 'new results in climate science'. Now Princeton is hosting it online instead.  I quoted John Stuart Mill from On Liberty: ““Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.””  Nick mentioned Michel Foucault's Discipline and Punish, published in 1975. I mentioned Bernard Williams's last book: Truth and Truthfulness: An Essay in Genealogy (2004); I also wrote an essay in truthfulness drawing heavily on Williams, “Lies and honest mistakes” (July 2021) The Dialogues Team  Creator: Richard Reeves Research: Ashleigh Maciolek Artwork: George Vaughan Thomas Tech Support: Cameron Hauver-Reeves Music: "Remember" by Bencoolen (thanks for the permission, guys!)

As the philosopher Bernard Williams anticipated, utilitarianism has largely disappeared from public view, not because it is no longer adhered to, but because it has become the “operating system” that governs most of our public decision-making. What the COVID-19 pandemic has done is make that hidden calculus explicit.

What is our right to be desired? How are our sexual desires shaped by the society around us? Is consent sufficient for a sexual relationship? In the wake of the #MeToo movement, public debates about sex work, and the rise in popularity of “incel culture”, philosopher Amia Srinivasan explores these questions and more in her new book of essays, The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century. Amia's interests lay in how our internal perspectives and desires are shaped by external forces, and the question of how we might alter those forces to achieve a more just, equitable society. Amia joined Tyler to discuss the importance of context in her vision of feminism, what social conservatives are right about, why she's skeptical about extrapolating from the experience of women in Nordic countries, the feminist critique of the role of consent in sex, whether disabled individuals should be given sex vouchers, how to address falling fertility rates, what women learned about egalitarianism during the pandemic, why progress requires regress, her thoughts on Susan Sontag, the stroke of fate that stopped her from pursuing a law degree, the “profound dialectic” in Walt Whitman's poetry, how Hinduism has shaped her metaphysics, how Bernard Williams and Derek Parfitt influenced her, the anarchic strain in her philosophy, why she calls herself a socialist, her next book on genealogy, and more. Visit our website: https://conversationswithtyler.com Email: cowenconvos@mercatus.gmu.edu Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/cowenconvos Follow us on Instagram: https://instagram.com/cowenconvos/ Follow Tyler on Twitter: https://twitter.com/tylercowen Follow Amia on Twitter: https://twitter.com/amiasrinivasan Like us on Facebook: https://facebook.com/cowenconvos Subscribe to our Newsletter: https://go.mercatus.org/l/278272/2017-09-19/g4ms Thumbnail photo credit: Nina Subin

This was a great conversation with Bernard Williams! Bernard is a stand-up comic, musician, coach and Olympic Silver medalist. He shared his experiences at two Olympic Games with us. He's a beast of a comic as well and we just found out he's also a musician. If you need coaching check out BWProTechniques and listen to his music here https://open.spotify.com/track/6jZw54QQu9fj2AaRvC7cCo?si=b9356462ebd84522  Enjoy!

Today, Paul Sagar and I get into utilitarianism. We talk about thought experiments that involve: drowning kids, ruined loafers, death squads and bioweapons. The drowning children are from Peter Singer. He's a utilitarian that thinks that we rich first-world types should be giving away all our money to save the global poor from starving and malaria. Paul disagrees. He brings in another philosopher (Bernard Williams) to argue that worrying about starving children all the time would violate his integrity. As usual, he tries hard not to offend anyone (until he gets to Hiroshima). References: Peter Singer, “Famine, affluence and morality”Bernard Williams, “Against Utilitarianism”Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/user?u=35146517&fan_landing=true)

While excellent newsletters on specific themes within public policy already exist, this thought letter is about frameworks, mental models, and key ideas that will hopefully help you think about any public policy problem in imaginative ways.Audio narration by Ad-Auris.  India Policy Watch #1: Satyam Eva Jayate?  Insights on burning policy issues in India- RSJWe often talk about truth, disinformation and radically networked societies in this newsletter. Our interest in these issues is often on account of news stories around us. But that’s not all. We find there’s a more fundamental shift on the understanding of truth that’s underway in societies around the world. That is what fascinates us about truth. Now, truth or its nature is the basis of all philosophy from the time Socrates started asking questions of fellow Athenians at the public square many centuries ago. Yet we come back to the question of truth and certainty again and again over the course of our history. Not because attaining the truth is an epistemological necessity for our race. That it might be. Instead understanding the nature of truth is important to control it. And those who control the truth control power. Not only for the present but far into the future. So what’s the point of this random discourse on truth at the start? Truth Is The First CasualtyThere were a few news stories over the past couple of weeks that made me wonder about where we are on truth in India today. First, the kerfuffle between Twitter and the Indian government. A lot of commentary on this topic conflate two issues - one, Twitter not complying (yet) to certain parts of the new IT intermediary guidelines and two, Twitter tagging certain tweets by BJP spokespersons on the Congress ‘toolkit’ case as manipulated media. The first point is of limited interest to me. There are new guidelines and they must be followed if you want to be treated as an intermediary in India. Others have complied and Twitter has been lax. The second point is interesting. Twitter claims it has a global policy on tagging certain tweets as manipulated media and that’s what it followed in the Congress ‘toolkit’ case too. This claim has been attacked by many. Some have questioned Twitter’s commitment to free speech and alleged it suppresses right wing handles more than others. I haven’t seen any credible data to support this so I don’t know. But, more importantly, invoking freedom of speech argument here betrays a poor understanding of the concept. Free speech is a right of the citizens that has to be protected from the state which holds a legitimate monopoly on violence (Weber). Suppression of free speech is an issue only when the state is involved. Private entities don’t have that monopoly on violence. If they suppress free speech on their platform, well, there are other platforms. The other attack on Twitter is more credible. Who is Twitter to arbitrate on truth? How does Twitter know what’s the truth? These questions are closely linked to the other news story about a viral video involving an attack on a Muslim man in Ghaziabad. The UP police filed an FIR against Twitter and Mohammed Zubair among others for creating communal divide and intending to disrupt public peace. Zubair is the co-founder of AltNews, a fake news busting media outlet. Zubair and AltNews had done the forensic work debunking the Congress toolkit document on Twitter. It is possible that work could have been the reason for Twitter to have tagged certain tweets as manipulated. Now AltNews was being accused by the state for spreading fake news. Life has came full circle in two weeks for Zubair. Why has the question of truth become so fraught in our lives? Why are we inundated with versions of truth on social media each with its compelling argument and logic? Have we lost objectivity while looking for balance while reporting on truth? These are tough questions. I have no answers. Easy or otherwise. But since we have come so far with piece, like Crime Master Gogo, we need to go back with some takeaways. Truth And TruthfulnessWe live in times where we are suspicious of every claim of truth. We look for who is making the claim, we investigate it, we check on their politics and we debunk the claim if there’s even a whiff of their allegiance to the other side of the political divide from us. This is now the norm.Of course this has always been the case in politics. Political parties are formed on the basis of the belief among the members that theirs is the right path. That the party knows the truth that will lead the society or the nation to the lofty goals set out in the constitution. Politics has always been about '“our truth” versus “their truth”. It is a contestation on versions of truth.This we lived with. But the problem of our times is how deeply politics has pervaded every sphere. There’s not even a sliver of convergence on truths in any subject these days because politics cannot countenance it. No inch can be yielded to “their truth” anywhere. So, the effort on all sides is to bury the others in an avalanche of lies. The more tenuous your truth, the greater the desire to fight with an arsenal of lies. Bernard Williams, the great analytical British philosopher, wrote about this in his last book, Truth and Truthfulness (2002). For Williams, truth is a cultural value to be defended against the onslaught of lies. The accuracy and the sincerity with which we identify and then speak the truth across all social forms is worthy of a good fight. Else, we lose everything. I have excerpted from the first couple of pages of the book below. Williams had presaged the current times of the widespread suspicion of truth even before the advent of social media: “Two currents of ideas are very prominent in modern thought and culture. On the one hand, there is an intense commitment to truthfulness - or, at any rate, a pervasive suspiciousness, a readiness against being fooled, an eagerness to see through appearances to the real structures and motives that lie behind them. Always familiar in politics, it stretches to historical understanding, to the social sciences, and even to interpretations of discoveries and research in the natural sciences.Together with this demand for truthfulness, however, or (to put it less positively) this reflex against deceptiveness, there is an equally pervasive suspicion about truth itself: whether there is such a thing; if there is, whether it can be more than relative or subjective or something of that kind; altogether, whether we should bother about it, in carrying on our activities or in giving an account of them. These two things, the devotion to truthfulness and the suspicion directed to the idea of truth, are connected to one another. The desire for truthfulness drives a process of criticism which weakens the assurance that there is any secure of unqualifiedly stateable truth. Suspicion fastens, for instance, on history. Accounts which have been offered as telling the truth about the past often turn out to be biased, ideological, or self-serving. But attempts to replace these distortions with “the truth” may once more encounter the same kind of objection, and then the question arises, whether any historical account can aim to be, simply true: whether objective truth, or truth at all, can honestly (or, as we naturally put it, truthfully) be regarded as the aim of our inquiries into the past. Similar arguments, if not quite the same, have run their course in other fields. But if truth cannot be the aim of our inquiries, then it must surely be more honest or truthful to stop pretending that it is, and to accept that.We can see how the demand for truthfulness and the rejection of truth can go together. However, this does not mean that they can happily co-exist or that the situation is stable. If you do not really believe in the existence of truth, what is the passion for truthfulness a passion for? Or - as we might also put it - in pursuing truthfulness, what are you supposedly being true to? This is not an abstract difficulty or just a paradox. It has consequences for real politics, and it signals a danger that our intellectual activities, particularly in the humanities may tear themselves to pieces.…. My question is: how can we address this situation? Can the notions of truth and truthfulness be intellectually stabilised, in such a way that what we understand about truth and our chances of arriving at it can be made to fit with our need for truthfulness? I believe this to be a basic problem for present-day philosophy.” Pluralism, Balance And ObjectivityThe other challenge to truth has come from a total lack of understanding of the concept of value pluralism among the media. The construct, popularised by Isaiah Berlin, allows for two or more incommensurable values to be held at the same time by a polity each of which may be true and still be at odds with one another. For Berlin, these differences are unlike a titanic battle between the right and the wrong; instead they are about accepting contradictions and differences in values which then deliver diversity and strength to a society. The media has distorted the notion of pluralism to some kind of an elusive ‘balance’ in its coverage of any issue. Both sides must be represented is a common refrain. The role of the media is to unearth truth through objectivity. Balance doesn’t help in that. That the earth is round is a truth objectively established. Of course, there are ‘flat earthers’ still who think otherwise. The role of media is not to give air time to both in in the interest of pluralism or balance. That’s lazy journalism and an invitation to untruths of every stripe to be concocted to crowd out the truth. This is what has happened. Social media platforms have accentuated this generation of untruths. Over time these turn into ‘versions of truths’ which get quoted by mainstream media aiming for a balance by presenting both sides of the story. It is a systematic perversion of truth. We All Have Our Truths NowThere’s also the failure of liberalism to defend stoutly the core values it stands for in the past decade. It has been attacked from the outside by those with conventional suspicion of the liberals. But liberal ideas have withered under the attack from within from the supporters of relativism, moral scepticism and extreme identity politics. The reverence of relativism among the liberals has meant there’s no objective truth for them anymore. Everything is true in its context. Therefore, everything is false too. This ambiguity has meant everyone can claim their own truth based on some kind of a lived experience. Nothing is sacred in general anymore because everything can be questioned. Simultaneously, everything is sacred in particular because there’s a never ending contest to be purer than the next person. It is difficult to even define a truth in these circumstances. Forget defending it. This absence of a rigid commitment to an ideology by the liberals would lead to moral panic, anarchy and philistinism as Leo Strauss had warned. This is where we seem to have arrived.Lastly, there’s a vast majority who watch this battle of different versions of truth from the sidelines. They think of themselves as the audience. They aren’t. It is they who are being played in the arena. Yet, often, they know the truth and they see through the game. But they remain onlookers, reluctant to take sides and ever willing to be taken in by what’s unfolding in front of them. When truth is no longer valuable, it is they who end up paying the highest price. Like Ramdhari Singh Dinkar wrote:समर शेष है, नहीं पाप का भागी केवल व्याघ्र,जो तटस्थ हैं, समय लिखेगा उनका भी अपराध।Translation: This war over truth is eternal. Your adversary isn’t alone in the wrong. Those on the sidelines, unwilling to take a stand are culpable too. In time, they will face a reckoning. India Policy Watch #2: When Federating Units are ExtinguishableInsights on burning policy issues in India— Pranay KotasthaneMany reports of restoration of J&K’s statehood came out this week. In what appeared to be a step towards restoration, the PM and HM met leaders of significant political parties of the J&K Union Territory. And so it appears that a former state in the Indian Union — reduced to a UT a couple of years ago — might soon become a state again, albeit a truncated one, and on terms different from the ones before August 2019. Any issue involving J&K is a Pandora’s Box. So, for a moment, keep the particularities of J&K aside and consider this question: what does the Indian government’s flip-flop story tell us about the nature of federalism in India? Before answering this question, let’s take a detour to our western neighbour. As in many other areas, it teaches us what not to do. The One Unit ProgrammeThe four provinces of Pakistan as we know today didn’t exist between 14th October 1955 and 1 July 1970. These provinces, along with erstwhile princely states, were merged together into a single unit: the One Unit called West Pakistan. The primary reason was to create parity between the eastern and western wings of the country. East Bengal was renamed East Pakistan and the whole of its western wing became West Pakistan. Provincial governments of Sindh, NWFP, Balochistan, and West Punjab were dismissed and these units were relegated to being merely divisions of the province of West Pakistan.The One Unit of West Pakistan (1955–1970). Source: modified from wikimediaIn 1954, the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Bogra, is believed to have expressed this hope:There will be no Bengalis, no Punjabis, no Sindhis, no Pathans, no Balochis, no Bahawalpuris, no Khairpuris. The disappearance of these groups will strengthen the integrity of Pakistan.We know how that turned out.Now, look at this from a federalism angle. Most federations have a centripetal bias meaning that the union is stronger than the states. But if provincial governments can be dismissed with the ease as it was done in Pakistan, can that system even be called a federal one?Perhaps not. I came across a key differentiation between federalism and decentralisation that sheds some light on this question in A Review of Indian Fiscal Federalism by Dr Govinda Rao:A federal system is the one in which the entire set of powers — legislative, fiscal and regulatory — are divided in the Constitution or conventions between different levels of government. There is a measure of permanency in the assignments and in particular, the powers given to lower level governments cannot be extinguished by higher level governments (Breton, 2000). Thus, checks and balances to safeguard the system is an inherent part of the federal system whereas, decentralisation does not necessarily entail that. In other words, all federal systems are decentralized whereas all decentralized systems are not federal. The Constitution and other institutions set up to ensure checks and balances and safeguard the domains of different levels of government are inherent components of a federal system.Seen from this lens, the Pakistani system was decentralised but not federal.What about the Indian system?Article 3 of the Indian constitution permits the Parliament to, by law:(a) form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State;(b) increase the area of any State;(c) diminish the area of any State;(d) alter the boundaries of any State;(e) alter the name of any State;At the same time, the ‘basic structure doctrine’ recognises Federalism as one of the basic and hence unalterable components of the Indian constitution. So, in all likelihood, if the Indian union were to embark on a One-Unit or Four-Units programme of its own, the Supreme Court would come in its way. In other words, the ‘measure of permanency of the Indian federation’ rests on the role of the judiciary.What about the J&K Reorganisation Act?Now, we return to the central question. Does J&K’s conversion into a UT go against the basic structure doctrine? I’m not competent to analyse the legal aspects of this question. As it stands, several cases are pending before the Supreme Court which argue that the act was unconstitutional because it goes against the basic structure doctrine. Even after two years, the Court hasn’t made a decision yet.From a non-legal perspective, it does seem to me that the J&K reorganisation goes against the spirit of federalism. This is perhaps the first time a full-fledged state of the Indian union has been converted into a union territory. This is an important distinction because the powers that J&K enjoyed as a state were in one fell swoop ‘extinguished’ by the Indian government. A notification in Oct 2020 allowing non-residents to own immovable property in the union territory illustrates this point further. This was not allowed under J&K’s pre-independence State Subject Laws. Many border states and regions in India still have such restrictions. Even beyond India, it is not unusual for peripheries of nation-states to be accorded special status, as a quid pro quo for accepting a higher sovereign. The undoing of this arrangement with J&K by a union government rule militates against ‘permanency in assignments of powers’ to lower levels of governments, a key requirement of federal systems.In sum, even if we keep the specifics of J&K aside, India took a step back on the issue of federalism on August 5, 2019. The move towards reversing some of the damage caused is welcome and much-needed. Pakistan should warn us about the costs of sacrificing federalism at the altar of national integration.Other good articles on the One Unit scheme:Formation of One Unit, The NewsFlashback: One Unit: a dark chapter in our history, DawnIndia Policy Watch #3: Phrases that Should Fall into DisuseInsights on burning policy issues in India— Pranay KotasthaneWords have meanings. They indicate the quality of a nation’s policy discourse. With this idea in mind, we are compiling a running list of words and phrases that should disappear from India’s public discourse. Here’s the first instalment.Haves and Have-nots. You would have come across this phrase in many policy discussions. It is easy to present every policy problem as an eternal class struggle between the ‘haves and the have-nots’. And yet, this understanding is misplaced. A speaker at an event I attended a few years ago said that ‘there is no such thing as haves vs have-nots. Instead, there are haves and want-to-haves’. A lightbulb went off in my head.The underlying story behind the haves/have-nots formulation is a zero-sum one. The implicit causality is that the haves have it because the have-nots don’t. The haves are the villains merely because they are successful, rich, or privileged. Structured this way, only one kind of policy recommendation can surface — take things away from the haves and distribute them to the have-nots. The alternate formulation of haves and want-to-haves has a positive sum game at its core. It acknowledges that individuals from both groups are united by the same purpose — to make their lives better off. It doesn’t vilify the haves. The policy recommendations derived from this perspective focus on the ways to increase opportunities for the want-to-haves. A language of confrontation is replaced by a language of competition.Centre/Central GovernmentThe DMK government in Tamil Nadu has raised this issue in recent times. And they are right. ‘Centre’ and ‘Central government’ are terms that are not mentioned even once in the Indian constitution. Not only is it inaccurate to call the union government as the central government, this formulation implicitly assumes that Delhi and the Union government are at the centre while other Indian places and state governments are at the periphery. Given that the Indian constitution explicitly devolves certain powers to states, there is no scope for a government that can claim centrality over the others. This is what well-known constitutional expert Subhash C Kashyap has to say on the matter:“From the point of the usage of the words, 'centre' indicates a point in the middle of a circle, whereas 'Union' is the whole circle. In India, the relationship between the so-called 'Centre' and States, as per the Constitution, is actually a relationship between the whole and its parts. The relation between the whole and its parts is definitely different from the relation between a centre and its periphery”.Population Bomb/Population Explosion.It is a national pastime to blame overpopulation for India’s problems. Maybe, population was a problem in the last decades of the Raj and the early years of the Republic. But those Malthusian concerns have long become irrelevant. India’s total fertility rate has dropped from six in 1950s to near replacement levels of 2.2 in 2020. This decline has happened across religions and regions in India. Note what the Population Foundation of India says:“Religion has little to do with fertility levels. Muslim dominated countries like Indonesia and Bangladesh, have out-performed India in terms of falling birth rates.  Even within India, the fertility rates among Muslims in Kerala is lower than the fertility rates among Hindus in Bihar. States like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Andhra Pradesh have proven that it is not religion that matters.  What has made the difference is education, employment opportunities and accessibility of contraceptives. In neighbouring Sri Lanka, fertility rates were stabilised by simply increasing the age at marriage, a move that was made more effective by ensuring girls were educated.”In fact, we might soon have the problem of a falling working-age population. By 2035, the dependency ratio — the proportion of working-age population to non-working age population — is expected to peak. So, we should get rid of Malthusian notions of overpopulation from our public discourse. Blame undergovernance, not overpopulation, as my colleague Nitin Pai says.HomeWorkReading and listening recommendations on public policy matters[Article] “Don't Give Up on Truth” in the Persuasion: Yascha Mounk and Jonathan Rauch discuss the dangers of disinformation, the limits on robust debate, and why truth is fundamental to preserving democracies around the world. [Article] The Population Foundation of India has a note on Lessons for India as China calls off two-child policy. Again, a case of a neighbour helpfully reminding India of the mistakes it should avoid.[Interview] The News Minute speaks to Subhash Kashyap on the differences between ‘centre’ and ‘union’.[Podcast] On Puliyabaazi, Saurabh and Pranay discuss China’s three-child policy, rising petrol prices in India, and implications of the economic and social disparities between India’s southern and northern states. Get on the email list at publicpolicy.substack.com

On today's podcast we are going to talk to our next guest, Bernard Williams, about his experience developing scaled agile, meaning agile when you want to practice agile on a grander scale then just a single team. This is often the case when there are lots of moving pieces, when one thing is dependent on another, when timing is complex, and you need a birdseye view of all the complexities. Moriah and Bernard met recently at a training session covered SAFe, which stands for Scaled Agile Framework. This is an approach to applying the Agile principles we talk about each week when things get really big. For our listeners who are more interested in personal agile this episode will probably lean a little more toward professional agile. So we'll understand if this isn't your cup of tea. That said, things can get pretty complex in our personal lives so maybe there will be some nuggets for you if you keep listening.

Innovation; Planned/Dynamic Obsolescence; Tuning out Broadcasting Territories; Information Theory; Updating Podcast Format; Entropy; The Why; Imposter Syndrome; Lewis' babysitter; *Bernard Williams; Anti-heroes Tony Soprano / The Mayans; Phoebus Cartel; Free Market /Innovation towards quantum computing; Ping- Pong. Recorded 3-29-21

Morálka sa často chápe ako systém hodnôt, pravidiel a princípov, ktoré, ak sú správne nastavené, nám má pomôcť viesť dobrý život. Samozrejme, morálok existujú rôzne druhy, ale predpoklad je ten, že----more---- ak si vyberieme ako celá spoločnosť tú správnu, potom sa nám bude žiť dobre. A v tomto bode prichádza na scénu britský filozof Bernard Williams a do týchto pokojných vôd nášho morálneho jazierka hádže dosť veľký kameň. O Williamsovi som už hovoril v 99. dávke a v závere ju pripomeniem, ako skvelé pokračovanie ten dnešnej, ktorá bude kritická práve voči morálke: voči morálke ako morálnemu systému. Čo nám Williams ponúka je návod, ako sa morálkou nenechať zotročiť a ako vysvetlím už o chvíľu, sám ju prirovnáva k systému otrokárstva. Prečítajte si túto dávku aj ako článok na SME. Súvisiace dávky:PD#176: Nietzsche o troch premenách, https://bit.ly/davka176PD#163: Mrav, etika a morálka, https://bit.ly/davka163PD#99: Williams o integrite, https://bit.ly/davka99PD#18: Emotivizmus,https://bit.ly/davka18 Použitá a odporúčaná literatúra: Bernard Williams, Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy (1985), London: Fontana.Sophie-Grace Chappell a Nicholas Smyth, “Bernard Williams”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2018), https://stanford.io/2X9imScBernard Williams, Utilitarianism: For and Against(1973), with J.J.C. Smart, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Bryan Magee in conversation with Bernard Williams on Linguistic Philosophy (BBC, 1977), https://bit.ly/2N5I09GBryan Magee in conversation with Bernard Williams on Descartes (BBC, 1987), https://bit.ly/3jtkobjPaul Russell, „Bernard Williams: Ethics from a human point of view“ (2018), TLC, https://bit.ly/2O8ss1AMargaret Shea discusses Bernard Williams' “A Critique of Utilitarianism”, https://bit.ly/2YX6moH ***Staň sa našim patrónom/kou

More on Parfit's Reasons and Persons (1984), ch. 10-13. In this preview, we consider how Parfit deals with Bernard Williams' materialist thought experiment to show that the whole concept of personal identity doesn't make sense. Also, split brains! To hear this second part, you'll need to go sign up at partiallyexaminedlife.com/support. 

In this final part of a two part series on love, I look at a thought experiment by Bernard Williams in which he explores how a Kantian might react when explaining his motivation of why he should save his wife over others in a hypothetical drowning situation. Williams says such an explanation would leave the wife feeling quite cold and unloved. J David Velleman offers a reinterpretation of Kant that allows him to give him a more sweeter, tender explanation to his wife for choosing to save her all the while still fitting tightly into the Kantian framework. Basically, Velleman provides a Kantian construal of love that fits within his rational framework. I think its quite nice. 

Nida-Rümelin vertritt einen moralischen Realismus, der allerdings der Frage nach seinen Möglichkeitsbedingungen ausweicht. Nida-Rümelin weist die “imperialistische Attitüde vieler philosophierender Naturwissenschaftler" zurück, bietet aber als Erklärungsmodell keine Alternative zum Naturalismus an.

In our follow-up to our previous episode on "crisis", Edmund and Benjamin talk about how legitimacy works. They start with the disagreement between Bernard Williams and John Rawls over whether legitimacy is an "internal" or "external" concept. Then they use Benjamin's PhD thesis to delve into the different kinds of legitimation stories states tell.

Release date: 2020-06-14Notes from The Valmy:Source: YouTube (University of California, Berkeley) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szgMiqbR57sRelease date: 2002-10-15

Release date: 2020-06-14Notes from The Valmy:Source: YouTube (University of California, Berkeley) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szgMiqbR57sRelease date: 2002-10-15

Podcast: Philosophy Bites (LS 63 · TOP 0.1% )Episode: Adrian Moore on Bernard Williams on EthicsRelease date: 2013-11-23Bernard Williams was one of the most brilliant philosophers of his generation. In this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast Adrian Moore discusses his ideas about Ethics.  

Podcast: Philosophy Bites Episode: Adrian Moore on Bernard Williams on EthicsRelease date: 2013-11-23Bernard Williams was one of the most brilliant philosophers of his generation. In this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast Adrian Moore discusses his ideas about Ethics.  

Imagine two possible worlds. In the first world, Andrew is driving home from an intimate dinner party with Olly and Jack. He has been enjoying a range of delicious cheeses and wines, despite being the designated driver. With the exception of Andrew’s singing, the drive is uneventful, and the party arrives home, safe and sound. In the second world, the same initial conditions apply. Andrew has enjoyed a plethora of gastronomic delights, and finds himself behind the wheel, singing without reservation. Driving through the familiar country roads, where sadly it has been known for deer to meet the paths of oncoming traffic, Andrew sees an unknown shape ahead. Too slow to react, the car strikes the figure, and Andrew feels the crunch of the object beneath his wheels. The following morning, Andrew switches on Radio 4: ‘Police are requesting any information the public might have relating to a hit and run on Country Road yesterday evening, where a 6-year-old boy unfortunately lost his life. Anybody with information relating to the event, believed to have occurred in the hours in which one could be expected to be travelling home from an intimate dinner party, should contact their local police station immediately’. Andrew realises that it was not a deer he hit with his car, and turns himself in to the police station. For Bernard Williams and Thomas Nagel, this is a classic case of moral luck. In both possible worlds, Andrew’s actions and intentions were the same. In the first, Andrew wakes up and continues with his life. In the second, we expect him to face up to fourteen years in prison. Our question: should we judge Andrew’s moral character any more harshly in the second case than the first - do they not deserve the same punishment? Contents Part I. Bernard Williams Part II. Thomas Nagel Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Thomas Nagel, Moral Luck Bernard Williams, Moral Luck Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Moral Luck Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Moral Luck

Where are the fault lines in the modern liberal project? In this episode of the Governance Podcast, Dr Humeira Iqtidar and Dr Paul Sagar of King's College London tackle this question in a dialogue on Francis Fukuyama's new book, Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment.  Subscribe on iTunes and Spotify Subscribe to the Governance Podcast on iTunes and Spotify today and get all our latest episodes directly in your pocket. Follow Us For more information about our upcoming podcasts and events, follow us on facebook, twitter or instagram (@csgskcl). The Guests Dr Humeira Iqtidar joined King's College London in 2011. She has studied at the University of Cambridge, McGill University in Canada and Quaid-e-Azam University in Pakistan. Before joining King's, Humeira was based at the University of Cambridge as a fellow of King's College and the Centre of South Asian Studies. She is a co-convenor of the London Comparative Political Theory Workshop. Humeira's research explores the shifting demarcations of state, market and society in political imagination, and their relationship with Islamic thought and practice. Her current research focuses on non-liberal conceptions of tolerance. Her research has featured in interviews and articles in The Guardian, BBC World Service, Voice of America, Der Spiegel, Social Science Research Council Online, The Dawn, Express Tribune and Open Democracy.  Dr Paul Sagar is a lecturer in political theory at King's College London. His recent monograph, The Opinion of Mankind: Sociability and the State from Hobbes to Smith, explores Enlightenment accounts of the foundations of modern politics, whilst also addressing contemporary issues regarding how to conceive of the state, and what that means for normative political theory today. He has also published a number of studies on topics such as: the political writings of Bernard Williams, so-called ‘realist' approaches to political philosophy, the nature of liberty under conditions of modernity, and the idea of immortality. Paul is currently in the early stages of two major new projects. The first is a monograph study of Adam Smith's political philosophy as rooted in his conceptions of history and commercial society. The second is an exploration of the idea of the enemy in the history of political thought.  Skip Ahead 0:55: Where do we see this book in Fukuyama's larger oeuvre?  3:39: You can see Hegel's influence more in his previous work, more in terms of a teleological thrust through history, and the metaphysics in Hegel... I really understand to be a kind of battle of ideas. And Fukuyama takes that on, and his argument is more that if we are thinking about ideas that will triumph, then liberal democracy is the best idea. 8:55: I think what Fukuyama wants to say in this Identity book is, the same threats to the last man at the end of history, which is the desire for recognition, will overwhelm contentment with stability. Because even if liberal democracy... would provide all the comforts of life... and solve the economic questions, which we know now that it hasn't... but even back then Fukuyama thought that even if it does that, it will not solve the recognition problem, and if they don't get that recognition, they will break things, they will smash things. 11:14: I actually find the narrative that he tells pretty plausible. The idea that we exist not just with the desire for recognition, but a desire that each of us has an authentic self, an authentic identity, which may be at odds with wider society, and that society itself may be a structural mechanism of oppression.  13:29: His account of the failure of multiculturalism, which... he doesn't actually spell it out in so many words... but he lays the blame on a certain kind of identity politics at the doorstep of the left. What is interesting is... I think there is a problem with thinking of it only as a left failure, partly because the left remains undifferentiated in his thinking. 16:30: I actually think that a huge missing part of the story is... I hate using this term, but the rise of neoliberalism- that what's often labeled as left wing identity politics is much, much more indebted to the intellectual victories of the right. What I mean by that is the rise of the view of the world that everything is about individual choice, every individual is a sovereign consumer who floats through the world unencumbered by structures, making market choices.  19:02: Neoliberalism moves much more strongly towards freedom... or a particular understand of freedom which is entirely unburdened by a relationship to equality... and therefore to the economy and the state. It just becomes this abstract idea.  23:40: If we take out Marx, who does try to bring together ideas and structures in a very kind of comprehensive way, we may disagree with his approach but it's an ambitious one and that's partly why I think he has traction today. But one of the problems we do have in the history of political thought is that the relationship between institutions and ideas is unclear.  29:12: The entire narrative of the enlightenment as some kind of rejection of religion is just deeply deeply implausible... If you take almost all of the major Enlightenment figures, many of them were pious Christians.... the falling of religion in Europe is, if anything, a twentieth century phenomenon.  37:47: There's this culture of Republicans and Democrats, top level politicians, who've perpetrated these wars for decades but of course, their class has not suffered the consequences of any of this. That area of identity, that sense of American betrayal, doesn't seem to get as much of a look in. And again it is very odd to point to America as an example of successful integration when you still have the persistence of these enormous racial divides which cut across the left-right spectrum in all sorts of complex ways. 

Begründer des modernen Kulturrelativismus ist der Ethnologe Franz Boas. Er wollte den Ethnozentrismus und den naiven Fortschrittsglauben der Aufklärer Voltaire, Turgot und Condorcet überwinden. Dabei aber geriet man vom Regen in die Traufe, indem nun der Einsatz für Menschenrechte, etwa für die Abschaffung weiblicher Genitalverstümmelung, als westlicher Kulturimperialismus verunglimpft wird. Beispiele für eine solche Haltung liefern Ethnologen wie Thomas Reinhardt oder Anni Peller.

Máme konať výhradne podľa vlastného presvedčenia alebo by sme sa mali v prvom rade spýtať, či neexistuje nejaký vyšší projekt, ktorého by sme mali byť súčasťou? Britský filozof Bernard Williams (1929-2003) je spoluautorom knihy Utilitarizmus: Pre a Proti (1973), kde utilitarizmus definuje ako konanie podľa cudzieho, externého vyššieho projektu a takýto morálny systém je útokom na našu integritu. Dnes si predstavíme tento Williamsov argument namierený proti utilitaristickej morálke a uvidíme, prečo je to práve ľudské integrita, ktorá by mala byť podľa neho v srdci každého etického zmýšľania.----more----Citovaný úryvok:„Vec je taká, že človek sa identifikuje s tým svojim konaním, ktoré pramení z jeho vlastných plánov a postojov... a na najhlbšej úrovni je to toto konanie, ktoré s úplnou vážnosťou považuje za to, o čom jeho život je. Je absurdné od tohto človeka požadovať, že by sa mal jednoducho vzdať jeho vlastného projektu a rozhodovania a mal by konať podľa rozhodnutia, ktoré od neho vyžaduje utilitaristická kalkulácia. Tá mu predkladá súčty, ktoré pochádzajú zo siete utility a pôžitku, ktorú tvoria projekty iných. Takáto požiadavka konať podľa takto určeného vyššieho utilitaristického projektu tohto človek v reálnom zmysle odcudzuje od jeho skutkov a od zdroja jeho konania, ktorým sú jeho vlastné presvedčenia. Stáva sa tak kanálom medzi vstupnými informáciami zo súčtu projektov všetkých, vrátane jeho vlastného projektu, a medzi výstupom, ktorým má byť nejaká optimálna voľba. Takýto systém ale ignoruje jeden zásadný rozmer jeho konania a to ten, že jeho projekty a jeho rozhodovanie musí byť chápané ako skutky a voľby, ktoré plynú z plánov a postojov, s ktorými sa na najhlbšie úrovni identifikuje. V najdoslovnejšom zmysle slova tu tak ide o útok na jeho integritu.“ Použitá a odporúčaná literatúra:Sophie-Grace Chappell a Nicholas Smyth, "Bernard Williams", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2018), https://stanford.io/2X9imScBernard Williams, Utilitarianism: For and Against (1973), with J.J.C. Smart, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Bernard Williams, Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy (1985), London: Fontana.Paul Russell, „Bernard Williams: Ethics from a human point of view“ (2018), TLC, https://bit.ly/2O8ss1A Súvisiace dávky: PD#04: Utilitarizmus, https://bit.ly/2qR0AHlPD#43: Epikureizmus, https://bit.ly/2q4OjiwPD#93: Objektívna morálka, https://bit.ly/2Kg3s7yPD#95: Subjektívna morálka, https://bit.ly/2rDGeBZ ***Dobré veci potrebujú svoj čas. Pomohla ti táto dávka zamyslieť sa nad niečím zmysluplným? Podpor tvoj obľúbený podcast sumou 1€, 5€ alebo 10€ (trvalý príkaz je topka!) na SK1283605207004206791985. Ďakujeme! Viac info o podpore na pravidelnadavka.sk/#chcem-podporit

In this episode, Jordan, Brian, and Teddy talk about their spring break and the ethics of hedonism and consequentialism. We also have a Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCD1RiH1j-M6C59z1upPXkWw?disable_polymer=true Your support helps me make more videos and podcasts: Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thatsbs _(We have rewards for supporters like bonus episodes & videos) _ Visit our Website: https://thatsbs.fireside.fm/ Share our conversation with a friend (or enemy) and help us get our name out. We record these conversation because we can't think of a more important way to expose bad ideas and promote good ones. Plus we're bored a lot and don't have that many friends. Help us keep doing what we're doing. Contact us --- thatsbspodcast@gmail.com Twitter: @ThatsBSPodcast Above all, Thanks for watching.

Our market is looking great, and we have the numbers to prove it. Here’s what they say.Buying a Louisville home? Get a full Home Search Selling your Louisville home? Get a free Home Value ReportThe latest numbers are in for February’s real estate market, so today we’ll be comparing our 2019 stats with those of 2018. Things are looking good, but let’s put a magnifying glass on the metrics:There were 1,166 homes sold in February 2018 and 1,055 sold in February 2019.The average sales price was $204,500 in February 2018 and $216,500 in February 2019.The average days on market was 69 in February 2018 and 71 in February 2019.There was 2.26 months’ worth of inventory in February 2018 and 2.41 months’ worth in February 2019.There were 3,449 active listings in February 2018 and 3,601 in 2019.As you know, I always love a good quote. With springtime around the corner, I feel like this one fits well:““The day the Lord created hope was probably the same day he created spring.” —Bernard Williams ”If you have any questions or would like more information, feel free to reach out to me. I look forward to hearing from you soon. In the meantime, enjoy the beautiful weather!

In this episode, Jordan, Brian, and Teddy talk about their spring break and the ethics of hedonism and consequentialism. We also have a Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCD1RiH1j-M6C59z1upPXkWw?disable_polymer=true Your support helps me make more videos and podcasts: Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thatsbs _(We have rewards for supporters like bonus episodes & videos) _ Visit our Website: https://thatsbs.fireside.fm/ Share our conversation with a friend (or enemy) and help us get our name out. We record these conversation because we can't think of a more important way to expose bad ideas and promote good ones. Plus we're bored a lot and don't have that many friends. Help us keep doing what we're doing. Contact us --- thatsbspodcast@gmail.com Twitter: @ThatsBSPodcast Above all, Thanks for watching.

For this episode, we’re trying something new. We usually tell the story of a guest. But for this episode, our guest is an expert who is helping us tell a much needed story - a story of the growing concern of a mental health crisis. We are talking about suicide prevention. Bernard Williams is the Coordinator of Suicide Prevention for the Veteran’s Health Administration, and he joined us to help inform us and our listeners about the resources available to us, things we can watch out for with our friends and family, and things we should avoid if we find ourselves talking to someone who has had or is having thoughts of suicide. We need to all be better prepared and able to support those around us who are struggling with mental health issues, and Bernard really helped us with tangible actions we can take. We’ll also share some statistics that will blow your mind. It’s a serious topic, but so important. We hope you find something helpful as you listen.

David and Tamler take a break from complaining about psychological studies that measure utilitarianism to complain about the moral theory itself. We talk about one of the most famous critiques of utilitarian theories from Bernard Williams. Does utilitarianism annihilate our integrity--our unity--as people? Would trying to maximize well-being fracture our identities, and swallow up our projects, motivations, and moral convictions--the same convictions that make utilitarianism seem appealing in the first place? Is it ultimately self-defeating as a moral theory? Plus, we talk about the adventures of Tamler's based step-mom Christina Hoff Sommers' at Lewis and Clark law school. Will David stay woke?

This week we're playing B-Sides and covers as well as a truck load of original discs. We're putting vinyl under the needle to shake out the boss sounds hidden within. Feel it. Please like the Facebook page here: facebook.com/ontargetpodcast/ ------------------------------------------------- The Playlist Is: "Come On Sock It To Me" Syl Johnson - Twilight "Baby Don't You Do It" Alvin Robinson - Atco "Don't Start None" The Mayfield Singers - Mayfield "Karate Boogaloo" The Emperors - Brunswick "Look At Me Now" The Ethics - Vent "Get Ready - Uptight" Little Eva Harris - Spring "Some Other Guy" The Big Three - Decca "Glad All Over" Billy Fury & The Gamblers - London "Never Met A Girl Like You Before" The Kinks - Pye "A Last Minute Miracle" Linda Jones - Warner Brothers "I Got A Feeling" Barbara Randolph - Soul "It's All Over But The Shouting" Gladys Knight & The Pips - Soul "Got To Find A Way" Cajun Hart - Warner Brothers "I've Got To Find Her" The Cavaliers - RCA Victor "Needless To Say" Bernard Williams & The Original Blue Notes - Harthon "Warm City Baby" The Honey Jug - H.I.P. "Yesterday Folks" The Mustard Family - Buddah "Just In Case You Wonder" The Ugly Ducklings - Yorkville "Storm Warning" Lynn Taitt & The Boys - Treasure Isle "Tougher Than Tough" Derrick Morgan - Beverly's "Something Is Worrying Me" Otis Redding - Volt

We find ourselves in a moment of untruth. Our guest, Brad Wendel, talks with us about political and legal truth and their relation to morality and social roles. This show’s links: Brad Wendel's faculty profile (http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/faculty/bio_bradley_wendel.cfm) and writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=247191) W. Bradley Wendel, Truthfulness as an Ethical Form of Life (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3072303) Harry Frankfurt, On Bullshit (http://stoa.org.uk/topics/bullshit/pdf/on-bullshit.pdf) Bernard Williams, Saint-Just's Illusion (https://www.lrb.co.uk/v13/n16/bernard-williams/saint-justs-illusion-interpretation-and-the-powers-of-philosophy) (also here (https://books.google.com/books?id=AHol9VbeLUYC&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135&dq=%22saint-just%27s+illusion%22&source=bl&ots=nFGDaDyVqd&sig=fQzZzCAnV4GBPnyhGYZ35DMopGc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjn1vK-q9XYAhUq2IMKHTNoAG4Q6AEIQzAF#v=onepage)) Kleindienst v. Mandel (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2384957718526063733) Stephen Colbert, The Word: Truthiness (http://www.cc.com/video-clips/63ite2/the-colbert-report-the-word---truthiness) (video from the first episode of the Colbert Report, and it's still unbelievably great) International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2110961142700228731) (4th Circuit en banc) Ninth Circuit's denial of en banc consideration in Washington v. Trump (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7212509001957517972) (containing Judge Bybee's dissent) State Bar of Michigan, Informal Ethics Opinion CI-1164 (http://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions/OpinionID=193) Bernard Williams, Truth and Truthfulness (https://books.google.com/books/about/Truth_Truthfulness.html?id=2iaFFE54fYkC) Cynthia Farina, et al., Rulemaking in 140 Characters or Less: Social Networking and Public Participation in Rulemaking (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1702501) Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12719084930434459940) W. Bradley Wendel, Sally Yates, Ronald Dworkin, and the Best View of the Law (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2927113) Fireside (https://fireside.fm)

Today, as our capacity to prolong life increases, people dispute whether indefinite prolongation could possibly be good. A leading bioethicist, Ezekiel Emanuel (brother of Rahm) has written that we should all want to die at 75! I'll approach this question by drawing on ancient Greek arguments about why immortal life is undesirable -- arguments that I find fatally flawed. I then turn to two more recent philosophers who try to reconcile us to finite and reasonably short mortal lives: "Younger Martha" (i.e. me in 1994), and my teacher Bernard Williams, who wrote about the "tedium of immortality." I find those consolatory arguments flawed too. But a better argument is found in the Roman philosopher Lucretius, and it applies to indefinite prolongation as well as to outright immortality. Martha Nussbaum is the Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics. Presented on April 5, 2016, at the University of Chicago Law School.

Today, as our capacity to prolong life increases, people dispute whether indefinite prolongation could possibly be good. A leading bioethicist, Ezekiel Emanuel (brother of Rahm) has written that we should all want to die at 75! I'll approach this question by drawing on ancient Greek arguments about why immortal life is undesirable -- arguments that I find fatally flawed. I then turn to two more recent philosophers who try to reconcile us to finite and reasonably short mortal lives: "Younger Martha" (i.e. me in 1994), and my teacher Bernard Williams, who wrote about the "tedium of immortality." I find those consolatory arguments flawed too. But a better argument is found in the Roman philosopher Lucretius, and it applies to indefinite prolongation as well as to outright immortality. Martha Nussbaum is the Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics. Presented on April 5, 2016, at the University of Chicago Law School.

In December, the Greater Indianapolis Progress Committee and the Arts Council of Indianapolis unveiled the newest addition to the Indianapolis Cultural Trail: A Legacy of Gene and Marilyn Glick, on the campus of Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI). The installation, aptly entitled "Talking Wall" was concepted and designed by Indiana artist Bernard Williams and invites an open-ended conversation about the African-American history of Indianapolis. Unique to the installation is the viewer interaction. The installation offers the opportunity to both literally and figuratively walk in the shadows of Indianapolis' heroic ancestors and cultural icons. Guests: Bill Shrewsberry, GIPC Board Member and president of local engineering firm Shrewsberry & Associates, and Arts Council President/CEO Dave Lawrence. (Working on artist Bernard Williams).

John Cottingham is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of Reading and an Honorary Fellow of St John's College, Oxford. His main research areas include philosophy of religion, moral philosophy, and early-modern philosophy. He is perhaps best known for his translation and commentary of René Descartes - in particular as co-editor and translator of the three-volume standard Cambridge edition of The Philosophical Writings of Descartes. In our conversation, we talk about his early training in Latin and Greek, his experiences with all aspects of student life at Oxford in the 60s and the seminal figures during those days (in particular Anthony Kenny and Bernard Williams), the differences between philosophy then and now, and his increasing emphasis on the importance of spirituality. 

Is doing the most good for the most people always the right thing to do? The moral theory known as “consequentialism” holds that our decisions should be guided by their outcomes. Utilitarianism is one type of consequentialism, which says that our moral choices should be focused on maximizing happiness or “utility” across the whole of humanity. One way to sum up utilitarianism is to say that “the ends justify the means.” In this episode we take a hard look at the implications of utilitarianism and review the writings of John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham and Bernard Williams. We also ask some tough questions, like, “would you kill one innocent person to save five others?” and “what’s it like to work in a coffee mine?” Find out what happens in the Hospital of Utilitarianism and get some pro tips from famous philosophers on weird stuff to put in your will.

SynTalk thinks about interpretation and understanding of the self & the other, while constantly wondering why & if it is difficult to truly understand another culture. What more do we need besides translation and interpretation? The concepts are derived off / from Aristotle, Homer, Aquinas, Omar Khayyam, Descartes, Akbar, Marx, Wittgenstein, Bakhtin, Gandhi, Edward Said, Huntington, Derrida, Donald Davidson, Fredrik Barth, Stanislaw Lem, Tarkovsky, Janet Abu-Lughod, Bernard Williams, Immanuel Wallerstein, Aitmatov, & S. N. Balagangadhara, among others. Has one culture interpreted and described all others, & are all cultures cognitively understandable? Is a meta theory of cultural understanding possible? Are cultures ‘configurations of learning’, with both teachable and learnable components? Is ‘cultural-difference’ (& not culture or difference) the a priori (somewhat) like space-time, & how does the process of saliencing some domains (such as morality) work? Can pristine nature be scary? The long historical process of nomads gradually moving to cities? How a civilization (with writing, language, technology, & polity) makes its cultures robust? How the way identities are individuated may be very different across cultures, & how some modes of relationality may be inherited? Is it possible for a culture to have a private language? When do people begin to be cultured (links with city-life)? Should we try to break up culture into diverse units to see the robustness in them? The puzzle of the knitted-together-ness (inter-textuality) of descriptions (from priests’ to traders’) completely distinct from each other? How Silk Road (from China to the Mediterranean) is an indication of pre modern globalization? Does a culture need (say) territory, ethnicity, religion, or sovereignty to thrive, and is descent a vital part of any thriving culture? Why are some cultures dominant, and what is the need to bring in other kinds of narratives? The difference between the nation and the ethnie. Why did multiculturalism come up in the 1970s in Australia? The fascinating possible historical (1250-1350 AD) connections between Europe, Middle East and the Far East. Is it commonsensical to think that every culture would have a religion? Why? What then was the religion of the early Greeks or Romans? Is it only through others that we can know ourselves – the internally familiar world, and the need for the other (mirror, border, foreigner). Is monologue death? The links between theory of radical interpretation, 1480 BC, Babylon, brain matter, pottery, shamanism, lion, conquests, cutting wood, marriage, Kannada, slave trade, Nagaland, Sulh-i—kul, & the Asian Renaissance. What would be the nature of the multi-cultural moment if we come in contact with aliens? The deep need for hospitality without thematization. The SynTalkrs are: Prof. Vivek Dhareshwar (philosophy, Srishti Institute of Design, Bangalore), Prof. Rashmi Doraiswamy (international studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi), & Prof. Shereen Ratnagar (archaeology, ex-JNU, Delhi).

As the first talk for the 2014/15 Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, this year’s Presidential Address marks the official inauguration of Professor Adrian Moore, University of Oxford, as the 107th President of the Aristotelian Society. The Society’s President is elected on the basis of lifelong, exemplary work in philosophy. The 107th Presidential Address was chaired by David Papineau (KCL) – 106th President of the Aristotelian Society. Adrian Moore is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford, where he is also a Tutorial Fellow at St Hugh’s College. He was an undergraduate at Cambridge and a graduate at Oxford, where he wrote his doctorate under the supervision of Michael Dummett. He is one of Bernard Williams’ literary executors. His publications include The Infinite; Points of View; Noble in Reason, Infinite in Faculty: Themes and Variations in Kant’s Moral and Religious Philosophy; and, most recently, The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics: Making Sense of Things. This podcast is an audio recording of Professor Moore's address - 'Being, Univocity and Logical Syntax' - at the Aristotelian Society on 6 October 2014. The recording was produced by Backdoor Broadcasting Company.

Bernard Williams was one of the most brilliant philosophers of his generation. In this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast Adrian Moore discusses his ideas about Ethics.  

Professor Gendler opens with a final criticism of Utilitarianism from Bernard Williams: in some cases, a good person should feel reluctant to do an act which brings about the greatest happiness, even if it is the right thing to do. The second half of the lecture introduces Kant’s deontological moral theory. In contrast to consequentialism, deontology holds that it’s not the outcome of actions that matter for their moral valence, but rather the will of the agent performing such actions. The outlines of Kant’s deontological theory are presented, to be continued in the next lecture. Complete course materials are available at the Open Yale Courses website: http://oyc.yale.edu This course was recorded in Spring 2011.

James Grant, Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Oxford, discusses objections to the belief that well-off people have extremely demanding obligations to poor people in other countries. The views of J. L. Mackie, Bernard Williams, Samuel Scheffler, Liam Murphy and Garrett Cullity are considered. He then considers Murphy and Cullity's arguments that well-off people have less demanding obligations to poor people in other countries.

James Grant, Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Oxford, discusses objections to the belief that well-off people have extremely demanding obligations to poor people in other countries. The views of J. L. Mackie, Bernard Williams, Samuel Scheffler, Liam Murphy and Garrett Cullity are considered. He then considers Murphy and Cullity's arguments that well-off people have less demanding obligations to poor people in other countries.

LC and Bread's guest this week is Bernard Williams. If you don't know who he is you need to check out the show. He is behind some of the most famous black movies of all time. He has also written music for some of biggest legendary singers of all time. You will know who he is after this interview. 

Melvyn Bragg considers what it is to be free and how freedom became such a powerful value. Freedom has been a subject of enquiry for philosophers, theologians and politicians who have attempted to define the conditions required for humans to be free, not just in their minds but in the wider world. Some have argued that man is naturally free and no laws should confine his liberty. Others have countered that laws are the only way to preserve freedom; they protect us from the slavery of the abyss. The very idea of freedom is riddled with constraints, limitations and qualifications, yet it is seen by many as the most basic of human rights and for some as a principle worth fighting and dying for. With John Keane, Professor of Politics, University of Westminster; Bernard Williams, Professor of Philosophy, University of California; Annabel Brett, Lecturer in History, University of Cambridge.

Melvyn Bragg considers what it is to be free and how freedom became such a powerful value. Freedom has been a subject of enquiry for philosophers, theologians and politicians who have attempted to define the conditions required for humans to be free, not just in their minds but in the wider world. Some have argued that man is naturally free and no laws should confine his liberty. Others have countered that laws are the only way to preserve freedom; they protect us from the slavery of the abyss. The very idea of freedom is riddled with constraints, limitations and qualifications, yet it is seen by many as the most basic of human rights and for some as a principle worth fighting and dying for. With John Keane, Professor of Politics, University of Westminster; Bernard Williams, Professor of Philosophy, University of California; Annabel Brett, Lecturer in History, University of Cambridge.