Philosophy is about concepts – what it is to be moral, to be in love, or belong to the human species – and these concepts pervade every aspect of our lives. Yet, what images come to mind when you think of Immanuel Kant, David Hume, or René Descartes? For many of us, we imagine Descartes in his armchair, Hume at his desk, and Kant on one of his solitary walks. We certainly don’t imagine these figures, wearing boiler suits…

For Mary Midgley, the image of a philosopher withdrawn from the realities of everyday affairs represents precisely where philosophy has gone wrong. For Midgley, philosophy is best understood – not as an exercise of self-indulgent scholarship – but as a sort of plumbing. Our concepts run through our societies like the pipes through our homes, and it’s the job of the philosopher – that is, the plumber – to examine the pipes and keep the water from swamping the kitchen floor. For Midgley, we need philosophy, just as we need plumbing…philosophy’s not a luxury; it’s a necessity.

Joining us to discuss the philosophy of Mary Midgley is Dr Ellie Robson. Dr Robson is a British Society for the History of Philosophy Postdoctoral Fellow and Teaching Associate at Nottingham University. Ellie – whose work primarily focuses on the history of philosophy and meta-ethics – is one of the leading scholars of philosophy on Mary Midgley’s life and work. In this episode, she’ll illustrate Midgley’s meta-philosophy and meta-ethics through her analysis of the concept of beastliness.

Let’s dig up the floorboards and see what’s leaking.

Contents

Part I. The Roots of Human Nature

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Links

Ellie Robson (website)

Ellie Robson, Mary Midgley’s Beast and Man: The Roots of Human Nature: a re-appraisal (paper)

Ellie Robson, Mary Midgley on Water and Thought: Is Public Philosophy Like Plumbing? (article)

Mary Midgley, The Concept of Beastliness (paper)

Mary Midgley, Beast and Man (book)

Mary Midgley, The Myths We Live By (book)

Mary Midgley, What Is Philosophy For? (book)

Gregory McElwain, Mary Midgley: An Introduction (book)

Birds sing joyfully, dogs smile as they fetch their sticks, and philosophers laugh at their own jokes on podcasts. It is a happy world after all. In fact, if we ponder upon such delights for long enough, it is possible to infer – even during our darkest days – that these are gifts bestowed by a benevolent creator, for these are not necessary for our survival but are gratuitous goods.

Yet, says another, what if these delights are no more proof of a benevolent creator than they are a malevolent one? What if these goods are given just to amplify our suffering when they are inevitably taken from us? And, what if, for every reason given for believing in a good-god, there was room for an evil-god to just as easily take his place?

In this episode, we’ll be exploring the evil-god challenge with Dr Jack Symes, teacher and researcher at Durham University and editor Bloomsbury’s popular book series, Talking about Philosophy. According to Symes, whilst the evil-god challenge has its merits, we should be sceptical about its attempts to draw parallel arguments to those in favour of god’s goodness. Ultimately, for Symes, there are enough asymmetries in these parallel arguments that we should consider the evil-god challenge defeated.

Contents

Part I. Defeating the Evil-God Challenge

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Links

Jack Symes (website)

Jack Symes, Defeating the Evil-God Challenge: In Defence of God’s Goodness (book)

Birds sing joyfully, dogs smile as they fetch their sticks, and philosophers laugh at their own jokes on podcasts. It is a happy world after all. In fact, if we ponder upon such delights for long enough, it is possible to infer – even during our darkest days – that these are gifts bestowed by a benevolent creator, for these are not necessary for our survival but are gratuitous goods.

Yet, says another, what if these delights are no more proof of a benevolent creator than they are a malevolent one? What if these goods are given just to amplify our suffering when they are inevitably taken from us? And, what if, for every reason given for believing in a good-god, there was room for an evil-god to just as easily take his place?

In this episode, we’ll be exploring the evil-god challenge with Dr Jack Symes, teacher and researcher at Durham University and editor Bloomsbury’s popular book series, Talking about Philosophy. According to Symes, whilst the evil-god challenge has its merits, we should be sceptical about its attempts to draw parallel arguments to those in favour of god’s goodness. Ultimately, for Symes, there are enough asymmetries in these parallel arguments that we should consider the evil-god challenge defeated.

Contents

Part I. Defeating the Evil-God Challenge

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Links

Jack Symes (website)

Jack Symes, Defeating the Evil-God Challenge: In Defence of God’s Goodness (book)

In the early part of the twentieth century, three thinkers – Nishida Kitarō, Tanabe Hajime, and Nishitani Keiji – founded the Kyoto School of Philosophy, a group of scholars working at the intersection of Japanese and European thought. The Kyoto School, deeply influenced by the German tradition, wrote extensively on the works of Kant, Hegel, and Heidegger exploring themes such as the limits of our reason and the nature of nothingness. Tanabe, himself a student of Heidegger, explored such topics at length, building on the rich body of thought and – as we shall see – igniting his own philosophy.

In this episode, we’ll be investigating the profound insights of Tanabe’s philosophy with two of the world’s leading Tanabe scholars: Associate Professor of Philosophy at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Gregory S. Moss and Lecturer in Non-Western Philosophy at the University of Edinburgh, Takeshi Morisato.

As we explore Tanabe’s work, we’ll see Japan’s, Kyoto School’s, and Tanabe’s histories, unique philosophical paths, and the many questions they illuminate along the way. As we do so, we’ll uncover the invaluable insights of their work and the legacy they left behind.

Contents

Part I. The Kyoto School

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Links

Gregory S. Moss (website)

Takeshi Morisato (website)

The Dialectics of Absolute Nothingness: The Legacies of German Philosophy in the Kyoto School (book)

In the early part of the twentieth century, three thinkers – Nishida Kitarō, Tanabe Hajime, and Nishitani Keiji – founded the Kyoto School of Philosophy, a group of scholars working at the intersection of Japanese and European thought. The Kyoto School, deeply influenced by the German tradition, wrote extensively on the works of Kant, Hegel, and Heidegger exploring themes such as the limits of our reason and the nature of nothingness. Tanabe, himself a student of Heidegger, explored such topics at length, building on the rich body of thought and – as we shall see – igniting his own philosophy.

In this episode, we’ll be investigating the profound insights of Tanabe’s philosophy with two of the world’s leading Tanabe scholars: Associate Professor of Philosophy at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Gregory S. Moss and Lecturer in Non-Western Philosophy at the University of Edinburgh, Takeshi Morisato.

As we explore Tanabe’s work, we’ll see Japan’s, Kyoto School’s, and Tanabe’s histories, unique philosophical paths, and the many questions they illuminate along the way. As we do so, we’ll uncover the invaluable insights of their work and the legacy they left behind.

Contents

Part I. The Kyoto School

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Links

Gregory S. Moss (website)

Takeshi Morisato (website)

The Dialectics of Absolute Nothingness: The Legacies of German Philosophy in the Kyoto School (book)

‘The clouds are grey, the sun obscured and you are walking through the countryside in the overcast of winter. Passing from field to woodland, the trees shed coats of frosty bark to celebrate the passing of another icy season. It feels too early for spring, but echoes of swallows in the canopies sing songs of new beginnings. You pause to catch a glimpse of your woodland companions. With effortless precision, your eyes track the birds as they zip between empty branches and, combining countless neurons, you forecast the birds’ trajectory each time they fall out of view.

You walk on, emerging from the trees, and return to the open fields. You look back, appreciate the woods and see a river flowing into the trees from the east. Where does the river begin? Escaping the clouds, the sun will soon be free of the sky altogether; if you want to discover the river’s source, you had better get walking.’

Contents

Part I. Out of Nothing

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Philosophers on God: Talking about Existence (book)

‘The clouds are grey, the sun obscured and you are walking through the countryside in the overcast of winter. Passing from field to woodland, the trees shed coats of frosty bark to celebrate the passing of another icy season. It feels too early for spring, but echoes of swallows in the canopies sing songs of new beginnings. You pause to catch a glimpse of your woodland companions. With effortless precision, your eyes track the birds as they zip between empty branches and, combining countless neurons, you forecast the birds’ trajectory each time they fall out of view.

You walk on, emerging from the trees, and return to the open fields. You look back, appreciate the woods and see a river flowing into the trees from the east. Where does the river begin? Escaping the clouds, the sun will soon be free of the sky altogether; if you want to discover the river’s source, you had better get walking.’

Contents

Part I. Out of Nothing

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Philosophers on God: Talking about Existence (book)

‘The kitchen needs cleaning, but only one of us seems to notice. I mean, he looked straight at the dishes in the sink…and just stacked his dish on top of them. How high does this precarious tower of crockery have to be until he decides to wash the dishes or, more likely, they collapse into an unrepairable heap? I suppose I’ll have to wash them. They won’t get washed otherwise, and I’d rather get them off my mind.’

The unequal distribution of household labour is a familiar concern amongst feminists. Despite the progress in women’s rights and freedoms, women across the world continue to bear the responsibility of domestic chores and childcare. This raises an important question: why do women in monogamous, opposite-sex relationships continue to shoulder a disproportionate amount of housework work despite their political gains?

In this episode, we’ll be exploring this question with two outstanding philosophers of morality and mind: Paulina Sliwa (Professor of Philosophy at the University of Vienna) and Thomas McClelland (Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Cambridge).

According to Paulina and Tom, our disparities and perception of domestic labour are determined by our feelings, beliefs, and social norms. In other words, the way we perceive the world is radically different. The dishes don’t call out to some – in need of cleaning – in a moment of perception, as they do to others. So what can we do to change this disparity…that is, if it’s in need of changing at all.

Contents

Part I. Affordance Perception

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Links

Thomas McClelland and Paulina Sliwa, Gendered Affordance Perception and Unequal Domestic Labour (paper)

Coverage of Gendered Addordance Perception in the media (website)

Thomas McClelland (website)

Paulina Sliwa (website)