Philosopher's Zone

Mysticism is a phenomenon commonly associated with religion and the kind of experience that bypasses the rational, critical mind - which is probably why modern philosophers have tended to treat it with suspicion. But this week we're asking if contemporary philosophy can learn something from the mystics.

In ethical terms, health care systems are supposed to be "blind" to culture, offering the same level of care and respect to all patients regardless of background. Programs promoting diversity and inclusivity in health care are designed to further this aim - and yet for immigrants and other minorities, the practice can fall far from the ideal.

Sentience is a puzzle - and an increasingly important one. The question of exactly what constitutes sentience, and which organisms possess it, is hotly contested. But with scientific evidence emerging in support of the theory that octopuses, bees and other invertebrates may be sentience candidates, moral questions of how we should treat them become more and more pressing. And then there's AI - could sentient robots be on the horizon?

Nationalism is often associated with rightwing politics and anti-immigration sentiment - but is that a necessary connection? This week we're looking at various forms of nationalism, and asking if there's something about the structure of the nation-state itself that fosters an exclusionary attitude to outsiders.

With the launch this week of a new Centre for the History of Philosophy at Notre Dame University, we're talking about the value of philosophical insights from the past – particularly insights from a time when philosophy and theology were close cousins.

Maori philosopher Krushil Watene is an outstanding scholar and part of a global leadership network working toward a sustainable future and a healthier planet. This week, delivering the 2024 Alan Saunders Lecture, she presents "Indigenous Philosophy and Intergenerational Justice".

To many people, the notion that the universe has consciousness and purpose belongs back in the pre-scientific era. This week we're exploring the possibility that cosmic purpose is defensible not only philosophically, but also scientifically.

Is freedom the primary goal of feminism? It's popular these days to define feminism as something that frees women - from traditional gender roles, from social expectations and other restrictions. But the question remains as to whether or not "freedom feminism" is up to the task of helping - or even noticing - the most vulnerable and oppressed.

As an academic discipline, Australian literature has been a largely white affair, with the canon of "great Australian authors" dominated by Anglo-European men. Indigenous writers are working to change this, and Australian indigenous literature is flourishing. But how comfortably does it sit within the traditional university structure?

With the climate heating up and our planetary support systems breaking down, how does an eco-philosopher manage to stay cheerful? This week's guest has been living and breathing these issues for many decades, which you'd think might make it difficult for him to get out of bed in the morning. But get out of bed he did, for a surprisingly upbeat conversation about optimism, pessimism and ecological identity.

AI is like all new technology, insofar as many people are afraid of it. When it comes to AI and education, scare stories abound of students using ChatGPT to write their essays, and a possible future where teachers are replaced by bots. But according to this week's guest, there's much to be excited about.

Ancient China seems like a place and a time far removed from our own - but when we look at how ancient and medieval Chinese scholars thought about the role and practice of history, we find some striking modern parallels.

Extremists used to be easy to spot: they were seen as irrational, unstable and... well, extreme. But in recent years, we've seen extremists on the political right laying claim to traditional Enlightenment values - reason, free speech, autonomy, human rights - that were traditionally used as bulwarks against extremism.

Few English language writers enjoy the position of authority, even reverence, that the journalist, essayist, novelist George Orwell does.While Orwell is best known for his novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four”, he can also be read as developing a provocative moral sensibility — perhaps even an ethical system — in dialogue with the exigencies of war that framed his life, as well as the philosophical traditions that were “in the air” in English culture in the first half of the twentieth century.

Ever since Plato’s cave, the darkness has been considered something to be left behind. This is the founding myth of philosophy, the beginning of the Western philosophical tradition.But how might philosophy be different if it had, from the beginning, learned to see in the dark? If it had embraced, rather than sought to tame, the emotions that sometimes overwhelm us when we experience the too-muchness of life?

Over the last decade, liberalism has found itself on the ropes. Even many liberals seem to regard it as too soft a political disposition for hard times. This has led some of its most passionate advocates to make the case for its importance with a degree of desperation commensurate with their sense of the existential threat it faces from resurgent forms of authoritarianism, intolerance, populism and political violence.But there is another way of making the case for liberalism — and that is to point to its benevolent effects all around us, the extent to which its influence is written all over those social practices and dispositions we hold dear. In other words, maybe liberalism doesn’t have to be defended at all, but simply acknowledged, and lived-into, as a way of life that both reflects and sustains our hard-won commitment to fairness, decency and equality.

Whatever else artificial intelligence is, according to Professor Shannon Vallor, it is first and foremost a projection of the human. And so whatever threat it poses, is a threat from within our humanity.

The project of bringing extinct animals back into being is sexy, hi-tech and could confer significant environmental benefits - but at what cost? Some argue that resurrecting extinct species could actually work against the conservation of threatened species that currently exist. Why worry about their possible extinction, if we can just bring them back?

Gene technology has brought us to the point where it's theoretically possible to bring back extinct animals from the "species grave". But the science is not straightforward - and neither is the philosophy.

If you're like most people, you probably think about your life as a story - it has a beginning, a middle and an end, and the main character in the story is... you. But this seemingly "natural" main character thinking is deeply culturally determined, and it can limit us in the ways that we evaluate our own lives and the lives of others.