Podcast appearances and mentions of Miranda Fricker

Die Diversity Brown Bag Meetings sind eine über mehrere Semester laufende Vortragsreihe, die sich mit unterschiedlichen Aspekten von Diversität, Gleichstellung und Teilhalbe an unserer Fakultät auseinandersetzt. Das Ziel dieser Reihe ist es, für Diskriminierungen sensibel zu werden, Diversity-Kompetenzen auszubauen, auf dem Weg zu inklusiven Strukturen voranzuschreiten und für unsere Fakultät eine dezentrale Diversity-Strategie zu entwickeln. Im TheoPodcast werden die fachlichen Inputs der Diversity Brown Bag Meetings publiziert. Frau Professorin Ute Leimgruber (Universität Regensburg) gestaltete das zweite Diversity Brown Bag Meeting zum Thema „Diversität und epistemische Ungerechtigkeit“ am 29. November 2024. Ausgehend von dem Werk „Epistemic Injustice“ von Miranda Fricker erklärte sie die Bedeutung von epistemischer Ungerechtigkeit und differenzierte hierbei zwischen Zeugnisungerechtigkeit und Hermeneutischer Ungerechtigkeit. Zeugnisungerechtigkeit beschreibt dabei, dass eine Person nicht als Wissenssubjekt ernst genommen wird. Hermeneutische Ungerechtigkeit bezieht sich auf die Form des Wissens, welche nicht ernst genommen wird. Diese komplexen Begriffe wurden durch viele anschauliche Beispiele greifbar und verständlich gemacht, wie beispielsweise Zeitungsberichterstattungen, und schließlich durch Fakultätsmitglieder auf das Leben und Arbeiten sowie den Kontext unserer Fakultät angewandt. Die Veranstaltungsreihe Diversity Brown Bag Meetings, die von der Kommission für Gleichstellung und Diversity der Fakultät vorbereitet werden, wurde mit dem Diversity-Preis 2024 der Universität Münster ausgezeichnet. Folge direkt herunterladen

Hello Interactors,In 2002, when I was at Microsoft, Bill Gates launched an initiative called Trustworthy Computing (TwC). The internet was fresh, ripe for malicious attacks, and Microsoft was a big target. Memos were issued, posters were printed, teams were formed, and code was fortified. And in the case of hidden Easter Eggs in Windows and Office — removed. Internal hacks weren't a good look.Trust is everywhere these days — politicians vow to restore it, social scientists try to measure it, and brands continue to demand it. U.S. money says to trust God, and it seems we're now asked to trust Musk. Clearly trust isn't universal; it's shaped by our views of and interactions with power, place, and institutions.Lately, trust feels harder to hold onto. It's not just social media, politics, or government failures — the spaces where trust once thrived are disappearing. Town squares, shops, and local newspapers are vanishing, replaced by fragmented digital alternatives. Trust may be declining; but it's mostly shifting, and not always for the better.Trust won't simply "return" with a memo from Bill. Nor from Trump, Zuck, Musk, or Jeff. Even if they did, they'd likely soon be tossed in the Trumpster Fire. These figures make us question who is gaining trust, who is losing it, and what these new patterns mean for democracy and social cohesion?SELF-TRUST LOST TO CIVIC COSTTrust begins with confidence in what we know and perceive. We rely on self-trust to navigate the world — to make decisions, assess risks, and interpret so-called reality. Self-trust relies on the brain's ability to process uncertainty and predict outcomes. The prefrontal cortex (the brain's decision-making hub) assesses risks based on past experiences, while the anterior cingulate cortex (a small but crucial center between hemispheres) detects conflicting information, signaling when to doubt or adjust beliefs. When these systems function well, self-trust remains stable. But in an era of conflicting information, the brain is flooded with competing signals, making it harder to form confident judgments. Chronic exposure to uncertainty and misinformation can overstimulate these networks, leading to decision paralysis or over-reliance on external authorities.Yet self-trust isn't just a cognitive process — it is also shaped by social and epistemic (knowledge-related) factors. Prominent NYU philosopher Miranda Fricker, known for her work on epistemic injustice, argues that trust in one's own knowledge isn't formed in isolation but depends on social reinforcement and being recognized by others as a credible source of knowledge. When individuals experience repeated epistemic injustice — being dismissed, ignored, or denied access to authoritative knowledge — they internalize doubt, weakening their own cognitive autonomy. Without reliable social validation or consistent feedback from their surroundings, self-trust erodes. This is not just a psychological state, but a consequence of power structures that shape who gets to "trust" their own judgment and whose knowledge is devalued.In the past, people validated their understanding through direct experience and social reinforcement. I remember watching TV anchor Walter Cronkite as a kid with my family in Iowa. He was the source of authoritative knowledge for us all. We also learned from trusted local voices and community newspapers. The Des Moines Register was won of the most influential and trusted regional papers in the country. It won 16 Pulitzer Prices from 1924 to 2010 — the first being for the work of syndicated editorial cartoonist “Ding” Darling. Now, those anchors have weakened. These knowledge sources have been replaced by curated digital landscapes, where information is sorted not by credibility, but by engagement metrics and algorithmic amplification. One case study shows that this shift can lead to a growing public reliance on self-reinforcing information bubbles, where trust in knowledge is shaped more by network effects than by institutional credibility. This creates a paradox: people have more access to knowledge than ever before yet feel less certain in what they know and trust.This crisis of self-trust extends beyond information. It is not just about struggling to determine what is true, but also about uncertainty over how to act in response to a changing political and social landscape. Despite declining trust in political leaders, there is evidence public support for democracy remains strong. We may doubt the players, and even the game, but our faith in democracy mostly stays the same.This gap — between distrust in leadership and belief in the system — creates the sense of civic uncertainty we all feel. It's not hard to find those who once trusted their ability to participate meaningfully in democracy but now feel disengaged, disoriented, or discombobulated. They're unsure whether their actions can have any real impact. Voting, town halls, and community groups used to feel like meaningful ways to engage, but when institutions seem distant or unresponsive, they lose their impact. At the same time, digital activism and decentralized movements offer new ways to get involved, but they often lack clear legitimacy, accountability, or real influence on policy.Rising polarization, disinformation, and the decline of local journalism have made it harder for people to trust democratic institutions. Many still believe in democracy but doubt whether their actions make a difference. This uncertainty fuels disengagement, creating a cycle where institutions fail to respond, deepening distrust. The real crisis isn't about rejecting democracy — it's about struggling to find meaningful ways to participate in a system that feels increasingly unresponsive.STRANGERS ONLINE, NEIGHBORS OFFLINEIf trust in ourselves grounds what we know, trust in others helps it grow. We nurture it through everyday interactions — recognizing familiar faces, exchanging small favors, and feeling a shared connection to the places we live. But as communities change and people become more disconnected, those trust-building moments start to wither.Many neighborhoods once relied on deep social networks woven through personal relationships — longstanding ties between neighbors, trust built through shared spaces, and informal support systems that provided stability. Small businesses, community centers, and local institutions weren't just places of commerce or service; they were gathering spots where people formed relationships, exchanged information, and reinforced a sense of belonging. But economic restructuring, gentrification, and urban development have disrupted these networks, dismantling the infrastructure that once sustained social trust.As housing costs rise, longtime residents are pushed out, taking with them the relationships and shared history that held communities together. Gentrification swaps deep local ties for a more transient crowd, while big corporations replace small businesses that once fostered real connections. Where shop owners knew customers by name, now it's all about quick transactions, leaving fewer chances for meaningful interaction.Adding to this shift, the rise of online shopping and door-to-door delivery has further reduced the need for everyday in-person interactions. Where people once ran into neighbors at the local grocery store or chatted with shop owners, now packages arrive with a quick doorstep drop-off, and errands are handled with a few clicks. This convenience comes at a cost, replacing casual, trust-building encounters with isolated transactions, further weakening the social fabric of neighborhoods.Car dependency doesn't help. Car dependence doesn't just reduce social interactions — it reshapes them. As urban sprawl spreads people further apart, longer commutes and car-centric infrastructure leave less time for community engagement, weakening neighborhood ties. Public transit, one of the few remaining shared civic spaces where people of different backgrounds interact, has been deprioritized, reinforcing isolation.Yet, denser urban living isn't necessarily the fix. While some advocate for more compact, walkable communities to counteract social fragmentation, there is research that shows density alone doesn't guarantee stronger social bonds. High-rise developments and mixed-use neighborhoods may put people physically closer together, but without intentional social infrastructure — such as well-designed public spaces, accessible community hubs, and policies that foster local engagement — denser environments can be just as isolating as car-dependent sprawl.At the same time, digital life has transformed how we interact. Social media and online communities have expanded the scope of connection, but often at the cost of place-based relationships. Online, people tend to engage with those who already share their views, reinforcing ideological silos rather than broadening social trust. Meanwhile, interactions with strangers — once the foundation of civic life — become more fraught, as society sorts itself into parallel realities with fewer common reference points.Yet social trust is not entirely collapsing. While some forms of trust — particularly trust in strangers and diverse social networks — are declining, alternative forms of community trust are emerging. Digital spaces, local activism, and mutual aid networks offer new avenues for rebuilding trust, even as traditional community bonds weaken. The question is not whether trust exists, but what kinds of trust are flourishing, and at what cost?CONNECTED OR CONNEDAt the broadest scale, institutional trust is what binds societies together — it's the belief that governments, media, and public institutions operate with some level of fairness, competence, and accountability. But in many places, that trust has been unraveling for decades.This isn't just about political polarization or disinformation. Much of the erosion of trust in institutions comes from lived experience. Local governments used to be the most trusted level of governance, but years of budget cuts and privatization have left them struggling to provide basic services. To stay afloat, many cities have outsourced essential services to private companies, prioritizing short-term cost savings over long-term community needs. As a result, public services have become more uneven, with some neighborhoods getting what they need while others are left behind. Instead of feeling like a reliable support system, local government now often seems distant, underfunded, and unable to truly serve the people who rely on it most.In the United States, "austerity urbanism" has led to mass school closures in cities like Chicago and Philadelphia, cuts to public transportation in Detroit, and the deterioration of water infrastructure in places like Flint and Jackson. Public housing budgets have shrunk, forcing cities to rely on private-public partnerships that often lead to rising rents and displacement.Rather than being experienced as sources of support, local governments are increasingly perceived as punitive forces. In some cities, emergency financial managers — appointed to balance municipal budgets — have slashed services and sold public assets with little public input, reinforcing a sense that government is distant, unaccountable, and incapable of serving its residents. The result is a feedback loop of distrust: as public services decline, citizens disengage, reinforcing the very conditions that make institutions seem ineffective or absent.The decline of trust in representative institutions does not mean trust in governance itself has collapsed. Research shows that while trust in elected officials and legislatures is declining, trust in implementing institutions — such as courts, police, and civil services — has remained relatively stable in many democracies. This suggests that while citizens may distrust politicians and their decision-making, they still believe in the structural functions of governance itself, even if that trust is increasingly conditional and unevenly distributed.However, as local trust declines, people are looking elsewhere for authority. In some cases, this has meant turning to charismatic leaders who position themselves as restorers of stability in response to perceived governmental dysfunction. Right-wing populist movements like Trumpism — with authoritarian-leaning politicians funded by libertarian-leaning capitalists — have capitalized on this distrust, framing themselves as defenders of "the people" against an out-of-touch political elite.Meanwhile, others have sought alternative governance structures to fill the void left by failing institutions. For example, food policy expert Katie Morris highlights how some cities, fed up with national inaction on food insecurity, are taking matters into their own hands. She highlights how “Right to Food Cities” are stepping up to provide food assistance and support local food systems, proving that even when higher levels of government fall short, local action can still make a difference. Seattle's Food Action Plan is one example.While these efforts demonstrate local governments' ability to function as alternative governance models, they also highlight the fragmentation of trust — where some communities invest in grassroots action while others retreat into authoritarian appeals for order.It seems trust isn't disappearing — it's being redistributed. Some find security in bureaucratic institutions like the courts and civil service, while others seek top-down leadership in populist figures or create community-driven governance alternatives. Either way, this redistribution deepens political fragmentation, making it harder to achieve widespread institutional legitimacy.Each of these crises — self-trust, social trust, and institutional trust — feeds into the others. When people struggle to trust their own judgment, they become more hesitant to engage with their communities. When social networks weaken, people feel more isolated and disconnected from larger institutions. And when institutions fail, people turn inward, relying on personal networks or ideological affiliations over collective governance.But just as these crises reinforce each other, so too can their solutions. Restoring trust isn't about recreating an idealized past — it's about understanding how different visions of community shape trust today. Many people look to historical models of social cohesion, whether rooted in low-density suburban stability of the 1950s or high-density, transit-oriented neighborhoods of the late 1800s, as templates for rebuilding trust. These views, rooted in social capital theory — the idea that strong community ties build trust and cooperation — recognize that our surroundings shape how we connect. While social capital can foster civic engagement, it also has a darker side.Political analyst Adam Fefer, who studies democratic resilience, highlights how tight-knit networks have fueled anti-democratic movements in the U.S., spreading misinformation rather than broadening trust. The January 6th attack wasn't spontaneous — it was driven by organized groups leveraging veteran organizations and faith communities to mobilize action. Historically, exclusionary civic groups have also reinforced segregation and voter suppression, showing that not all social capital strengthens democracy.However, these same civic networks can protect democracy, as seen in union-led economic shutdowns and business leaders opposing political extremism. This highlights a crucial fact: the impact of social capital on civic well-being varies based on its structure, who it empowers, and its intended purposes.Rather than looking backward, we need to build trust in ways that fit today's world—both digital and physical. That means strengthening local knowledge networks, rethinking where and how we connect, and recognizing that much of life now happens online, from social interactions to doorstep deliveries. While shared public spaces still matter, we must also find ways to foster trust in a world where community, commerce, and governance are increasingly digital.And it means rethinking governance, not as a distant authority, but as something more active and responsive—an ongoing process that truly gives people a stake in shaping their communities. Perhaps the real challenge isn't in longing for a past version of civic life, but in asking how we can create the conditions today that make people feel connected, capable, and truly invested in the future of their neighborhoods. How do we build a world where trust isn't just a distant trace, but a tangible part of our daily interactions with people and place? This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit interplace.io

Send us a text**Below is AI generated**Is solidarity in healthcare a double-edged sword? That's the intriguing question we explore with our returning guest, Pete West-Oram. In this episode, we dissect how solidarity can both unite and divide, especially when misinformation—what Pete candidly refers to as "bullshit"—pervades public discourse. With a focus on healthcare ethics, we discuss the destabilizing power of dishonest communication and its impact on societal issues like the genocide in Gaza, where language is often wielded to distort reality.The conversation broadens to consider global solidarity in times of geopolitical conflict, spotlighting the contrasting international reactions to the Russian invasion of Ukraine versus the ongoing situation in Palestine. We question the biases in media narratives and political responses, illustrating how they can obscure true solidarity efforts. Despite media noise and leadership failures, Pete and I champion the grassroots movements and community solidarity that emerged during crises like COVID-19, urging for more substantial support from authorities to sustain these efforts.We then turn to the essential role of transparent communication in healthcare, drawing insights from Harry Frankfurt's "On Bullshit." With emphasis on the importance of clarity, we consider how misinformation and epistemic injustices, as discussed by Miranda Fricker, can lead to issues like vaccine hesitancy. By highlighting examples such as the UK's NHS and the impactful work of the Patient Information Forum, we stress the necessity of accessible health information. Whether it's through multilingual resources or straightforward language, the goal is to empower individuals with the knowledge needed to make informed health decisions, fostering trust and combating confusion.Undisciplinary - a podcast that talks across the boundaries of history, ethics, and the politics of health. Follow us on Twitter @undisciplinary_ or email questions for "mailbag episodes" undisciplinarypod@gmail.com

Neues Special! Wir sprechen über das bahnbrechende Buch “Epistemische Ungerechtigkeit” von Miranda Fricker, das 2008 in den USA erschienen ist und erst in diesem Jahr auf Deutsch rausgekommen ist. Im Buch argumentiert Fricker, dass es bestimmte Ungerechtigkeiten gibt, die unsere Gesellschaft durchwirken, die damit zu tun haben, wie Wissen produziert wird. Die erste Ungerechtigkeit nennt sie “Zeugnisungerechtigkeit” und sie liegt dann vor, wenn eine Person nicht als vertrauenswürdige Sprecherin angesehen wird, weil sie eine bestimmte Identität hat. Das kann schlimme Folgen haben. In “To Kill a Mockingbird” wird ein Schwarzer Mann zum Tode verurteilt, weil die weiße Jury ihm nicht glaubt, in “Der talentierte Mr. Ripley” wird ein Mord nicht aufgeklärt, weil einer Frau nicht geglaubt wird, die eine (sich später als Wahrheit herausstellende) Vermutung äußert. Die zweite Ungerechtigkeit nennt Fricker “hermeneutische Ungerechtigkeit” und sie liegt dann vor, wenn Betroffene selbst Schwierigkeiten haben Ungerechtigkeiten festzustellen und zu artikulieren, weil es noch keinen Begriff für sie gibt. So sind zum Beispiel “sexuelle Belästigung” oder “Stalking” Missstände, die heute klarer von der Allgemeinheit als Unrecht gesehen werden, weil es diese Begriffe gibt, die erst entwickelt werden mussten. Was Fricker philosophisch mit dieser Unterscheidung will und welche Chancen aber auch Probleme wir darin sehen, besprechen wir in dieser Folge. Das ist aber nur der Teaser, wenn ihr die ganzen zwei Stunden hören wollt, dann unterstüzt uns auf steadyhq.com/geister. Dann bekommt ihr jeden Monat ein Special und könnte unserem Discord-Server beitreten, auf dem wir die Texte vorher diskutieren.

Rinnakkaispodimme LUE VÄHÄ! on taas lukenut vähän. Vade ja Joonas jatkavat filosofisia seikkailujaan demokratian ja epistemologian korpimailla. Käsittelyssä tällä erää Fabienne Peterin artikkeli "The epistemic circumstances of democracy" ja paletti ns. perustavia kysymyksiä. Onko demokratia paras tapa tehdä yhteisiä päätöksiä? Mitä tarkoitetaan parhaalla mahdollisella päätöksellä? Mitä on yhteinen hyvä? Ja mihin ihmeeseen demokratiaa tarvitaan jos meillä on asiantuntijoita? Jakson kirjallisuus: Arendt, Hannah (2005). Truth and Politics. José Medina & David Wood (toim.), Truth. Blackwell, 295–314. Brady, Michael & Miranda Fricker (2016). The Epistemic Life of Groups: Essays in the Epistemology of Collectives. Oxford University Press UK. Elliott, Kevin J. (2023). Democracy for Busy People. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226826318.001.0001. DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226826318.001.0001. Fricker, Miranda (2007). Epistemic Injustice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Herzog, Lisa (2023). Citizen knowledge: markets, experts, and the infrastructure of democracy. 1. painos. New York: Oxford University Press. Peter, Fabienne (2016). The epistemic circumstances of democracy. Michael Brady & Miranda Fricker (toim.), The Epistemic Life of Groups: Essays in the Epistemology of Collectives. Oxford University Press UK. Platon (1999). Teokset. Neljäs osa, Valtio.

2:00 They reflect on the notion of free speech in their personal life, noting that as Americans, they feel relatively unrestricted in their ability to express themselves. While they believe in the importance of free speech, they emphasize the need for understanding the potential repercussions of one's words.5:00 They highlight the issue of entitlement regarding free speech, particularly noting that disenfranchised communities and working-class individuals, especially people of color, often understand the consequences of their speech.7:00 They discuss John Stuart Mill's perspective on free speech, highlighting its virtues as outlined in Professor Schaun-Kirk's book. Alex questions whether these virtues of free speech remain intact when negative consequences, whether legal or social, are imposed on individuals expressing their opinions.10:00 They discuss how anti-capitalist sentiments may face legal repercussions, citing historical examples like the Red Scare. While acknowledging the potential harm of hate speech, they differentiate between harmful speech aimed at individuals and discourse challenging societal systems.12:00 They the permanence of statements made on the internet, using Kanye West as an example of someone whose controversial remarks, particularly those deemed anti-Semitic, have lasting consequences on his reputation.15:00 They discuss the complexities of social consequences resulting from freedom of speech, particularly in political discourse. While acknowledging the straightforward cases where individuals may choose to leave relationships due to racist beliefs or behavior, they express interest in instances where political disagreements lead to exclusion or shunning.18:00 They discuss the disparity between individuals' abilities to express themselves freely based on their social context. They suggest that while legal consequences for hate speech may be minimal, social repercussions can be significant, raising questions about the balance between allowing free expression and preventing harm caused by bullying or hate speech.22:00 They discuss the limitations of physical spaces for exchanging ideas, noting that public places like libraries often have restrictions. Also, they emphasize how individuals' exposure to different viewpoints online is influenced by algorithms, leading to a skewed understanding of free speech.26:00 Alex introduces philosopher Miranda Fricker's concept of epistemic injustice, which focuses on instances where injustices occur in how individuals are perceived as credible knowers or sources of knowledge. They explain that biases, whether conscious or unconscious, can lead people to view others as not credible sources of information based on their opposing viewpoints.30:00 They discuss the impact of social media and the internet on the dynamics of free speech, particularly among younger people. They highlight the potential limitations of free speech in online environments, questioning whether it fosters the same virtues as face-to-face conversations.33:00 They express concern about the divisive nature of American society, where individuals are often pitted against each other rather than working together to solve common problems. They advocate for a shift in societal mindset towards collaboration and problem-solving as a team, rather than viewing others as adversaries.Support the Show.Twitter: @talkpopc Instagram: @talkpopc

Wie kann ich mir sicher sein? Wem soll ich glauben, wenn verschiedene Positionen vertreten werden? Wie kann ich Ideen und Quellen kritisch prüfen, um sicherer zu werden? Und wie gehe ich mit den trotzdem verbleibenden Unsicherheiten am besten um? Gemeinsam mit Ronja gehen wir diesen Fragen nach. weitergedacht Unsere Tipps für alle, die sich weiter mit dem Thema beschäftigen möchten: Zu Wahrheit und anderen Grundbegriffen empfehlen wir “Die Wahrheit über Wahrheit” mit Philipp Hübl (Video-Aufzeichnung der Veranstaltung #whatthefact),  “Gibt es die eine Wahrheit?” mit Lorraine Daston und Ilija Trojanow (Video, Sternstunde Philosophie) sowie “Was ist Wahrheit?” (Podcast, Philosophie to go). Um das Thema Fehlbarkeit geht es auch in “Warum wir uns nie sicher sein können” mit Geert Keil (Podcast, Sein und Streit) und in “Kritisches Denken” mit Jonas Pfister (Kritisches Denken-Podcast). Zu Diskussionskultur und intellektuellen Tugenden empfehlen wir “Meinung ist kein Virus” mit Romy Jaster (Artikel, ALBERT. Das Journal der Einstein Stiftung Berlin), “Mit Bescheidenheit zu guten Entscheiden” mit Jonas Wittwer (Reatch Podcast) sowie zwei Videos der Sendung “Sternstunde Philosophie”: ”Wir müssen reden” mit Laura de Weck und Romy Jaster sowie “Wissen und Macht” mit Miranda Fricker, u.a. zu epistemischer Gerechtigkeit. Zu all diesen Themen gibt es auch einige tolle TED-Talks (englische Videos mit deutschen Untertiteln): “How to see past your own perspective and find truth” von Michael Lynch, “What to trust in a "post-truth" world” von Alex Edmans und “How to disagree productively and find common ground” von Julia Dhar.  Auf PhilPublica gibt es noch viele weitere Quellen zu allen genannten Themen, zum Beispiel zu Kritischem Denken und zu Fehlbarkeit sowie hier und hier zu intellektuellen Tugenden, zu epistemischer Gerechtigkeit, intellektueller Redlichkeit und Rechthaberei. Gut zugängliche Einführungsbücher für alle, die ein wenig mehr lesen möchten, sind “Kritisches Denken” und “Werkzeuge des Philosophierens” von Jonas Pfister (Reclam 2020 und 2013) sowie “Die Wahrheit schafft sich ab. Wie Fake News Politik machen” von Romy Jaster und David Lanius (Reclam 2019).

Das Buch „Epistemische Ungerechtigkeit“ von Miranda Fricker handelt von den unterschiedlichen Arten, wie wir – als sozial situierte Menschen – uns gegenseitig Wissen vermitteln, und welche Ungerechtigkeiten damit einhergehen können. Der erste ihrer zwei zentralen Begriffe ist die Zeugnisungerechtigkeit, die immer dann auftritt, wenn man jemandem nicht glaubt, weil man gegenüber dieser Person ein identitätsbezogenes Vorurteil hegt. Mit hermeneutischer Ungerechtigkeit beschreibt Fricker die Ungerechtigkeit, die dazu führt, dass eine Person ihre soziale Umwelt nicht adäquat beschreiben und deuten kann, weil ihr die kollektiv geteilten Begriffe dazu fehlen.

Sprache ist mächtig: Sie prägt unsere Wahrnehmung, zementiert Machtverhältnisse und kann Beziehungen verändern. So kann eine Entschuldigung eine Freundschaft retten. Miranda Fricker hat Bahnbrechendes zur Frage, wie Sprache und Wissen die Welt verändern, beigetragen. Dass Wissen und Macht einander beeinflussen und durchdringen, ist keine neue Einsicht. Die Philosophie hat aber lange gebraucht, um die ethischen Konsequenzen dieser Einsicht zu verstehen. Miranda Frickers Buch «Epistemische Ungerechtigkeit. Macht und die Ethik des Wissens» hat 2007 für Furore gesorgt. Die einflussreiche Philosophin, Professorin an der New York University, zeigt darin auf, dass man über ein Sprachrepertoire verfügen muss, um gewisse Missstände überhaupt erst anprangern zu können. Solange etwa «Stalking» als Begriff nicht existierte, gelang es den Opfern nicht, deutlich zu machen, was sie bedroht. Dabei hängt es nicht zuletzt davon ab, wer spricht, ob man ihm oder ihr Glauben schenkt: So würde man einer randständigen Person in schmutzigen Kleidern kaum glauben, wenn sie erzählt, sie sei bestohlen worden. Stereotypen und Vorurteile tragen so zu Missständen bei, die man erst erkennt, wenn man genau über Sprache, Wissen und Macht nachdenkt. Worte sind aber auch mächtig, wenn es darum geht, Missstände wieder zu beheben. Ein Dank oder eine Entschuldigung zur rechten Zeit können alles verändern. Barbara Bleisch trifft eine der faszinierendsten Philosophinnen unserer Zeit zum Gespräch.

Sprache ist mächtig: Sie prägt unsere Wahrnehmung, zementiert Machtverhältnisse und kann Beziehungen verändern. So kann eine Entschuldigung eine Freundschaft retten. Miranda Fricker hat Bahnbrechendes zur Frage, wie Sprache und Wissen die Welt verändern, beigetragen. Dass Wissen und Macht einander beeinflussen und durchdringen, ist keine neue Einsicht. Die Philosophie hat aber lange gebraucht, um die ethischen Konsequenzen dieser Einsicht zu verstehen. Miranda Frickers Buch «Epistemische Ungerechtigkeit. Macht und die Ethik des Wissens» hat 2007 für Furore gesorgt. Die einflussreiche Philosophin, Professorin an der New York University, zeigt darin auf, dass man über ein Sprachrepertoire verfügen muss, um gewisse Missstände überhaupt erst anprangern zu können. Solange etwa «Stalking» als Begriff nicht existierte, gelang es den Opfern nicht, deutlich zu machen, was sie bedroht. Dabei hängt es nicht zuletzt davon ab, wer spricht, ob man ihm oder ihr Glauben schenkt: So würde man einer randständigen Person in schmutzigen Kleidern kaum glauben, wenn sie erzählt, sie sei bestohlen worden. Stereotypen und Vorurteile tragen so zu Missständen bei, die man erst erkennt, wenn man genau über Sprache, Wissen und Macht nachdenkt. Worte sind aber auch mächtig, wenn es darum geht, Missstände wieder zu beheben. Ein Dank oder eine Entschuldigung zur rechten Zeit können alles verändern. Barbara Bleisch trifft eine der faszinierendsten Philosophinnen unserer Zeit zum Gespräch.

In this episode, Emma's new project is overviewed. In the realm of epistemology, Emma is interested in ensuring that theories of testimony and epistemic justice include provisions for individuals with disabilities. This project in particular argues that to remedy epistemic injustice (as defined by Miranda Fricker), a specific dimension of the virtue of testimonial justice must be established —that which includes an understanding and application of the Extended Mind Thesis.

In this episode, Emma's new project is overviewed. In the realm of epistemology, Emma is interested in ensuring that theories of testimony and epistemic justice include provisions for individuals with disabilities. This project in particular argues that to remedy epistemic injustice (as defined by Miranda Fricker), a specific dimension of the virtue of testimonial justice must be established —that which includes an understanding and application of the Extended Mind Thesis.

In the 1970s, Sandra Bundy was working hard at her job at the Department of Corrections in Washington DC. She loved her job, but just turning up to work was becoming unbearable. Sandra's male supervisors kept propositioning her for sex, asking her out on dates and making inappropriate comments. When she reported the problem to her boss's boss, he tried to proposition her too. As the situation escalated, the language of sexual violence was used. Sandra knew what she was experiencing was wrong, but she didn't have the words to describe what she was going through, let alone try and seek justice. In this episode of Sideways, Matthew Syed delves into the history of the anti-sexual harassment movement in the US in the 1970s to understand how finding the right words can help us tackle big wrongs. He'll discover how culture, politics and the law intersect to bring about new ideas, and how these ideas filter down into our everyday understanding of the world. With Sandra Bundy, philosopher Miranda Fricker, social historian Linda Hirshman, lawyer Arthur Chotin and anthropologist Alex Bentley. Presenter: Matthew Syed Producers: Nadia Mehdi & Pippa Smith Series Editor: Katherine Godfrey Sound Design and Mix: Rob Speight Special thanks to: Luke Mullins and Ellen Rolfes Theme music by Ioana Selaru A Novel production for BBC Radio 4

In this episode, the role of testimony in social epistemology is discussed. It is argued that testimony is necessary for the progression of knowledge. The podcast includes mention of Miranda Fricker, Elizabeth Fricker, and Edward Craig.

Ian and Dieter talk with Prof Miranda Fricker and Prof Havi Carel about epistemic injustice, harms in health contexts, and the connections that philosophical thinking has with literature and art. Miranda Fricker is Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at The Graduate Center, CUNY. Her research is primarily in Ethics and Social Epistemology with a special interest in virtue and feminist perspectives. She is the author of Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing (2007); co-author and editor of Reading Ethics: Selected texts with interactive commentary (2009); and co-editor of a number of collections, the most recent of which is The Routledge Handbook of Social Epistemology (2019). She was Director of the Mind Association from 2010-2015; Assistant Editor of the Journal of the APA from 2014-2020; and since 2015 has served as Moral Philosopher on the Spoliation Advisory Panel, a UK government-appointed body of expert advisers that considers claims concerning loss of cultural property during the Nazi era. She is an Honorary Professor in the Department of Philosophy, University of Sheffield, a Fellow of the British Academy, and a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. This year she was elected President of the American Philosophical Association (Eastern Division) 2022-23. Havi Carel is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Bristol, where she also teaches medical students. In 2020 she completed a Wellcome Trust Senior Investigator Award, leading a five-year project, the Life of Breath. She was awarded the Health Humanities' Inspiration Award 2018 for her work on the project. Havi won the IJPS 2021 PERITIA Prize for her paper ‘When Institutional Opacity Meets Individual Vulnerability: Institutional Testimonial Injustice' (co-authored with Ian Kidd), published in International Journal of Philosophical Studies. Her third monograph was published by Oxford University Press in 2016, entitled Phenomenology of Illness. Havi was voted by students as a ‘Best of Bristol' lecturer in 2016. Havi is the author of Illness (2008, 2013, 2018), shortlisted for the Wellcome Trust Book Prize, and of Life and Death in Freud and Heidegger (2006). She is the co-editor of Health, Illness and Disease (2012) and of What Philosophy Is (2004). She uses film in teaching and has co-edited a volume entitled New Takes in Film-Philosophy (2010). She also co-edited a special issue of Philosophy on ‘Human Experience and Nature' (2013). She previously published on the embodied experience of illness, epistemic injustice in healthcare, vulnerability, wellbeing within illness, transformative experience, death, and on the experience of respiratory illness in the Lancet, BMJ, Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, Journal of Medical Ethics, Journal of Applied Philosophy, and in edited collections.

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.

Cette semaine, l'équipe de Quoi de Meuf vous propose de réécouter cet épisode important de notre saison précédente, qui démêle la place qu'occupe l'intersectionnalité dans nos sociétés contemporaines. Bonne écoute ! L'intersectionnalité est un terme qu'on entend beaucoup, mais que signifie-t-il? Quelle grille de lecture peut-il fournir? A qui l'applique t-on? Dans un pays où la notion de race n'existerait pas, quelle place occupe l'intersectionnalité dans les mouvements féministes aujourd'hui?C'est ce que démêlent Clémentine et Kaoutar dans ce épisode long de Quoi de Meuf.Références entendues dans l'épisode :Kimberlé Crenshaw, « Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sexe: A black Feminist Critique of AntidiscriminationEléonore Lépinard, Sarah Mazouz, « Cartographie du surplomb », mouvement.info (2019)Elsa Dorlin (dir.), Black feminism. Anthologie du féminisme africain-américain, 1975-2000, L'Harmattan (2008)Hazel Carby, « Femme blanche écoute! Le féminisme noir et les frontières de la sororité » dans Elsa Dorlin (dir.) Black feminism: anthologie du féminisme africain-américain, 1975-2000, L'Harmattan (2008)Nathalie Antiope, dans Elsa Dorlin (dir.) Black feminism: anthologie du féminisme africain-américain, 1975-2000, L'Harmattan (2008)Marie Anna Jaime Guerrero est actrice, chercheuse, romancière et poète d'origine amérindienne.Danièle Kergoat est une universitaire et sociologue française.Kaoutar Harchi, « L'intersectionnalité, une critique émancipatrice », Libération (2020)Sarah Mazouz, La République et ses autres: politiques de l'altérité dans la France des années 2000, ENS Lsh Lyon (2017)Rokhaya Diallo, « Peut-on exister dans l'espace public français quand on porte un hijab? », Slate (2020)Miranda Fricker est une philosophe et chercheuse anglaiseMoya Bailey est une chercheuse et militante féministe africaine-américaine (www.moyabailey.com)Test « white fragility », Sansblancderien, InstagramReni Eddo-Lodge, Why I'm No Longer Talking to White People About Race, Bloomsbury Libri (2018) traduit en français Le racisme est un problème de blancs, Autrement (2018)Roxane Gay est autrice, professeure d'université et éditrice américaine.Comptes Instagram conseillés:@Ziwef@Decolonisonsnous@quotidienderacisees@hijabeuses@Personnesraciseesvsgringr@collectif_ntarajelMrs America, de Dahvi Waller, Fx networks, 2020Euphoria, de Sam Levinson, HBO (depuis 2019)The Bisexual, de Desiree Akhavan et Rowan Riley, Channel 4 (depuis 2018)High Fidelity, de Veronica West et Sarah Kucserka, Hulu (2020)Rachel Charlene Lewis, « A Goodbye to the Black Bisexual Messiness of « High Fidelity » », Bitch media (2020)I may destroy you, de Michaela Coel, HBO (depuis 2020)Jason Okundaye, « I May Destroy You's Kwame honors the Black British gay male experience », Dazed (2020)The Queen's Gambit, de Scott Frank et Allan Scott, Netflix (2020)Naya Ali, « La meilleure amie racisme, figure facile pour faire croire à la diversité dans les séries », Slate (2020)Princess Weekes, « Sex Education Is Great, but One Relationship Is a Huge Problem », The Mary Sue (2019)Grand Army, de Kati Cappiello, Netflix (depuis 2020)Dash & Lily, de Joe Tacz, Netflix (depuis 2020)Mériam Cheikh, Les filles qui sortent, Université de Bruxelles (2020)Audrey Célestine, Des vies de combat: Femmes, noires et libres, L'Iconoclaste (2020)Industry, de Konrad Kay et Mickey Down, HBO (depuis 2020)Elise Thiébaut, Les règles…Quelle aventure!, Ville Brule (2017)Perrine Bonafos, Jennifer Bouron, Agnès, Les mini confettisAlex Gino, George, L'école des loisirs (2017)Davide Cali, Cruelle Joëlle, Sarbacane (2018)Laura Nsafou, Barbara brun, Le chemin de Jada, Cambourakis (2020)Quoi de Meuf est une émission de Nouvelles Ecoutes, cet épisode est conçu par Clémentine Gallot et présenté avec Kaoutar Harchi. Mixage Laurie Galligani. Générique réalisé par Aurore Meyer Mahieu. Montage et coordination Ashley Tola.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In dieser Folge erkläre ich, was es mit dem Konzept der Epistemischen Ungerechtigkeit von der Philosophin Miranda Fricker auf sich hat. Der abstrakte Namen von diesem Phänomen gibt nicht einmal annähernd seine gesellschaftliche Bedeutung und Wichtigkeit wider. Ich hoffe aber, dass ich das hiermit tun kann.

I ask the philosopher Miranda Fricker five questions about herself. Miranda Fricker is Professor of Philosophy at the City University of New York Graduate Center and the author of “Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing” (2007). Rachel Whiteread, “Untitled (Stacks)” Doris Salcedo, “Fragmentos”

Have you ever wondered if you truly understand equity? Have you ever wondered what you could be doing as an ally? Have you ever felt judged based upon how you present to others? Are you in need of a good laugh? Well... this episode's GOTCHU! Elizabeth Chun is one of my absolute best friends, and she's getting her masters degree in Education, Culture, & Society. Basically, she's a social-justice queen. If you'd like some stomachable information about social-justice, give this one a listen. I'm quite sure you'll have a blast whilst listening, too!! Instagram: @elizabethyae Referenced in the episode: Miranda Fricker's theories of Epistemic/testimonial injustices and credibility excess

Was Marx wrong when he said that philosophers can only interpret the world in various ways, and contrasted that with actually changing it? Epistemology, or the theory of knowledge, was once considered one of the more abstract areas of philosophy, far removed from the concerns of every-day life. Now, philosophers like Miranda Fricker have developed epistemological concepts that can help us recognise, understand, and address areas where disparities in knowledge feed into wider social and political disadvantages, for example indigenous people articulating their relationship with land using Western legal concepts like ‘ownership’ or patients trying to describe symptoms not addressed by medical text books. Shahidha Bari talks with Miranda Fricker, Havi Carel and Constantine Sandis. You can find a playlist of conversations about philosophy on the Free Thinking programme website https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07x0twx Producer: Luke Mulhall

L’intersectionnalité est un terme qu’on entend beaucoup, mais que signifie-t-il? Quelle grille de lecture peut-il fournir? A qui l’applique t-on? Dans un pays où la notion de race n’existerait pas, quelle place occupe l’intersectionnalité dans les mouvements féministes aujourd’hui? C’est ce que démêlent Clémentine et Kaoutar dans ce épisode long de Quoi de Meuf.Les références entendues dans l’épisodeKimberlé Crenshaw, « Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sexe: A black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Eléonore Lépinard, Sarah Mazouz, « Cartographie du surplomb », mouvement.info (2019)Elsa Dorlin (dir.), Black feminism. Anthologie du féminisme africain-américain, 1975-2000, L’Harmattan (2008)Hazel Carby, « Femme blanche écoute! Le féminisme noir et les frontières de la sororité » dans Elsa Dorlin (dir.) Black feminism: anthologie du féminisme africain-américain, 1975-2000, L’Harmattan (2008)Nathalie Antiope, dans Elsa Dorlin (dir.) Black feminism: anthologie du féminisme africain-américain, 1975-2000, L’Harmattan (2008)Marie Anna Jaime Guerrero est actrice, chercheuse, romancière et poète d’origine amérindienne.Danièle Kergoat est une universitaire et sociologue française. Kaoutar Harchi, « L’intersectionnalité, une critique émancipatrice », Libération (2020) Sarah Mazouz, La République et ses autres: politiques de l’altérité dans la France des années 2000, ENS Lsh Lyon (2017) Rokhaya Diallo, « Peut-on exister dans l’espace public français quand on porte un hijab? », Slate (2020) Miranda Fricker est une philosophe et chercheuse anglaiseMoya Bailey est une chercheuse et militante féministe africaine-américaine (https://www.moyabailey.com)Test « white fragility », Sansblancderien, InstagramReni Eddo-Lodge, Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race, Bloomsbury Libri (2018) traduit en français Le racisme est un problème de blancs, Autrement (2018)Roxane Gay est autrice, professeure d’université et éditrice américaine. Comptes Instagram conseillés:@Ziwef @Decolonisonsnous@quotidienderacisees@hijabeuses@Personnesraciseesvsgringr @collectif_ntarajelMrs America, de Dahvi Waller, Fx networks, 2020Euphoria, de Sam Levinson, HBO (depuis 2019)The Bisexual, de Desiree Akhavan et Rowan Riley, Channel 4 (depuis 2018)High Fidelity, de Veronica West et Sarah Kucserka, Hulu (2020)Rachel Charlene Lewis, « A Goodbye to the Black Bisexual Messiness of « High Fidelity » », Bitch media (2020)I may destroy you, de Michaela Coel, HBO (depuis 2020)Jason Okundaye, « I May Destroy You’s Kwame honors the Black British gay male experience », Dazed (2020)The Queen’s Gambit, de Scott Frank et Allan Scott, Netflix (2020)Naya Ali, « La meilleure amie racisme, figure facile pour faire croire à la diversité dans les séries », Slate (2020)Princess Weekes, « Sex Education Is Great, but One Relationship Is a Huge Problem », The Mary Sue (2019)Grand Army, de Kati Cappiello, Netflix (depuis 2020)Dash & Lily, de Joe Tacz, Netflix (depuis 2020)To All the Boys I’ve Love Before, de Susan Johnson (2018)Trinkets, de Amy Anderson, Emily Meyer et Kristen smith, Netflix (2019-2020)Never have I ever, de Mindy Kaling et Lang Fisher, Netflix (2020)On my Block, de Eddie Gonzalez, Lauren Lungerich, Jeremy Haft, Netflix (depuis 2018)Mériam Cheikh, Les filles qui sortent, Université de Bruxelles (2020) Audrey Célestine, Des vies de combat: Femmes, noires et libres, L’Iconoclaste (2020)Industry, de Konrad Kay et Mickey Down, HBO (depuis 2020)Elise Thiébaut, Les règles…Quelle aventure!, Ville Brule (2017)Perrine Bonafos, Jennifer Bouron, Agnès, Les mini confettisAlex Gino, George, L’école des loisirs (2017)Davide Cali, Cruelle Joëlle, Sarbacane (2018)Laura Nsafou, Barbara brun, Le chemin de Jada, Cambourakis (2020)Quoi de Meuf est une émission de Nouvelles Ecoutes, cet épisode est conçu par Clémentine Gallot et présenté avec Kaoutar Harchi. Mixage Laurie Galligani. Générique réalisé par Aurore Meyer Mahieu. Montage et coordination Ashley Tola.

Jack visits with Miranda Fricker, Presidential Professor of Philosophy at the City University of New York Graduate Center.

Det sociala livet är fullt av maktförhållanden och vissa grupper tycks lättare bli offer för orättvisor än andra. Den brittiska filosofen Miranda Fricker pekar ut och namnger ett par olika sorter. Fricker talar om epistemisk, eller kunskapsmässig orättvisa, som hon menar drabbar främst grupper som också annars är missgynnade, som kvinnor och etniska minoriteter. "Vittnesorättvisa" till exempel, är när ett vittne inte blir trott på grund av fördomar mot hennes kön, eller sociala eller etniska grupp. Filosofiska rummet har mött Miranda Fricker för en intervju, och hennes idéer diskuteras av filosoferna Lena Halldenius och Staffan Carlshamre. Programledare är Lars Mogensen, reporter och producent Thomas Lunderquist.

Today, we’re discussing epistemic injustice and the law. Epistemic injustice occurs when an individual is wrongfully undermined in his or her role as a knower. One aspect of epistemic injustice involves the ways in which biased assessments of a speaker’s credibility can undermine that person’s ability to relay his or her experiences. This is particularly salient in the context of trials since a juror’s inaccurate assessment of witness credibility based on factors such as race, gender, or socioeconomic status can thwart the truth-seeking function of trials. Today’s podcast features interviews with Miranda Fricker, professor of philosophy at CUNY Graduate Center in New York and author of a book called Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing, and Michael Sullivan, professor of philosophy at Emory University. This episode was produced by David Sandefer. Special thanks to Taylor Coles for suggesting this topic. Music from bensound.com

In this episode, Miranda Fricker argues that the purpose of blaming someone is to communicate to them your sense of why what they did was wrong. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Epistemic Injustice - Prof Miranda Fricker speaks about the two central forms of epistemic injustice, their two corresponding remedies and epistemic injustice relation to health care and psychiatry.

Epistemic Injustice - Prof Miranda Fricker speaks about the two central forms of epistemic injustice, their two corresponding remedies and epistemic injustice relation to health care and psychiatry.

Pints and philosophical puzzles with Matthew Sweet. Each week Matthew goes to the pub to discuss a knotty conundrum with an audience and a panel of experts. Free will, exploitation, sex, sexism, blame and shame are just some of the topics to be mulled over in this series of The Philosopher's Arms. Tonight we look at historic wrongs. Can we blame people in the past who held views that we now regard as abhorrent, but which were then widely accepted? The programme features philosopher Miranda Fricker. Producer: David Edmonds.

Transcript -- How should we judge slave owners? Were they innocent or guilty? Miranda Fricker talks about blame and historic injustice. Find out more about Miranda, and ethics, at www.open2.net/ethicsbites.

How should we judge slave owners? Were they innocent or guilty? Miranda Fricker talks about blame and historic injustice. Find out more about Miranda, and ethics, at www.open2.net/ethicsbites.

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss morality by taking a long hard look at the idea of guilt. The 18th century politician and philosopher Edmund Burke was once moved to comment: “Guilt was never a rational thing; it distorts all the faculties of the human mind, it perverts them, it leaves a man no longer in the free use of his reason, it puts him into confusion.”Guilt is a legal category but also a psychological state and a moral idea. Over the centuries theologians, philosophers and psychologists have tried to determine how it relates to morality, reason and the workings of the mind? The answers seem to cut deeply into our understanding of what it is to be human.With Stephen Mulhall, Fellow and Tutor in Philosophy at New College, Oxford; Miranda Fricker, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at Birkbeck, University of London; Oliver Davies, Professor of Christian Doctrine at King's College London

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss morality by taking a long hard look at the idea of guilt. The 18th century politician and philosopher Edmund Burke was once moved to comment: “Guilt was never a rational thing; it distorts all the faculties of the human mind, it perverts them, it leaves a man no longer in the free use of his reason, it puts him into confusion.”Guilt is a legal category but also a psychological state and a moral idea. Over the centuries theologians, philosophers and psychologists have tried to determine how it relates to morality, reason and the workings of the mind? The answers seem to cut deeply into our understanding of what it is to be human.With Stephen Mulhall, Fellow and Tutor in Philosophy at New College, Oxford; Miranda Fricker, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at Birkbeck, University of London; Oliver Davies, Professor of Christian Doctrine at King’s College London

Testimonial injustice occurs when others fail to treat you seriously as a source of knowledge. In this interview Miranda Fricker, author of a recent book on the topic, explains this concept which lies at the intersection between epistemology and political philosophy.

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the American philosophy of pragmatism. A pragmatist "turns away from abstraction and insufficiency, from verbal solutions, from bad apriori reasons, from fixed principles, closed systems, and pretended absolutes and origins. He turns towards concreteness and adequacy, towards facts, towards action and towards power". A quote from William James' 1907 treatise Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. William James, along with John Dewey and Charles Sanders Peirce, was the founder of an American philosophical movement which flowered during the last thirty years of the nineteenth century and the first twenty years of the 20th century. It purported that knowledge is only meaningful when coupled with action. Nothing is true or false - it either works or it doesn't. It was a philosophy which was deeply embedded in the reality of life, concerned firstly with the individual's direct experience of the world he inhabited. In essence, practical application was all. But how did Pragmatism harness the huge scientific leap forward that had come with Charles Darwin's ideas on evolution? And how did this dynamic new philosophy challenge the doubts expressed by the Sceptics about the nature and extent of knowledge? Did Pragmatism influence the economic and political ascendancy of America in the early 20th century? And did it also pave the way for the contemporary preoccupation with post-modernism? With A C Grayling, Professor of Applied Philosophy at Birkbeck College, University of London and a Fellow of St Anne's College, Oxford; Julian Baggini, editor of The Philosophers' Magazine; Miranda Fricker, Lecturer in Philosophy at Birkbeck College, University of London.

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the American philosophy of pragmatism. A pragmatist "turns away from abstraction and insufficiency, from verbal solutions, from bad apriori reasons, from fixed principles, closed systems, and pretended absolutes and origins. He turns towards concreteness and adequacy, towards facts, towards action and towards power". A quote from William James' 1907 treatise Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. William James, along with John Dewey and Charles Sanders Peirce, was the founder of an American philosophical movement which flowered during the last thirty years of the nineteenth century and the first twenty years of the 20th century. It purported that knowledge is only meaningful when coupled with action. Nothing is true or false - it either works or it doesn't. It was a philosophy which was deeply embedded in the reality of life, concerned firstly with the individual's direct experience of the world he inhabited. In essence, practical application was all. But how did Pragmatism harness the huge scientific leap forward that had come with Charles Darwin's ideas on evolution? And how did this dynamic new philosophy challenge the doubts expressed by the Sceptics about the nature and extent of knowledge? Did Pragmatism influence the economic and political ascendancy of America in the early 20th century? And did it also pave the way for the contemporary preoccupation with post-modernism? With A C Grayling, Professor of Applied Philosophy at Birkbeck College, University of London and a Fellow of St Anne's College, Oxford; Julian Baggini, editor of The Philosophers' Magazine; Miranda Fricker, Lecturer in Philosophy at Birkbeck College, University of London.

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the history of virtue. When Socrates asked the question ‘How should man live?' Plato and Aristotle answered that man should live a life of virtue. Plato claimed there were four great virtues - Temperance, Justice, Prudence and Courage and the Christian Church added three more - Faith, Hope and Love. But where does the motivation for virtue come from? Do we need rules to tell us how to behave or can we rely on our feelings of compassion and empathy towards other human beings? Shakespeare's Iago says “Virtue! A fig! ‘tis in ourselves that we are thus or thus. Our bodies are our gardens to the which our wills are gardeners. ” So is virtue a character trait possessed by some but not others? Is it derived from reason? Or does it flow from the innate sympathies of the human heart? For the last two thousand years philosophers have grappled with these ideas, but now in the twenty first century a modern reappraisal of virtue is taking the argument back to basics with Aristotle. With Galen Strawson, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Reading; Miranda Fricker, Lecturer in Philosophy at Birkbeck, University of London; Roger Crisp, Uehiro Fellow and Tutor in Philosophy at St Anne's College, Oxford.

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the history of virtue. When Socrates asked the question ‘How should man live?’ Plato and Aristotle answered that man should live a life of virtue. Plato claimed there were four great virtues - Temperance, Justice, Prudence and Courage and the Christian Church added three more - Faith, Hope and Love. But where does the motivation for virtue come from? Do we need rules to tell us how to behave or can we rely on our feelings of compassion and empathy towards other human beings? Shakespeare’s Iago says “Virtue! A fig! ‘tis in ourselves that we are thus or thus. Our bodies are our gardens to the which our wills are gardeners. ” So is virtue a character trait possessed by some but not others? Is it derived from reason? Or does it flow from the innate sympathies of the human heart? For the last two thousand years philosophers have grappled with these ideas, but now in the twenty first century a modern reappraisal of virtue is taking the argument back to basics with Aristotle. With Galen Strawson, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Reading; Miranda Fricker, Lecturer in Philosophy at Birkbeck, University of London; Roger Crisp, Uehiro Fellow and Tutor in Philosophy at St Anne's College, Oxford.