Podcast appearances and mentions of stephen mulhall

From a day conference on the philosophy of Herbert McCabe, OP to mark the twentieth anniversary of his death.

One of the fifty most influential living philosophers, a “self-promoting charlatan” (Brian Leiter), and the orchestrator of an “online orgy of stupidity” (Ray Brassier). In Skirmishes: With Friends, Enemies, and Neutrals (Punctum Books, 2020), Graham Harman responds with flair and wit to some of his best-known critics and fellow travelers. Pulling no punches, Harman gives a masterclass in philosophical argumentation by dissecting, analyzing, and countering their criticism, be it from the Husserlian, Heideggerian, or Derridean corner. At the same time, Skirmishes provides an excellent introduction to the hottest debates in Speculative Realism and Object-Oriented Ontology, a speculative style of philosophy long foreclosed by the biases of mainstream continental thought, but which has turned in recent years into one of the most encompassing philosophies of our time, with a major impact on the arts, humanities, and architecture. Part One considers four prominent books on speculative realism. In dialogue with Tom Sparrow's The End of Phenomenology, Harman expresses agreement with Sparrow's critique while taking issue with Lee Braver's “transgressive realism” as not realist enough. Turning to Steven Shaviro's The Universe of Things, Harman defends his own object-oriented model against Shaviro's brand of process philosophy, while also engaging in side-debate with Levi R. Bryant's distinction between virtual proper being and local manifestations. In the third chapter, on Peter Gratton's Speculative Realism: Problems and Prospects, Harman opposes the author's attempt to use Derridean notions of time and difference against Speculative Realism, in what amounts to his most extensive engagement with Derrida to date. Chapter Four gives us Harman's response to Peter Wolfendale's massive polemic in Object-Oriented Philosophy, which he shows is based on a failed criticism of Harman's reading of Heidegger and a grumpy commitment to rationalist kitsch. Part Two responds to a series of briefer criticisms of object-oriented ontology. When Alberto Toscano accuses Harman and Bruno Latour of “neo-monadological” and anti-scientific thinking, Harman responds that the philosophical factors pushing Leibniz into monadology are still valid today. When Christopher Norris mocks Harman for seeing merit in the occasionalist school, he shows why Norris's middle-of-the-road scientific realism misses the point. In response to Dan Zahavi's contention that phenomenology has little to learn from speculative realism, Harman exposes the holes in Zahavi's reasoning. In a final response, Harman gives a point-by-point answer to Stephen Mulhall's critical foray in the London Review of Books. Amidst these lively debates, Harman sheds new light on what he regards as the central bias of philosophical modernism, which he terms the taxonomical standpoint. It is a book sure to provoke lively controversy among both friends and foes of object-oriented thought. Adam Bobeck is a PhD candidate in Cultural Anthropology at the University of Leipzig. His PhD is entitled “Object-Oriented Azadari: Shi'i Muslim Rituals and Ontology”. For more about his work, see www.adambobeck.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

One of the fifty most influential living philosophers, a “self-promoting charlatan” (Brian Leiter), and the orchestrator of an “online orgy of stupidity” (Ray Brassier). In Skirmishes: With Friends, Enemies, and Neutrals (Punctum Books, 2020), Graham Harman responds with flair and wit to some of his best-known critics and fellow travelers. Pulling no punches, Harman gives a masterclass in philosophical argumentation by dissecting, analyzing, and countering their criticism, be it from the Husserlian, Heideggerian, or Derridean corner. At the same time, Skirmishes provides an excellent introduction to the hottest debates in Speculative Realism and Object-Oriented Ontology, a speculative style of philosophy long foreclosed by the biases of mainstream continental thought, but which has turned in recent years into one of the most encompassing philosophies of our time, with a major impact on the arts, humanities, and architecture. Part One considers four prominent books on speculative realism. In dialogue with Tom Sparrow's The End of Phenomenology, Harman expresses agreement with Sparrow's critique while taking issue with Lee Braver's “transgressive realism” as not realist enough. Turning to Steven Shaviro's The Universe of Things, Harman defends his own object-oriented model against Shaviro's brand of process philosophy, while also engaging in side-debate with Levi R. Bryant's distinction between virtual proper being and local manifestations. In the third chapter, on Peter Gratton's Speculative Realism: Problems and Prospects, Harman opposes the author's attempt to use Derridean notions of time and difference against Speculative Realism, in what amounts to his most extensive engagement with Derrida to date. Chapter Four gives us Harman's response to Peter Wolfendale's massive polemic in Object-Oriented Philosophy, which he shows is based on a failed criticism of Harman's reading of Heidegger and a grumpy commitment to rationalist kitsch. Part Two responds to a series of briefer criticisms of object-oriented ontology. When Alberto Toscano accuses Harman and Bruno Latour of “neo-monadological” and anti-scientific thinking, Harman responds that the philosophical factors pushing Leibniz into monadology are still valid today. When Christopher Norris mocks Harman for seeing merit in the occasionalist school, he shows why Norris's middle-of-the-road scientific realism misses the point. In response to Dan Zahavi's contention that phenomenology has little to learn from speculative realism, Harman exposes the holes in Zahavi's reasoning. In a final response, Harman gives a point-by-point answer to Stephen Mulhall's critical foray in the London Review of Books. Amidst these lively debates, Harman sheds new light on what he regards as the central bias of philosophical modernism, which he terms the taxonomical standpoint. It is a book sure to provoke lively controversy among both friends and foes of object-oriented thought. Adam Bobeck is a PhD candidate in Cultural Anthropology at the University of Leipzig. His PhD is entitled “Object-Oriented Azadari: Shi'i Muslim Rituals and Ontology”. For more about his work, see www.adambobeck.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

One of the fifty most influential living philosophers, a “self-promoting charlatan” (Brian Leiter), and the orchestrator of an “online orgy of stupidity” (Ray Brassier). In Skirmishes: With Friends, Enemies, and Neutrals (Punctum Books, 2020), Graham Harman responds with flair and wit to some of his best-known critics and fellow travelers. Pulling no punches, Harman gives a masterclass in philosophical argumentation by dissecting, analyzing, and countering their criticism, be it from the Husserlian, Heideggerian, or Derridean corner. At the same time, Skirmishes provides an excellent introduction to the hottest debates in Speculative Realism and Object-Oriented Ontology, a speculative style of philosophy long foreclosed by the biases of mainstream continental thought, but which has turned in recent years into one of the most encompassing philosophies of our time, with a major impact on the arts, humanities, and architecture. Part One considers four prominent books on speculative realism. In dialogue with Tom Sparrow's The End of Phenomenology, Harman expresses agreement with Sparrow's critique while taking issue with Lee Braver's “transgressive realism” as not realist enough. Turning to Steven Shaviro's The Universe of Things, Harman defends his own object-oriented model against Shaviro's brand of process philosophy, while also engaging in side-debate with Levi R. Bryant's distinction between virtual proper being and local manifestations. In the third chapter, on Peter Gratton's Speculative Realism: Problems and Prospects, Harman opposes the author's attempt to use Derridean notions of time and difference against Speculative Realism, in what amounts to his most extensive engagement with Derrida to date. Chapter Four gives us Harman's response to Peter Wolfendale's massive polemic in Object-Oriented Philosophy, which he shows is based on a failed criticism of Harman's reading of Heidegger and a grumpy commitment to rationalist kitsch. Part Two responds to a series of briefer criticisms of object-oriented ontology. When Alberto Toscano accuses Harman and Bruno Latour of “neo-monadological” and anti-scientific thinking, Harman responds that the philosophical factors pushing Leibniz into monadology are still valid today. When Christopher Norris mocks Harman for seeing merit in the occasionalist school, he shows why Norris's middle-of-the-road scientific realism misses the point. In response to Dan Zahavi's contention that phenomenology has little to learn from speculative realism, Harman exposes the holes in Zahavi's reasoning. In a final response, Harman gives a point-by-point answer to Stephen Mulhall's critical foray in the London Review of Books. Amidst these lively debates, Harman sheds new light on what he regards as the central bias of philosophical modernism, which he terms the taxonomical standpoint. It is a book sure to provoke lively controversy among both friends and foes of object-oriented thought. Adam Bobeck is a PhD candidate in Cultural Anthropology at the University of Leipzig. His PhD is entitled “Object-Oriented Azadari: Shi'i Muslim Rituals and Ontology”. For more about his work, see www.adambobeck.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

One of the fifty most influential living philosophers, a “self-promoting charlatan” (Brian Leiter), and the orchestrator of an “online orgy of stupidity” (Ray Brassier). In Skirmishes: With Friends, Enemies, and Neutrals (Punctum Books, 2020), Graham Harman responds with flair and wit to some of his best-known critics and fellow travelers. Pulling no punches, Harman gives a masterclass in philosophical argumentation by dissecting, analyzing, and countering their criticism, be it from the Husserlian, Heideggerian, or Derridean corner. At the same time, Skirmishes provides an excellent introduction to the hottest debates in Speculative Realism and Object-Oriented Ontology, a speculative style of philosophy long foreclosed by the biases of mainstream continental thought, but which has turned in recent years into one of the most encompassing philosophies of our time, with a major impact on the arts, humanities, and architecture. Part One considers four prominent books on speculative realism. In dialogue with Tom Sparrow's The End of Phenomenology, Harman expresses agreement with Sparrow's critique while taking issue with Lee Braver's “transgressive realism” as not realist enough. Turning to Steven Shaviro's The Universe of Things, Harman defends his own object-oriented model against Shaviro's brand of process philosophy, while also engaging in side-debate with Levi R. Bryant's distinction between virtual proper being and local manifestations. In the third chapter, on Peter Gratton's Speculative Realism: Problems and Prospects, Harman opposes the author's attempt to use Derridean notions of time and difference against Speculative Realism, in what amounts to his most extensive engagement with Derrida to date. Chapter Four gives us Harman's response to Peter Wolfendale's massive polemic in Object-Oriented Philosophy, which he shows is based on a failed criticism of Harman's reading of Heidegger and a grumpy commitment to rationalist kitsch. Part Two responds to a series of briefer criticisms of object-oriented ontology. When Alberto Toscano accuses Harman and Bruno Latour of “neo-monadological” and anti-scientific thinking, Harman responds that the philosophical factors pushing Leibniz into monadology are still valid today. When Christopher Norris mocks Harman for seeing merit in the occasionalist school, he shows why Norris's middle-of-the-road scientific realism misses the point. In response to Dan Zahavi's contention that phenomenology has little to learn from speculative realism, Harman exposes the holes in Zahavi's reasoning. In a final response, Harman gives a point-by-point answer to Stephen Mulhall's critical foray in the London Review of Books. Amidst these lively debates, Harman sheds new light on what he regards as the central bias of philosophical modernism, which he terms the taxonomical standpoint. It is a book sure to provoke lively controversy among both friends and foes of object-oriented thought. Adam Bobeck is a PhD candidate in Cultural Anthropology at the University of Leipzig. His PhD is entitled “Object-Oriented Azadari: Shi'i Muslim Rituals and Ontology”. For more about his work, see www.adambobeck.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

Today we bring you our discussion of Ridley Scott's 1979 film Alien with special guest Jon Greenaway! We discuss SO MANY INTERESTING THINGS such as our nerdy love of Terry Eagleton, the horrors of capitalism, the material conditions underpinning the plot of the film, Ripley's savvy suspicion as a woman, the alien's subversion of the male/female binary, and the capacity of horror to address contemporary cultural anxieties. By the end of this podcast, both Lisas are keen to explore more horror, which is a testament to the persuasive power of this incredible conversation. The essay we discuss is from "On Film" by Stephen Mulhall: https://philpapers.org/rec/MULOF Find Jon's podcast, Horror Vanguard, here: https://soundcloud.com/user-317910500 Our theme song is 'Rogue' by a Toronto band called The Ossington Rippers. You can find it here: ossingtonrippers.bandcamp.com Want to talk to us? You can email us at: shesgottahaveitpodcast@gmail.com or like our Facebook page and chat to us there! You can also find this and previous episodes at: https://anchor.fm/shes-gotta-have-it --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/shes-gotta-have-it/message

How do I know that anybody else experiences the world in the way I do? Or even if other people experience anything at all? In the 20th century the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein responded to this challenge by thinking about whether we can make sense of the idea of a private language, a language understood only by the speaker. His so-called 'private language argument' has the potential to transform both the way philosophy is done, and the way we understand ourselves and our relationship with others. Shahidha Bari is joined by the philosophers Stephen Mulhall and Denis McManus, and the historian and New Generation Thinker Tiffany Watt Smith. You can find more discussions about philosophy on the Free Thinking website Philosophy playlist: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07x0twx Producer: Luke Mulhall

Stephen Mulhall is Professor of Philosophy and a Fellow of New College, Oxford. His research interests include Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Nietzsche and Sartre; moral philosophy; the relationship between philosophy, theology and religion; and the relationship between philosophy and the arts (especially film and literature). His most recent publications include: ‘The Great Riddle: Wittgenstein and Nonsense, Theology and Philosophy’ (OUP, 2015), and ‘On Film: 3rd Edition’ (Routledge, 2016). This podcast is an audio recording of Professor Mulhall's talk - ' Heidegger’s Fountain: Ecstasis, Mimesis and Engrossment in the Origin of the Work of Art' - at the Aristotelian Society on 18 March 2019. The recording was produced by the Backdoor Broadcasting Company.

Rana Mitter discusses food in history. James C Scott on the role of grain and coercion in the development of the first settled societies, and how the Victorians changed lunch, with New Generation Thinkers Elsa Richardson and Chris Kissane. Plus, following the death of American philosopher Stanley Cavell last week, Rana discusses his work and legacy with Stephen Mulhall and Alice Crary. New Generation Thinkers is a scheme run by the BBC and the Arts and Humanities Research Council to select ten academics each year who can turn their research into radio. James C Scott is Stirling Professor of Political Science at Yale University. Elsa Richardson is a lecturer at the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow who is researching the 19th-century history of vegetarianism. Chris Kissane is a Visiting Fellow in Economic History at the LSE who has written Food, Religion and Communities in Early Modern Europe.Producer: Luke Mulhall

Most philosophers who consider the movies focus on the nature of the cinematic medium. Stephen Mulhall argues for a different approach. He thinks that a film such as Bladerunner can actually be philosophy.

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss redemption. In St Paul's letter to the Galatians, he wrote: "Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery". This conception of Redemption as freedom from bondage is crucial for Judeo-Christian thought. In Christianity, the liberation is from original sin, a transformation from the Fall to salvation - not just for mankind but for individual human beings. The content of that journey is moral, gaining redemption by becoming better.So why is the idea of transformation so appealing to human beings? To what extent were Christian views of Redemption borrowed from Judaism? How did philosophers such as Marx reinterpret the concept of Redemption and can redemption retain its value in a world without God? Does its continuing power signify a deep psychological need in humankind?With Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford; Janet Soskice, Reader in Modern Theology and Philosophical Theology at Cambridge University; Stephen Mulhall, Fellow and Tutor in Philosophy at Oxford University.

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss redemption. In St Paul's letter to the Galatians, he wrote: "Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery". This conception of Redemption as freedom from bondage is crucial for Judeo-Christian thought. In Christianity, the liberation is from original sin, a transformation from the Fall to salvation - not just for mankind but for individual human beings. The content of that journey is moral, gaining redemption by becoming better.So why is the idea of transformation so appealing to human beings? To what extent were Christian views of Redemption borrowed from Judaism? How did philosophers such as Marx reinterpret the concept of Redemption and can redemption retain its value in a world without God? Does its continuing power signify a deep psychological need in humankind?With Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford; Janet Soskice, Reader in Modern Theology and Philosophical Theology at Cambridge University; Stephen Mulhall, Fellow and Tutor in Philosophy at Oxford University.

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss redemption. In St Paul's letter to the Galatians, he wrote: "Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery". This conception of Redemption as freedom from bondage is crucial for Judeo-Christian thought. In Christianity, the liberation is from original sin, a transformation from the Fall to salvation - not just for mankind but for individual human beings. The content of that journey is moral, gaining redemption by becoming better.So why is the idea of transformation so appealing to human beings? To what extent were Christian views of Redemption borrowed from Judaism? How did philosophers such as Marx reinterpret the concept of Redemption and can redemption retain its value in a world without God? Does its continuing power signify a deep psychological need in humankind?With Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford; Janet Soskice, Reader in Modern Theology and Philosophical Theology at Cambridge University; Stephen Mulhall, Fellow and Tutor in Philosophy at Oxford University.

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the concept of evil. When Nietzsche killed off God he had it in for evil as well: In Beyond Good and Evil, he constructed an argument against what he called the “herd morality” of Christianity, and he complained "everything that elevates an individual above the herd and intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil." Nietzsche claimed that it was a dangerous idea that distorted human nature, ‘evil’ was invented by the church and was a completely alien concept to the noble philosophers of the ancient world. Was he right, did Christianity really invent the idea of evil? And has the idea meant anything more than excessively bad? With Jones Erwin, Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Limerick; Stephen Mulhall, Tutor in Philosophy at New College, Oxford University; Margaret Atkins, Lecturer in Theology at Trinity and All Saints College, University of Leeds.

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the concept of evil. When Nietzsche killed off God he had it in for evil as well: In Beyond Good and Evil, he constructed an argument against what he called the “herd morality” of Christianity, and he complained "everything that elevates an individual above the herd and intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil." Nietzsche claimed that it was a dangerous idea that distorted human nature, ‘evil' was invented by the church and was a completely alien concept to the noble philosophers of the ancient world. Was he right, did Christianity really invent the idea of evil? And has the idea meant anything more than excessively bad? With Jones Erwin, Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Limerick; Stephen Mulhall, Tutor in Philosophy at New College, Oxford University; Margaret Atkins, Lecturer in Theology at Trinity and All Saints College, University of Leeds.