The Panpsycast Philosophy Podcast

Introduction On April 11, 1961, a Monster was put on trial in the state of Israel and broadcasted to the world. The Monster, who was housed in a glass box, was accused of crimes against humanity and the Jewish people – of knowingly sending hundreds of thousands of people to their deaths. When the trial commenced, and the Monster was asked how he pleaded, he answered, ‘Not guilty, in the sense of the indictment.’ As the trial proceeded, the Monster portrayed himself as a cog in a machine. He was a cog who was helpless to stop the inevitable – a cog that was merely performing its duty. To some who observed the trial, the ‘Monster’ who sat before them appeared all too human. Behind the glass, there was no demonic essence of evil. The Monster was, in fact, an average person: a normal person who was capable of committing terrifyingly evil acts. One observer went as far as to say that the manner in which the accused spoke, and the way he framed his story, was evidence that he simply lacked the ability to think. To this observer, it was no radical evildoer who sat in the glass box. In fact, his professed motives, and his inability to avoid cliches, were evidence of his banality. Music produced by Ovidiu Balaban – all rights reserved. Contents Part I. The Life of Hannah Arendt Part II. Eichmann in Jerusalem Part III. The Essence of Evil Part IV. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem (Book) Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (Book) Richard J. Bernstein, Why Read Hannah Arendt Now? (Book) Peter Hayes, Why? Explaining the Holocaust (Book) Anne Heller, Hannah Arendt: A Life in Dark Times (Book) Samantha Rose Hill, Hannah Arendt (Book) Deborah E. Lipstadt, The Eichmann Trial (Book) Dana Vila, Arendt (Book) Eichmann Trial (YouTube)

Introduction On April 11, 1961, a Monster was put on trial in the state of Israel and broadcasted to the world. The Monster, who was housed in a glass box, was accused of crimes against humanity and the Jewish people – of knowingly sending hundreds of thousands of people to their deaths. When the trial commenced, and the Monster was asked how he pleaded, he answered, ‘Not guilty, in the sense of the indictment.’ As the trial proceeded, the Monster portrayed himself as a cog in a machine. He was a cog who was helpless to stop the inevitable – a cog that was merely performing its duty. To some who observed the trial, the ‘Monster’ who sat before them appeared all too human. Behind the glass, there was no demonic essence of evil. The Monster was, in fact, an average person: a normal person who was capable of committing terrifyingly evil acts. One observer went as far as to say that the manner in which the accused spoke, and the way he framed his story, was evidence that he simply lacked the ability to think. To this observer, it was no radical evildoer who sat in the glass box. In fact, his professed motives, and his inability to avoid cliches, were evidence of his banality. Music produced by Ovidiu Balaban – all rights reserved. Contents Part I. The Life of Hannah Arendt Part II. Eichmann in Jerusalem Part III. The Essence of Evil Part IV. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem (Book) Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (Book) Richard J. Bernstein, Why Read Hannah Arendt Now? (Book) Peter Hayes, Why? Explaining the Holocaust (Book) Anne Heller, Hannah Arendt: A Life in Dark Times (Book) Samantha Rose Hill, Hannah Arendt (Book) Deborah E. Lipstadt, The Eichmann Trial (Book) Dana Vila, Arendt (Book) Eichmann Trial (YouTube)

Introduction On April 11, 1961, a Monster was put on trial in the state of Israel and broadcasted to the world. The Monster, who was housed in a glass box, was accused of crimes against humanity and the Jewish people – of knowingly sending hundreds of thousands of people to their deaths. When the trial commenced, and the Monster was asked how he pleaded, he answered, ‘Not guilty, in the sense of the indictment.’ As the trial proceeded, the Monster portrayed himself as a cog in a machine. He was a cog who was helpless to stop the inevitable – a cog that was merely performing its duty. To some who observed the trial, the ‘Monster’ who sat before them appeared all too human. Behind the glass, there was no demonic essence of evil. The Monster was, in fact, an average person: a normal person who was capable of committing terrifyingly evil acts. One observer went as far as to say that the manner in which the accused spoke, and the way he framed his story, was evidence that he simply lacked the ability to think. To this observer, it was no radical evildoer who sat in the glass box. In fact, his professed motives, and his inability to avoid cliches, were evidence of his banality. Music produced by Ovidiu Balaban – all rights reserved. Contents Part I. The Life of Hannah Arendt Part II. Eichmann in Jerusalem Part III. The Essence of Evil Part IV. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem (Book) Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (Book) Richard J. Bernstein, Why Read Hannah Arendt Now? (Book) Peter Hayes, Why? Explaining the Holocaust (Book) Anne Heller, Hannah Arendt: A Life in Dark Times (Book) Samantha Rose Hill, Hannah Arendt (Book) Deborah E. Lipstadt, The Eichmann Trial (Book) Dana Vila, Arendt (Book) Eichmann Trial (YouTube)

Introduction “How did the universe come into existence?” It’s a question that most of the world’s religions seek to answer. According to the Abrahamic faiths, the world can only exist with the existence of a being who was not caused by something other than itself – and this they call ‘Yahweh’, ‘Allāh’, or ‘God’. Philosophical arguments to this end come in many forms, one of which – from the medieval Islamic philosopher Ibn Sina (known in the West as ‘Avicenna’) ­­­– claims that we can prove the existence of this necessary being with absolute certainty. If something can exist there must be an uncaused being, and from this concept alone, Avicenna says that we can deduce every other property that Muslims attribute to Allāh. In this interview, we’ll be discussing Avicenna and the philosophy of Islam with Dr Mohammad Saleh Zarepour. Currently Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Manchester, Dr Zarepour completed his first PhD at the Tarbiat Modares University in Iran and his second PhD at the University of Cambridge. Publishing extensively in philosophy of religion – and having worked on major initiatives such as the Global Philosophy of Religion Project – it is safe to say that Saleh is one of the world’s leading experts in Islamic philosophy. Islam claims to solve the problem of existence, but its implications extend far beyond the origin of the cosmos. Allāh is a being invested in his creation – a being that will judge, reward, or punish us for our good and bad deeds, who permits us to live and to suffer – and differs from the God of Judaism and Christianity in his nature and actions. Thus, we should ask not only whether belief in Allāh’s necessity is reasonable, but whether the beliefs of Muslims are more (or less) reasonable than those of their Abrahamic cousins. This episode is produced in partnership with The Global Philosophy of Religion Project at University of Birmingham, led by Yujin Nagasawa and funded by the John Templeton Foundation. Contents Part I. Allāh Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Mohammad Saleh Zarepour (website). Mohammad Saleh Zarepour, Necessary Existence and Monotheism (book). Zain Ali, ‘Some Reflections on William Lane Craig’s Critique of Islam’ (paper).

Introduction “How did the universe come into existence?” It’s a question that most of the world’s religions seek to answer. According to the Abrahamic faiths, the world can only exist with the existence of a being who was not caused by something other than itself – and this they call ‘Yahweh’, ‘Allāh’, or ‘God’. Philosophical arguments to this end come in many forms, one of which – from the medieval Islamic philosopher Ibn Sina (known in the West as ‘Avicenna’) ­­­– claims that we can prove the existence of this necessary being with absolute certainty. If something can exist there must be an uncaused being, and from this concept alone, Avicenna says that we can deduce every other property that Muslims attribute to Allāh. In this interview, we’ll be discussing Avicenna and the philosophy of Islam with Dr Mohammad Saleh Zarepour. Currently Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Manchester, Dr Zarepour completed his first PhD at the Tarbiat Modares University in Iran and his second PhD at the University of Cambridge. Publishing extensively in philosophy of religion – and having worked on major initiatives such as the Global Philosophy of Religion Project – it is safe to say that Saleh is one of the world’s leading experts in Islamic philosophy. Islam claims to solve the problem of existence, but its implications extend far beyond the origin of the cosmos. Allāh is a being invested in his creation – a being that will judge, reward, or punish us for our good and bad deeds, who permits us to live and to suffer – and differs from the God of Judaism and Christianity in his nature and actions. Thus, we should ask not only whether belief in Allāh’s necessity is reasonable, but whether the beliefs of Muslims are more (or less) reasonable than those of their Abrahamic cousins. This episode is produced in partnership with The Global Philosophy of Religion Project at University of Birmingham, led by Yujin Nagasawa and funded by the John Templeton Foundation. Contents Part I. Allāh Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Mohammad Saleh Zarepour (website). Mohammad Saleh Zarepour, Necessary Existence and Monotheism (book). Zain Ali, ‘Some Reflections on William Lane Craig’s Critique of Islam’ (paper).

In this episode, you’ll be treated to a live performance of The Panpsycast. The event took place at Liverpool’s beautiful Tung Auditorium on 20th May 2022. Over three hundred of you purchased tickets to the event, with some of our most loyal patrons travelling thousands of miles to be with us in person. Before you listen to the audio, we just wanted to say a huge thank you to those who came along, as well as all of our wonderful panellists – Rowan Williams, Anil Seth, Laura Gow, and Philip Goff – for participating in the debate. A special thank you to Q Quartet, The Department of Philosophy at Liverpool University, and Premier Christian Radio for making this episode possible – as well as all of our incredible patrons. Thank you again for your support; we hope you enjoy the show. Contents Part I. The Debate Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Department of Philosophy, University of Liverpool Unbelievable? Premier Radio Anil Seth Laura Gow Rowan Williams Jack Symes Philip Goff

The panel features Anil Seth, a neuroscientist renowned for his research on consciousness, alongside philosopher Laura Gow, former Archbishop Rowan Williams, and panpsychism expert Philip Goff. They dive into the big questions surrounding the nature and complexities of consciousness. The discussion ranges from contrasting reductionist views with non-reductionist theories, emphasizing the importance of both scientific and philosophical perspectives. Humor and deep reflections intertwine as they explore consciousness's mysterious ties to the universe.

Introduction The flight of a hummingbird, the sprint of a cheetah, the breath of a whale, a daisy turning towards the sunlight. Given the complexity of the natural world, we can understand why – before the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species – people believed that the universe was the work of an intelligent designer. These days, however – although creationism continues to be defended by religious fundamentalists – the scientific consensus is that the world’s organisms evolved through the long and arduous process of natural selection. ‘With a complete physical explanation,’ say the new atheists, ‘there’s no need to appeal to the supernatural.’ In this interview, we’ll be discussing atheism with Professor Richard Dawkins. It’s no exaggeration to say that Richard Dawkins is one of the most influential scientists, and the most famous atheist, of all time. Alongside his invaluable contributions to evolutionary biology, his books – including The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and The God Delusion – have a readership in the tens of millions, resulting in numerous prestigious awards and recognition as ‘the world’s top thinker’. ‘Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin’, says Dawkins, ‘Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.’ It is time we seized that possibility: that we embrace the godless universe, craft our own meaning, and stop suffering fools gladly. Contents Part I. Why I'm an Atheist Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion. Richard Dawkins, Outgrowing God. Richard Dawkins, Flights of Fancy. www.richarddawkins.com www.richarddawkins.net

Introduction The flight of a hummingbird, the sprint of a cheetah, the breath of a whale, a daisy turning towards the sunlight. Given the complexity of the natural world, we can understand why – before the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species – people believed that the universe was the work of an intelligent designer. These days, however – although creationism continues to be defended by religious fundamentalists – the scientific consensus is that the world’s organisms evolved through the long and arduous process of natural selection. ‘With a complete physical explanation,’ say the new atheists, ‘there’s no need to appeal to the supernatural.’ In this interview, we’ll be discussing atheism with Professor Richard Dawkins. It’s no exaggeration to say that Richard Dawkins is one of the most influential scientists, and the most famous atheist, of all time. Alongside his invaluable contributions to evolutionary biology, his books – including The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and The God Delusion – have a readership in the tens of millions, resulting in numerous prestigious awards and recognition as ‘the world’s top thinker’. ‘Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin’, says Dawkins, ‘Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.’ It is time we seized that possibility: that we embrace the godless universe, craft our own meaning, and stop suffering fools gladly. Contents Part I. Why I'm an Atheist Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion. Richard Dawkins, Outgrowing God. Richard Dawkins, Flights of Fancy. www.richarddawkins.com www.richarddawkins.net

Introduction Art is created by people, but people are fallible. When the art we love is tainted by the brush of an artist’s biography, we must ask whether the shift in our aesthetic experience is reasonable. One might also wonder whether artworks can do wrong in and of themselves. If artworks can be intended as conveyers of truth, can they convey falsehoods or – more awkwardly – lies? These aren’t just conceptual problems. If artworks lie and immoral artists are inseparable from their artworks, how should we respond? Should we censor all art, some art, or no art at all? In this episode, we’ll be discussing the ethics of art with Cambridge University’s Dr Daisy Dixon. Dixon’s work, which explores the nature of (and responses to) unethical art, invites us to place art within its context – to consider artworks in relation to their artists, truth-functionality in relation to an artwork’s surroundings, and dangerous artworks in relation to their curation. If we do so, says Dixon, we’ll not only gain a better understanding of art but how we can bring about a better world. Contents Part I. Time Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Daisy Dixon, Website. Daisy Dixon, University Profile. Daisy Dixon, Conflicted art: how to approach works by morally bad artists. Daisy Dixon, Lies in Art. Daisy Dixon, Should we censor art?: a philosophical guide on how to manage dangerous art.