Claim OwnershipPhilosophy Bites
Subscribed: 47,792Played: 376,158
Subscribe
© copyright David Edmonds and Nigel Warburton
Description
David Edmonds (Uehiro Centre, Oxford University) and Nigel Warburton (freelance philosopher/writer) interview top philosophers on a wide range of topics. Two books based on the series have been published by Oxford University Press. We are currently self-funding - donations very welcome via our website http://www.philosophybites.com
375 Episodes
Reverse
David Edmonds discusses the life and work of Derek Parfit who died in 2017 in this episode of the Bio Bites strand of Philosophy. David is the author of a recent biography of Parfit.
4Yascha Mounk discusses some of the ways in which focussing on gender, racial, and sexual identities can distort political argument and be counterproductive for oppressed minorities.
J.L.Austin was the best known exponent of what came to be known as Ordinary Language Philosophy. He was also a war hero. In this episode of the Bio Bites strand of the Philosophy Bites podcast David Edmonds discusses Austin's life and work with his biographer Mark Rowe.
In this episode James Klagge discusses the life and times of Ludwig Wittgenstein with David Edmonds. This is part of our mini series on the biographies of philosophers, Bio Bites.
What happens when people have sexual desires for one another? Agnes Callard from the University of Chicago discusses sex, eroticism, and much more in conversation with Nigel Warburton. Not surprisingly, this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast involves mention of sex.
Augustine is usually described as a pessimist with a bleak view of human evil and corruption. Michael Lamb thinks that is a simplistic reading. Augustine has interesting things to say about hope as a virtue.
AI has changed our lives already and looks set to have a huge impact. How should we adapt our thinking about political philosophy in the light of this? The philosopher Seth Lazar explores this question in conversation with Nigel Warburton in this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast.
In this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast Nigel Warburton interviews Hannah Dawson (editor of The Penguin Book of Feminist Writing) on Mary Wollstonecraft and her book A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792).
What is the relationship between law and morality? How do they differ? Scott Hershovitz discusses these questions with Nigel Warburton in this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast.
Digital ethics is a new field. But what is it, what is its scope? In this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast Carissa Véliz, author of Privacy is Power and editor of The Oxford Handbook of Digital Ethics, discusses these topics with Nigel Warburton. Philosophy Bites is brought to you by the team of David Edmonds and Nigel Warburton. We've been running since 2007.
You might not have an obligation to risk your life saving other people, but if you do, you should go for saving the greatest number. That's more or less what Theon Pummer believes. Listen to him discussing the morality of rescue with David Edmonds in this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast
In this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast David Edmonds interviews Will MacAskill on the controversial idea that we ought to give the interests of future people substantial weight when deciding what we ought to do now.
What is loneliness and why is it harmful? How does it differ from just being on your own? In the latest episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast, Kieran Setiya discusses this important topic with Nigel Warburton.
How should we live? This is the basic question for all of us. In this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast Edith Hall, author of the book Aristotle's Way, gives a sympathetic answer to Aristotle's take on this question.
We have all had transformative experiences. But do they have philosophical relevance? Laurie Paul believes they do. In this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast she discusses this fascinating topic with Nigel Warburton.
How do you solve the question of collective self-government by citizens? Josiah Ober discusses a fundamental problem of democratic societies: how we come to agree on courses of action when we commit to living within a democracy. His argument is that we need to become civic friends, a concept he explains in the conversation.
Skye Cleary approaches questions of human authenticity throught he lens of French Existentialism, and particularly through Simone de Beauvoir's thought. She is in conversation with Nigel Warburton.
Developments in AI are coming very quickly. But it's not easy to work out how to deal with the ethical questions that AI generates. Peter Railton discusses AI and Ethics with Nigel Warburton for this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast
We all make some modifications to our bodies. But often this is in response to social pressures. So is there something to say for the largely unmodified body? Clare Chambers thinks so. In this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast she spells out why. The interviewer is David Edmonds.
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store
United States
the lack of meaningful push-back on claims like "schools are segregating the students" or "students have no choice" (while he's literally providing the opposite perspective at a university) is why I'm unsubbing. personal anecdotes dont count as evidence. equivocating overcorrection with the badness of a policy root is fallacious. and there's no philosophical value in removing intent from "cultural appropriation" - that action requires intent and would cover all costumes present at the party.
So, if I get sum it up, I rather to say that the idea of death and its fear, however being excruciating, still plays an important role in pushing us to live a better life. Thinking about death and afterlife might seem disturbing, yet consequently helpful, as it provokes us to fully live our life. It doesn't matter if we keep neglecting the uneasyness of death, since it is still there and ignoring it is only a mere attempt of escape, escaping from something that can save our life. #Death
there are already two of you speaking with accents, & almost the same exact voice, and adding a woman to that leaves me juggling. One of you should take testosterone.
The problem with this argument is it ignores the possibility of violence towards trans women. She doesn't bother to argue that overall violence will be reduced by excluding trans women from women's spaces; rather, she argues that any amount of violence towards women is unacceptable. She says that the argument does not imply trans women are particularly violent, but just that any violence that could potentially happen from a male-bodied person is unacceptable. But, why would we need to focus on this particular kind of violence? Why not focus on reducing violence overall? Despite her insisting otherwise, her argument only makes sense if one believes either a) trans women are particularly violent, or b) despite being statistically rare, violence against biological women from trans women should be considered morally worse than other types of violence (e.g. violence towards trans women), and therefore should be a priority. If you do not believe either a) or b), then the logical priority sho
A small but informative episode about plato's philosophy.
Just go and ruin the ending of 'To Kill a Mockingbird', then. Spoiler alert for 9:00.
good job explaining it arash ...easy to digest and a hot topic to talk about indeed love from one iranian to another
What was he even talking about? That was philosophical word garbage. The only coherent thought was his reference to 19th century philosophy. I am now dumber for having listened to that rambling halfwit puke his harebrained (what I think was) theory about.... I'm not actually sure because he didn't make any sense. This is why average people think philosophy is unimportant.
drivel
It would be great if you make more episodes about Arendt and specially Totalitarianism. Love your podcast, thank you so much 🤍🍀
Sad to see philosophy being infiltrated by modern gender studies. Kate has a respectable perspective on certain issues, but is obviously blinded by her preconceived ideology. She burned a strawman of the anti-abortion perspective. She even pulls out a vapid republican hypocrite stereotype, which even when absolutely the case, doesn't actually address the core moral argument over abortion. As a moral philosopher this an incredibly weak misdirection. Kate completely dodged the question of female entitlement. She again demonstrates she has a defined ideology and is inflexible in that regard. She's a modern femanist and asking her that is equivalent to asking a men's rights activist if men are toxic. It's rather ironic, implying women can't be meaningfully entitled or have any systemic control of human interaction is quite demeaning and evolutionarily ignorant towards females. It would seem her views, as with many modern social "science" arguments, are guilty of the bigotry of low expectat
this was almost therapeutic to listen to.. thank you
A wonderful framing of different points of view. clear and succinct. thank you
This is deep and scary
This episode is disappointing. While I understand the arguments, they are logically garbage. Arguing about women only spaces due to the violence they experience from men, and then holding that against trans-women is laughable. They, too, are disproportionately victimized by men. They, TOO, are escaping being attacked by people who wish to control their bodies. And to then reply to a question about evidence with "just read reddit, it just makes sense," mother of god. You couldnt provide a weaker defense if you had just pooped on the microphone.
👍👍👍
Personally I came to contrast infinity with zero. Both of them are arbitrary and malleable concepts. as opposed to contrasting it with an absolute concept like one. I do find both perspectives interesting and useful though.
Generally good podcasts, some of it is way over my head or I don't agree with it but some interesting ideas and hopefully I will learn something from it.
It's ironic how dogmatic this guy sounds
the topic should be feminism...