The Panpsycast Philosophy Podcast

Approximately 13.8 billion years ago, an infinitely dense state of an infinitely large universe lay dormant upon the backdrop of existence. Then, the expansion of everything. The potential for trillions of galaxies sprung out from this same point, and today, they shine like fairy lights in the darkness of the vast cosmos. From our own little planet, bursting with life, art, culture, and science, we can observe the effects of the big bang and the universes’ continuing expansion. We can see the beginning, but we can also see the end. In about five billion years, the sun will swell to around 250 times its current size, leaving our once blue and white planet a lifeless, magma-covered rock. That’s settled, the apocalypse is coming: the land will fry and the seas will boil - but there is more at stake than the Earth. What matters now is the bigger question: how will the universe end? In this episode, we’ll be discussing the impending doom of the cosmos with theoretical astrophysicist Katherine Mack. Katie is Assistant Professor of Physics at North Carolina State University. As well as making huge contributions to the field of astrophysics, Katie is one of the most active public-facing scientists in the world today. From publications in Slate, Scientific America, and Time Magazine, to featuring on the BBC and being quoted in the song lyrics of Hozier, Katie’s work is expanding into the furthest corners of our planet. Grab the cosmic popcorn, it’s a question as old as time itself: how will the universe end? Contents Part I. The Death of the Universe Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Katie Mack, Twitter. Katie Mack, Website. Katie Mack, The End of Everything (Amazon). Katie Mack, The End of Everything (IndieBound).

Join renowned psychologist Steven Pinker, a staple at Harvard known for his insights on human progress, and Rutger Bregman, a historian acclaimed for his optimistic views on humanity. They dissect the darker perspectives of human nature presented by Hobbes and Rousseau, analyzing psychological experiments that reveal our capacity for cruelty and obedience. The conversation also touches on human resilience during crises like COVID-19, advocating for a hopeful outlook on our nature while navigating the complexities of kindness, democracy, and capitalism.

In this captivating discussion, Steven Pinker, a Harvard psychology professor known for his insights on human nature, joins Rutger Bregman, a celebrated author advocating for humanity's goodness. They dive into the contrasting views of Hobbes and Rousseau about civilization's impact on our violent instincts. Emphasizing self-domestication, they explore how cooperation has shaped humanity's evolution and critique traditional views of aggression. The conversation is enriched with references to their groundbreaking works, making it a thought-provoking journey into human nature.

Meet Jack. Jack, like most individuals, takes great care of his health, appearance, the fulfilment of his projects, and the quality of his relationships with friends and family. Today Jack is preparing for another episode of his iconic philosophy podcast. He has been reading diligently, noting fastidiously, and practicing his jokes in the mirror. Fully invested in his work, he goes to great lengths to ensure that the podcast is well received. But today is no ordinary day for Jack, something is about to happen that he could never prepare for. Sat at his desk with his nose in Thomas Nagel’s Mortal Questions, Jack reaches for his cafetière to refill his Nietzsche coffee mug - when he hears the sound of a heavy creak above him. The room begins to shake, the coffee mug spills, and Jack jumps out of his chair as dust begins to fall around him. Fearing that the roof will cave, he runs out of the house, but finds that the streets are shaking too. Like the set of a stage, the neighbourhood before his eyes begins to fall backwards. As the walls hit the ground, Jack sees countless figures in black uniforms running frantically in all directions. He looks up to the sky and sees several tall figures on ladders: a blue figure holds a large, blinding torch, a white figure holds a watering can, and a black figure holds what seems to be a large block of cheese. Jack is overwhelmed with disbelief - he is standing in the middle of a stage. Suddenly, one of the figures shouts instructions to another, who frantically pulls on a rope - the stage rising back to its original position, the figures disappearing. It dawns on him: Jack is the actor in a play. What of his life? His childhood? His family and friends? What of his projects? Will he ever be able to return, to his old life? Jack ponders the thought for a moment and walks back into his home. He cleans up the coffee, brushes up the dust, sits back down in his chair… and continues, with his reading. Contents Part I. Thomas Nagel Part II. Camus, Criticisms, and Comparison Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Thomas Nagel, The Absurd (1971). Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus (1942).

Meet Jack. Jack, like most individuals, takes great care of his health, appearance, the fulfilment of his projects, and the quality of his relationships with friends and family. Today Jack is preparing for another episode of his iconic philosophy podcast. He has been reading diligently, noting fastidiously, and practicing his jokes in the mirror. Fully invested in his work, he goes to great lengths to ensure that the podcast is well received. But today is no ordinary day for Jack, something is about to happen that he could never prepare for. Sat at his desk with his nose in Thomas Nagel’s Mortal Questions, Jack reaches for his cafetière to refill his Nietzsche coffee mug - when he hears the sound of a heavy creak above him. The room begins to shake, the coffee mug spills, and Jack jumps out of his chair as dust begins to fall around him. Fearing that the roof will cave, he runs out of the house, but finds that the streets are shaking too. Like the set of a stage, the neighbourhood before his eyes begins to fall backwards. As the walls hit the ground, Jack sees countless figures in black uniforms running frantically in all directions. He looks up to the sky and sees several tall figures on ladders: a blue figure holds a large, blinding torch, a white figure holds a watering can, and a black figure holds what seems to be a large block of cheese. Jack is overwhelmed with disbelief - he is standing in the middle of a stage. Suddenly, one of the figures shouts instructions to another, who frantically pulls on a rope - the stage rising back to its original position, the figures disappearing. It dawns on him: Jack is the actor in a play. What of his life? His childhood? His family and friends? What of his projects? Will he ever be able to return, to his old life? Jack ponders the thought for a moment and walks back into his home. He cleans up the coffee, brushes up the dust, sits back down in his chair… and continues, with his reading. Contents Part I. Thomas Nagel Part II. Camus, Criticisms, and Comparison Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Thomas Nagel, The Absurd (1971). Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus (1942).

Meet Jack. Jack, like most individuals, takes great care of his health, appearance, the fulfilment of his projects, and the quality of his relationships with friends and family. Today Jack is preparing for another episode of his iconic philosophy podcast. He has been reading diligently, noting fastidiously, and practicing his jokes in the mirror. Fully invested in his work, he goes to great lengths to ensure that the podcast is well received. But today is no ordinary day for Jack, something is about to happen that he could never prepare for. Sat at his desk with his nose in Thomas Nagel’s Mortal Questions, Jack reaches for his cafetière to refill his Nietzsche coffee mug - when he hears the sound of a heavy creak above him. The room begins to shake, the coffee mug spills, and Jack jumps out of his chair as dust begins to fall around him. Fearing that the roof will cave, he runs out of the house, but finds that the streets are shaking too. Like the set of a stage, the neighbourhood before his eyes begins to fall backwards. As the walls hit the ground, Jack sees countless figures in black uniforms running frantically in all directions. He looks up to the sky and sees several tall figures on ladders: a blue figure holds a large, blinding torch, a white figure holds a watering can, and a black figure holds what seems to be a large block of cheese. Jack is overwhelmed with disbelief - he is standing in the middle of a stage. Suddenly, one of the figures shouts instructions to another, who frantically pulls on a rope - the stage rising back to its original position, the figures disappearing. It dawns on him: Jack is the actor in a play. What of his life? His childhood? His family and friends? What of his projects? Will he ever be able to return, to his old life? Jack ponders the thought for a moment and walks back into his home. He cleans up the coffee, brushes up the dust, sits back down in his chair… and continues, with his reading. Contents Part I. Thomas Nagel Part II. Camus, Criticisms, and Comparison Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Thomas Nagel, The Absurd (1971). Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus (1942).

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

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

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

Olivia Coombes is a philosopher and teacher at the University of Edinburgh whose research focuses on issues about the possibility of time travel, the paradoxes involved in time travel, and how these topics relate to the question of free-will. In addition to this, Liv is also the co-host of the Edinburgh-based podcast Two Philosophers: One Podcast, No Problems. Since the philosopher David Lewis, and before, philosophers, scientists, movie fans (pretty much everybody), have deliberated the possibility of time travel. People have asked questions like: What is the order of time? If we could build a powerful enough machine, would we be able to travel through time? Causation goes forwards in time, but is there anything stopping it going backwards? And, if it could, can we have causal loops in time? In this episode we’re going to be focusing on the grandfather paradox, which is one instance of the question: can time travellers change the past? This paradox asks us whether or not we could go back in time and kill our own grandfathers. Many people say no: it is logically impossible, like squaring circles, or making something from nothing. However, Olivia Coombes thinks differently. She thinks that we can kill our grandfathers, and that we are able to change the past. Contents Part I. Time Traveller Abilities Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Olivia Coombes, University Profile. Olivia Coombes, Twitter. Two Philosophers: One Podcast, No Problems. David Lewis, The Paradoxes of Time Travel (1976).