The Panpsycast Philosophy Podcast

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.

Introduction Enjoying a holiday in a small coastal village, a New York banker finds herself walking along a tranquil pier when she comes across a fisherman in a small, wooden boat. Inside the boat she spotted several rainbow-coloured fish. ‘Congratulations on a fine score. How long did it take you to catch them?’ ‘Only a little while,’ the fisherman replied. ‘That’s great,’ said the banker, ‘so, why don’t you stay out longer and catch a few more?’ The fisherman explained that he only caught what he needed to put fish on the table and a roof over his family’s heads. ‘But’, the puzzled banker enquired, ‘what do you do with the rest of your time?’ The fisherman smiled: ‘I sleep in late, I read books, I go dancing with my wife, and I write jokes about Adam Sandler.’ The banker scoffed, ‘You know, I could offer you my assistance with your fishing business.’ The fisherman raised his eyebrows. ‘If you spent more time fishing, you could sell more fish and buy a bigger boat. You’d catch more fish, buy more boats, and soon enough you could buy a fleet! Instead of selling your catch to a middleman, you would sell directly to the processor, and eventually open a cannery.’ The fisherman paused for a moment… ‘Right, but how long will this all take?’ The banker replied: ‘Ten to fifteen years?’  ‘But what then?’ asked the fisherman. The banker looked confused, ‘Then you could enjoy some time off: sleep in late, read books, go dancing with your wife, and write jokes about Adam Sandler.’ The fisherman smiled, ‘I suggest you stick around for a while. Have you been fishing before? Ha! Why don’t you climb aboard?’ Contents Part I. Time Part II. How to Use It Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Oliver Burkeman, Four Thousand Weeks. Bertrand Russell, In Praise of Idleness. Seneca, On the Shortness of Life.

Introduction Enjoying a holiday in a small coastal village, a New York banker finds herself walking along a tranquil pier when she comes across a fisherman in a small, wooden boat. Inside the boat she spotted several rainbow-coloured fish. ‘Congratulations on a fine score. How long did it take you to catch them?’ ‘Only a little while,’ the fisherman replied. ‘That’s great,’ said the banker, ‘so, why don’t you stay out longer and catch a few more?’ The fisherman explained that he only caught what he needed to put fish on the table and a roof over his family’s heads. ‘But’, the puzzled banker enquired, ‘what do you do with the rest of your time?’ The fisherman smiled: ‘I sleep in late, I read books, I go dancing with my wife, and I write jokes about Adam Sandler.’ The banker scoffed, ‘You know, I could offer you my assistance with your fishing business.’ The fisherman raised his eyebrows. ‘If you spent more time fishing, you could sell more fish and buy a bigger boat. You’d catch more fish, buy more boats, and soon enough you could buy a fleet! Instead of selling your catch to a middleman, you would sell directly to the processor, and eventually open a cannery.’ The fisherman paused for a moment… ‘Right, but how long will this all take?’ The banker replied: ‘Ten to fifteen years?’  ‘But what then?’ asked the fisherman. The banker looked confused, ‘Then you could enjoy some time off: sleep in late, read books, go dancing with your wife, and write jokes about Adam Sandler.’ The fisherman smiled, ‘I suggest you stick around for a while. Have you been fishing before? Ha! Why don’t you climb aboard?’ Contents Part I. Time Part II. How to Use It Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Oliver Burkeman, Four Thousand Weeks. Bertrand Russell, In Praise of Idleness. Seneca, On the Shortness of Life.

Introduction Enjoying a holiday in a small coastal village, a New York banker finds herself walking along a tranquil pier when she comes across a fisherman in a small, wooden boat. Inside the boat she spotted several rainbow-coloured fish. ‘Congratulations on a fine score. How long did it take you to catch them?’ ‘Only a little while,’ the fisherman replied. ‘That’s great,’ said the banker, ‘so, why don’t you stay out longer and catch a few more?’ The fisherman explained that he only caught what he needed to put fish on the table and a roof over his family’s heads. ‘But’, the puzzled banker enquired, ‘what do you do with the rest of your time?’ The fisherman smiled: ‘I sleep in late, I read books, I go dancing with my wife, and I write jokes about Adam Sandler.’ The banker scoffed, ‘You know, I could offer you my assistance with your fishing business.’ The fisherman raised his eyebrows. ‘If you spent more time fishing, you could sell more fish and buy a bigger boat. You’d catch more fish, buy more boats, and soon enough you could buy a fleet! Instead of selling your catch to a middleman, you would sell directly to the processor, and eventually open a cannery.’ The fisherman paused for a moment… ‘Right, but how long will this all take?’ The banker replied: ‘Ten to fifteen years?’  ‘But what then?’ asked the fisherman. The banker looked confused, ‘Then you could enjoy some time off: sleep in late, read books, go dancing with your wife, and write jokes about Adam Sandler.’ The fisherman smiled, ‘I suggest you stick around for a while. Have you been fishing before? Ha! Why don’t you climb aboard?’ Contents Part I. Time Part II. How to Use It Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion   Links Oliver Burkeman, Four Thousand Weeks. Bertrand Russell, In Praise of Idleness. Seneca, On the Shortness of Life.

Welcome to ‘Episode 105 (Part II of II)’, in which we’ll be analysing Hauskeller’s argument against transhumanist approaches to animals. We are all prisoners of our biology. Whether humans (and our non-human cousins) have the capacity to think, feel, or fly is dictated by their DNA, long before they have a say in the matter. It’s a living lottery that has lifted human beings to lofty heights; that is, above the world’s lowly, lesser creatures. With the emergence of new technologies, the age of the transhumanists is upon us: philosophers and scientists who believe that the lottery should be rigged towards self-design and the elimination of suffering. We have a moral imperative, say the transhumanists, to engineer a world that is better for everybody: to seek out technological solutions to ethical problems, not just for ourselves but the rest of the animal kingdom. After all, the question is not, ‘can they reason?’ – nor ‘can they talk?’ – but ‘can they suffer?’ In this episode, we’ll be discussing animals in transhumanism with Professor of Philosophy and Head of Department at the University of Liverpool, Michael Hauskeller. With over two hundred publications – across a vast range of philosophical questions – in both academic and public philosophy, Professor Hauskeller is, undoubtedly, one of the world’s most prominent philosophers. For Hauskeller, philosophy helps us navigate ourselves towards a better tomorrow: through philosophy, we can discover what kind of people we want to be, in what kind of world we want to live, and how we should steer the futures of our fellow creatures. Our question for today: should we take pity on the world’s poor brutes – those who live such lowly lives – and lift them up to our own lofty heights? Or should we leave them to dance the muddy dance of life? Contents Part I. How to Become a Post-Dog Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Michael Hauskeller, Academia Profile. Michael Hauskeller, How to Become a Post-Dog: Animals in Transhumanism (paper) Michael Hauskeller, Living Like a Dog: Can the Life of Non-Human Animals Be Meaningful? (paper) Michael Hauskeller, University Profile. Nick Bostrom, Golden Retriever – Live on Larry King! (paper)

Welcome to ‘Episode 105 (Part I of II)’, in which we’ll be discussing animals in transhumanism with Michael Hauskeller. We are all prisoners of our biology. Whether humans (and our non-human cousins) have the capacity to think, feel, or fly is dictated by their DNA, long before they have a say in the matter. It’s a living lottery that has lifted human beings to lofty heights; that is, above the world’s lowly, lesser creatures. With the emergence of new technologies, the age of the transhumanists is upon us: philosophers and scientists who believe that the lottery should be rigged towards self-design and the elimination of suffering. We have a moral imperative, say the transhumanists, to engineer a world that is better for everybody: to seek out technological solutions to ethical problems, not just for ourselves but the rest of the animal kingdom. After all, the question is not, ‘can they reason?’ – nor ‘can they talk?’ – but ‘can they suffer?’ In this episode, we’ll be discussing animals in transhumanism with Professor of Philosophy and Head of Department at the University of Liverpool, Michael Hauskeller. With over two hundred publications – across a vast range of philosophical questions – in both academic and public philosophy, Professor Hauskeller is, undoubtedly, one of the world’s most prominent philosophers. For Hauskeller, philosophy helps us navigate ourselves towards a better tomorrow: through philosophy, we can discover what kind of people we want to be, in what kind of world we want to live, and how we should steer the futures of our fellow creatures. Our question for today: should we take pity on the world’s poor brutes – those who live such lowly lives – and lift them up to our own lofty heights? Or should we leave them to dance the muddy dance of life? Contents Part I. How to Become a Post-Dog Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Michael Hauskeller, Academia Profile. Michael Hauskeller, How to Become a Post-Dog: Animals in Transhumanism (paper) Michael Hauskeller, Living Like a Dog: Can the Life of Non-Human Animals Be Meaningful? (paper) Michael Hauskeller, University Profile. Nick Bostrom, Golden Retriever – Live on Larry King! (paper)

Introduction If we want to improve our public discourse, we must aim to be as objective as possible. When we raise our consciousness and work towards clearing our minds of personal interests, political affiliations, and the sophistry of art, we grow closer to rationality and knowledge. Art, on the other hand, is nothing more than the overly excited offspring of objectivity: films, paintings, music, and dance contribute nothing unique to our understanding of the world. At worst, art muddies the waters of our discourse; at best, it merely reflects the insights of political philosophy and science. Opposing this view – and championing the cognitive advantages of artworks as political discourse – is Dr Vid Simoniti, Lecturer in Philosophy of Art at the University of Liverpool. As well as being a rising star in the worlds of academic philosophy and art history, Dr Simoniti’s work as a BBC New Generation Thinker – and his collaborations with public-facing projects such as the Liverpool bi-annual – is bringing conversations about art and philosophy into the public square. When we enjoy a play at the theatre, rock our heads to a song on the radio, or wiggle the joysticks on our PlayStation controllers: does it leave us more attuned to how the world is? For Simoniti, in the context of art as political discourse, the answer is unequivocally ‘yes’. This episode is produced in partnership with the Philosophy and the Future project at the University of Liverpool. For more information about philosophy at Liverpool, head over to www.liverpool.ac.uk/philosophy. Contents Part I. Public Health Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Vid Simoniti, Website. Vid Simoniti, Art Against the World (Podcast). Vid Simoniti, ‘Art as Political Discourse’ (Paper).

Introduction If we want to improve our public discourse, we must aim to be as objective as possible. When we raise our consciousness and work towards clearing our minds of personal interests, political affiliations, and the sophistry of art, we grow closer to rationality and knowledge. Art, on the other hand, is nothing more than the overly excited offspring of objectivity: films, paintings, music, and dance contribute nothing unique to our understanding of the world. At worst, art muddies the waters of our discourse; at best, it merely reflects the insights of political philosophy and science. Opposing this view – and championing the cognitive advantages of artworks as political discourse – is Dr Vid Simoniti, Lecturer in Philosophy of Art at the University of Liverpool. As well as being a rising star in the worlds of academic philosophy and art history, Dr Simoniti’s work as a BBC New Generation Thinker – and his collaborations with public-facing projects such as the Liverpool bi-annual – is bringing conversations about art and philosophy into the public square. When we enjoy a play at the theatre, rock our heads to a song on the radio, or wiggle the joysticks on our PlayStation controllers: does it leave us more attuned to how the world is? For Simoniti, in the context of art as political discourse, the answer is unequivocally ‘yes’. This episode is produced in partnership with the Philosophy and the Future project at the University of Liverpool. For more information about philosophy at Liverpool, head over to www.liverpool.ac.uk/philosophy. Contents Part I. Public Health Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Vid Simoniti, Website. Vid Simoniti, Art Against the World (Podcast). Vid Simoniti, ‘Art as Political Discourse’ (Paper).

Introduction Given the choice, who wouldn’t increase the balance in their bank account, switch into a fit and healthy body, find themselves in a meaningful career, and cultivate happiness and love in their relationships? These are preferences we all share, but few of us achieve them. Perhaps we could, if only we made better choices. We all want to make better decisions – the salad over the burger, the restful night’s sleep over ‘one more episode’ – yet we continue to succumb to our desires. Perhaps we need some help: maybe we need something to nudge us in the right direction? In this episode, we’ll be discussing the philosophy of nudges with Professor Thomas Schramme. Chair of Philosophy at the University of Liverpool, Thomas’s research focuses on moral and political philosophy and the philosophy of health and medicine. With over one hundred publications and heading several innovative projects – including ‘How Does it Feel? Interpersonal Understanding and Affective Empathy’ – Professor Schramme is not only an expert in his field but always communicates his ideas through accessible and engaging prose. As we’ll find in this interview, Schramme challenges some of the most prominent ideas in contemporary politics and psychology. According to Daniel Kehneman, nudges ‘have changed the world’… but, asks Schramme, do they always change it for the better? This episode is produced in partnership with the Philosophy and the Future project at the University of Liverpool. For more information about philosophy at Liverpool, head over to www.liverpool.ac.uk/philosophy. Contents Part I. Public Health Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Thomas Schramme, University Profile. Thomas Schramme, Publications. Thomas Schramme, Free-riders, collective benefit and the philosophy of mandatory vaccination. Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness, The Final Edition.

Introduction Given the choice, who wouldn’t increase the balance in their bank account, switch into a fit and healthy body, find themselves in a meaningful career, and cultivate happiness and love in their relationships? These are preferences we all share, but few of us achieve them. Perhaps we could, if only we made better choices. We all want to make better decisions – the salad over the burger, the restful night’s sleep over ‘one more episode’ – yet we continue to succumb to our desires. Perhaps we need some help: maybe we need something to nudge us in the right direction? In this episode, we’ll be discussing the philosophy of nudges with Professor Thomas Schramme. Chair of Philosophy at the University of Liverpool, Thomas’s research focuses on moral and political philosophy and the philosophy of health and medicine. With over one hundred publications and heading several innovative projects – including ‘How Does it Feel? Interpersonal Understanding and Affective Empathy’ – Professor Schramme is not only an expert in his field but always communicates his ideas through accessible and engaging prose. As we’ll find in this interview, Schramme challenges some of the most prominent ideas in contemporary politics and psychology. According to Daniel Kehneman, nudges ‘have changed the world’… but, asks Schramme, do they always change it for the better? This episode is produced in partnership with the Philosophy and the Future project at the University of Liverpool. For more information about philosophy at Liverpool, head over to www.liverpool.ac.uk/philosophy. Contents Part I. Public Health Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Thomas Schramme, University Profile. Thomas Schramme, Publications. Thomas Schramme, Free-riders, collective benefit and the philosophy of mandatory vaccination. Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness, The Final Edition.