Good in Theory: A Political Philosophy Podcast

This episode is about Wolf’s “Moral Saints,” Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence and Morality,” and Larissa Macfarquhar’s Strangers Drowning.  Susan Wolf thinks that devoting your life to helping others would be a real drag. It’d interfere with playing tennis and reading Tolstoy. True enough but some people might have philosophical and personal reasons to do it anyway. For example, Peter Singer argues that, if you think a child’s life is worth more than your shoes, then you’re morally obliged to give away all your money to charity.  Larissa Macfarquhar helps out with the personal reasons. She’s written a book that profiles a whole bunch of real-life do-gooders. And it turns out that even though the saintly life is tough, the saints are getting something out of it.  And from their perspective, a life of Tolstoy and tennis might not be a great as Wolf makes it out to be. References Macfarquhar, Strangers DrowningSinger, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”Wolf, “Moral Saints”  Support the show

This episode is about Susan Wolf’s 1982 article “Moral Saints.” You’re probably a moral enough person. But have you ever had that nagging feeling that you should be even better? That if you were really good, you would devote your life to the cause, whatever cause that might be? That you should become some kind of moral saint? People who devote their entire lives to being as morally good as possible are held up as objects of admiration, as a kind of saintly standard that the rest of us feel vaguely guilty for not living up to.Susan Wolf says we shouldn’t feel bad about not being saints because no rational person should want to be a saint in the first place. In this episode, I explain her argument for why it makes more sense to be cool like Paul Newman than good like Mother Teresa.  Support the show

Today I speak with Earl Fontainelle of the Secret History of Western Esotericism podcast (SHWEP). I don’t understand Plato. Partly this is because he never writes in his own voice and partly it’s because I can’t even always tell when Socrates is joking or even what he’s talking about. The divided line? The Myth of Er? The tyrant being exactly 729 times less happy than the philosopher? These are all weird things in the Republic that are still mysterious to me. Earl suggests that perhaps the reason Plato is so difficult to understand is because he was writing esoterically. Perhaps the dialogues contain secret messages directed to an initiated few and the weird passages I complain about actually contain wisdom of a higher order. Perhaps. In this long and wide-ranging conversation, we talk about why so many readers of Plato believed he wrote esoterically, the secret meanings he may have been hiding, and a lot of the mysterious Plato math that I complained about in the Republic series. References:  SHWEP episode on the Esoteric PlatoSHWEP episode with Maya Alapin on mathematical structures in Plato’s republicWiki on the divided line with diagramMaya Alapin The Philosophical Implications of Interpreting Plato through Musical AnalysisJames Adam The Nuptial Number of Plato Robert Brumbaugh Plato's mathematical imagination; the mathematical passages in the dialogues and their interpretationFrancis Macdonald Cornford (trans.) The Republic of PlatoSupport the show

I talk to Phillip Cunliffe and George Hoare about their new book The End of the End of History.  In 1989, Francis Fukuyama predicted a boring eternity of liberal capitalism and for nearly 30 years, it looked like he might be right. We had Clinton and Blair. Globalization and apathy. Kurt Cobain. According to my guests, the end of History wasn’t just about politics, it was a whole vibe. But since 2016, things have started happening that don't quite  fit the pattern and the pundits are losing their minds. Do Brexit, Trump, and the new politicization signify the end of the end of History? We chat about how the political zeitgeist has changed in recent years and what that may hold for the future. Phillip Cunliffe and George Hoare are, along with Alex Hochuli, co-hosts of the Aufhebunga bunga podcast and co-authors of The End of the End of History: Politics in theTwenty-First Century. Support the show

In 1989, Francis Fukuyama was a foreign policy expert with an interest in Hegel. He published a little essay called “The End of History?” in which he argued that the Cold War was more than a rivalry between two superpowers or an experiment to find the most efficient way to organize an economy. Fukuyama thought it was the final chapter in a millennia-long struggle to find a way of life that satisfies our deep spiritual need for freedom and equality. Therefore the end of the Cold War would mark the end of History as such. To argue that all of human history was coming to a conclusion was always a wild swing-for-the-fences argument but this one connected. ReferencesFrancis Fukuyama, "The End of History?"Support the show

Today, Paul Sagar and I get into utilitarianism. We talk about thought experiments that involve: drowning kids, ruined loafers, death squads and bioweapons. The drowning children are from Peter Singer. He's a utilitarian that thinks that we rich first-world types should be giving away all our money to save the global poor from starving and malaria. Paul disagrees. He brings in another philosopher (Bernard Williams) to argue that worrying about starving children all the time would violate his integrity. As usual, he tries hard not to offend anyone (until he gets to Hiroshima). References: Peter Singer, “Famine, affluence and morality”Bernard Williams, “Against Utilitarianism”Support the show

The podcast delves into Plato's Republic, discussing reincarnation choices and Socrates' advice, concluding with a tale of a man who visited the afterlife. Topics include immortal soul, justice, Socrates' myth vs. Homer's Odyssey, and the myth of Ur emphasizing wise choices. The episode wraps up with gratitude to contributors and teases future plans for the podcast.

Socrates argues against poetry, claiming it rots our souls. The debate centers around the influence of poetry, the nature of imitation, and the lack of wisdom in poets. The podcast also explores the corrupting power of nonfiction media and the ancient quarrel between poetry and philosophy.

This episode covers book 9 of Plato's Republic. In this episode, Socrates is going to finally answer the question that started it all. Back in book 2, Glaucon and Adeimantus challenged Socrates to prove to them that it’s worthwhile to be just. To them, the life of injustice looks pretty good, if you can get away with it. Money, sex, power, what’s not to like?Socrates has been building up his answer since episode 4 of this series. He’s built an imaginary city, and education system and a group of superhuman philosopher kings to rule it all. In this episode, he’s going to finally explain what’s wrong with injustice. While the tyrant’s life may look fun from the outside, Socrates says it’s not so great when you get behind the music. According to him, the tyrant’s life is desperate, paranoid, and miserable. Not only is the philosopher king happier than the tyrant, he’s 729 times happier!Support the show

This podcast explores how politics affects personality. It examines the different regimes that exist in the Greek world and their impact on individuals. It discusses the transition from aristocracy to democracy, oligarchy, and tyranny, as well as the flaws of an oligarchy system. It explores the rise of beggars, the motivations and characteristics of the oligarchic man, and the transition from democracy to tyranny. Ultimately, it delves into the erosion of hierarchies and the oppression of citizens under tyranny.