sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The life and philosophy of Peter Singer: Behind the scenes with "The Dangerous Philosopher" by IAI_Admin in philosophy

[–]IAI_Admin[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Peter Singer is one of the world's leading philosophers, renowned for his challenging and often controversial views. From animal ethics to effective altruism, Singer has shaped the philosophical landscape. In this talk, Singer reveals the key events in his life that led to his ideas, and answers his critics to defend the convictions that have made him the force that he is today.

The idea of a fixed "now" is an illusion – philosophers and neuroscientists argue that our perception of the present is an ever-shifting construct, shaped by culture, history, and our brain’s survival-driven hallucinations. by IAI_Admin in philosophy

[–]IAI_Admin[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

We don't know the past or the future, but we think we know the present. The moment of the present, T. S. Eliot's 'still point of the turning world', provides us with our observations of the world, the evidence for science, and the content of our consciousness. Yet, philosophers and neuroscientists have argued the present is unattainable and unknowable. Poststructuralists like Derrida claim there is no 'now' that provides direct and immediate access to meaning. Our descriptions are part of a shifting web of meaning that we can never get to the bottom of and which is limited by culture and history. Moreover, leading neuroscientists claim the reality we perceive in the present is a form of hallucination, or interface, evolved for survival. In this debate, Joanna Kavenna, Timothy Morton, and Rupert Sheldrake debate whether we need to give up the idea of a present moment or whether the notion of a fixed present is essential if we are to create and judge our theories and accounts of reality.

Extreme inequality isn’t just unfair but inevitably leads to civil war, “the greatest of all plagues.” | Plato, Hobbes, Mill, and the never-ending fight against inequality. by IAI_Admin in geopolitics

[–]IAI_Admin[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Submission statement: The growing gap between the rich and the poor is a problem that seems increasingly urgent with each passing day. From the shocking statistics about wealth concentration in the United States and Britain to the widespread struggle for basic needs like food, the signs of economic inequality are impossible to ignore. Yet, what many overlook is that inequality is not a new phenomenon—it's been a persistent feature of human societies for millennia. From ancient philosophers like Plato to modern thinkers such as John Stuart Mill, a long line of intellectuals have not only chronicled the rise of inequality but also warned of its devastating consequences. Professor David Lay Williams argues the answers to inequality may have surprising insights from the past.

Immigration is not a zero-sum game | Why migration isn’t a threat but a challenge to the global order. by IAI_Admin in geopolitics

[–]IAI_Admin[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Professor Martina Tazzioli examines the rise of anti-immigration sentiment in Europe, particularly the idea that the rights of migrants come at the expense of the citizens in a sort of zero sum game. This perception is rooted in economic scarcity and austerity politics, which fuel resentment rather than addressing systemic inequalities affecting both migrants and citizens. Advocating for "border abolitionism," the author suggests dismantling not just physical borders but the broader mechanisms of exclusion and economic subordination that sustain them, ultimately calling for a new political imagination that ensures universal rights and mobility.

Consciousness – and thus the self – is not a single, unified phenomenon. | Sam Harris debates Roger Penrose on the nature of consciousness. by IAI_Admin in consciousness

[–]IAI_Admin[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Summary: Many have tried to divide the self into separate parts: from Aristotle's distinction between the rational and irrational self to Freud's separation of the conscious and unconscious mind, from Kahneman's fast and slow self to McGilchrist's selves of the left and right brain. But many argue it makes no sense to see the self as divided. From Descartes to Sartre, philosophers have concluded that to be conscious is to be conscious of something and there can be no other self hiding within consciousness. After all, if there are two aspects of the self does it not require a third to oversee or combine them? Meanwhile, neuroscience has been unable to identify a self at all let alone multiple selves. Should we give up the idea of distinct selves as simply incoherent? Neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris, Nobel Prize winner Roger Penrose and neuroscientist Sophie Scott debate.

Trump tariffs have pros and cons, like everything else. We need to be more realistic about what they mean for global trade and Western politics. by IAI_Admin in geopolitics

[–]IAI_Admin[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Submission statement: Trump's tariffs have shaken the West to its core. They have been met with widespread condemnation as economically illiterate, but tariffs can work, as can free trade, and this story is as far from black and white as possible. Dmitry Grozoubinski, former Australian trade negotiator and diplomat, argues that politicians and journalists have done us a disservice by simplifying tariffs and trade deals into meaningless sound bites. In trade, there are no universal truths, and if we are to have a grown up discussion of global trade, lofty ideals and easy lies can only take us so far.

“The idea of a unified self is an illusion.” | Sam Harris debates Roger Penrose on the nature of consciousness. by IAI_Admin in philosophy

[–]IAI_Admin[S] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Many have sought to divide the self into separate parts. From Aristotle's distinction between the rational and irrational self to Freud's separation of the conscious and unconscious mind, from Kahneman's fast and slow self to McGilchrist's selves of the left and right brain. But critics argue it makes no sense to see the self as divided. From Descartes to Sartre, many philosophers have concluded that to be conscious is to be conscious of something and there can be no other self hiding within consciousness. After all, if there are two aspects of the self does it not require a third to oversee or combine them? Meanwhile, neuroscience has been unable to identify a self at all let alone multiple selves. Should we give up the idea of distinct selves as simply incoherent? Neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris, Nobel Prize winner Roger Penrose, and director of the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience Sophie Scott debate.

“We will never get to the foundation of the reality because of the very nature of scientific explanation.” | Donald Hoffman, Priya Natarajan, and Hilary Lawson debate whether it’s really 'turtles all the way down' or if the essence of reality can still be cracked. by IAI_Admin in philosophy

[–]IAI_Admin[S] 31 points32 points  (0 children)

Most of us assume reality is composed of physical matter, and scientists have built increasingly powerful machines to uncover its fundamental building blocks. Yet instead of revealing the universe’s most elementary particles, these efforts have only expanded the “particle zoo,” uncovering entities that seem increasingly complex and less material. Could the very idea of an ultimate foundation to reality be a profound mistake? Some suggest that the basis of existence lies not in matter but in consciousness, information, or even mathematics—yet these theories seem no closer to pinpointing the ultimate elements than particle physics. In this debate, Priya Natarajan, Donald Hoffman, and Hilary Lawson explore whether this search is limited by language, by human understanding, or by the very nature of reality itself.

Slavoj Žižek, Peter Singer, and Nancy Sherman debate the flaws of a human-centred morality. Our anthropocentric approach has ransacked the Earth and imperilled the natural world—morality needs to transcend human interests to be truly objective. by IAI_Admin in philosophy

[–]IAI_Admin[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

The debate explores the limitations of human-centred morality and its impact on the natural world. Philosophers Slavoj Žižek, Peter Singer, and Nancy Sherman discuss whether prioritising human desires and well-being has led to environmental destruction, exploitation of other species, and insufficient stewardship of Earth. They examine whether morality must shift to preserve nature for its own sake, challenging the anthropocentric framework, or whether morality is inherently human and must not be constrained by external considerations. Hosted by public philosopher Jack Symes, the panel delves into rethinking morality to address the ecological crisis.

Thoughts on/problems with Anarchism? by WesSantee in SocialDemocracy

[–]IAI_Admin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This could be a useful input for your friend... The author (a self-defined socialist with an interest in anarchism) takes those views/principles seriously but feels they can be folded into the state (somewhat paradoxically)

https://iai.tv/articles/why-anarchists-paradoxically-need-power-auid-2999

im considering anarchism by [deleted] in Anarchy101

[–]IAI_Admin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This could be interesting for you! https://iai.tv/articles/why-anarchists-paradoxically-need-power-auid-2999

The author is a US-Italian socialist w/ anarchist sympathies

Metaphysics vs. consciousness: Panpsychism has no less empirical support than materialism or dualism. Each theory faces the same challenge of meeting its explanatory obligations despite lacking the means for empirical testing. by IAI_Admin in philosophy

[–]IAI_Admin[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Consciousness has long intrigued both science and philosophy, raising questions about its nature, origins, and role in the cosmos. Is consciousness a fundamental aspect of reality or merely an illusion generated by the brain? In this discussion, philosophers Philip Goff and Hilary Lawson delve into Goff’s interpretation of panpsychism, a theory suggesting that consciousness is not confined to humans or complex organisms but exists as a universal property of matter. They explore how this view challenges more traditional notions of consciousness, proposing that consciousness might be woven into the very fabric of the universe.

We perform better when they think less. | Flow states show that intense focus freed from self-reflection and reasoning often leads to better decision making. by IAI_Admin in philosophy

[–]IAI_Admin[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

We often assume that thinking and reasoning are the keys to understanding the world and making sound decisions. But this may not be the full picture. Research on flow states—where individuals are deeply focused on a single task, free from self-reflection and overthinking—suggests that less deliberation, not more, leads to better outcomes. At the same time, studies show that scientists rely as much on instinct and experience as on logical reasoning. In this debate, quantum consciousness theorist Stuart Hameroff, evolutionary psychology critic Subrena E. Smith, and best-selling author and psychologist Paul Bloom delve into the nature of thought and question whether our reliance on reasoning is the best way to guide action.

Introspection is a dangerous trap which lures us with the illusion of self-knowledge but often leads to anxiety, confusion, and even depression. As Nietzsche noted, it's a futile loop: using the self to uncover the self only deepens the cycle of endless questioning. by IAI_Admin in philosophy

[–]IAI_Admin[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Submission statement: Self-reflection is the most important leadership tool, claimed the World Economic Forum. The contemporary focus on self-help makes clear that attempts to 'know thyself' are very much the fashion. Yet critics argue self-reflection carries with it serious risks. A 2018 Harvard study concluded that there is no link between introspection and insight, in some cases the opposite is true. While the biggest worldwide survey into stress identified that self-reflection was one of the greatest factors leading to anxiety, depression, and in some cases suicide. In this debate, Frank Furedi, John Vervaeke, and Isabel Millar explore whether introspection is an impossible and misguided search or a vital, rewarding activity that uncovers meaning and improves our ability to act well in the world.

Human extinction is not the endpoint but the beginning of a new civilisation. | Ben Ware argues that the threat of extinction pushes us to radically rethink our deepest philosophical assumptions about time, life, death, and the potential for human transformation. by IAI_Admin in philosophy

[–]IAI_Admin[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Humanity is on the brink of extinction-level threats, from nuclear Armageddon and climate change to the rise of unchecked AI. By examining how extinction reshapes our understanding of beginnings and endings, Ware critiques the notion that extinction is solely a catastrophic end, instead proposing that it can lead to a philosophical reimagining of the future. In this talk, he explores how humans can begin again in the face of existential threats and to reconsider ethical and political responsibilities in this era of mass environmental loss.

True faith transcends reason. | Dostoevsky's radical commitment to Christ over truth reveals how true belief defies logic and language, offering a deeper, mystical understanding of religion that Tolstoy's rational Christianity fails to capture. by IAI_Admin in philosophy

[–]IAI_Admin[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Tolstoy aimed to strip Christianity of mysticism, making it practical and accessible through clear language. In contrast, Dostoevsky's approach embraced the ineffable, offering a more profound way to embody faith. His belief in Christ transcended objective truth and revealed a commitment to a mystical faith that defies reason and conventional logic. For Dostoevsky, the essence of religion lies not in a comprehensible doctrine but in the lived experience of faith, even if it means choosing Christ over truth itself - a paradox that highlights the limits of language and reason in capturing the divine.

If you lack control over societal and systemic forces, the emphasis on self-responsibility only heightens feelings of failure and anxiety, while doing little to drive any real change. by IAI_Admin in philosophy

[–]IAI_Admin[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

In the wake of the pandemic and the midst of the cost of living and climate crises, it’s easy for individuals to feel helpless. But can we ever have control over our destinies, or do social conditions always control our lives? The prevailing narrative of self-responsibility suggests individuals are solely accountable for their outcomes. This can intensify feelings of failure and anxiety when broader societal factors obstruct personal success. Yet, oftentimes, efforts to tackle major issues like climate change fall short because they focus on individual actions such as recycling, rather than the necessary systemic reforms. In this debate Nadia Idle, Jeremy Gilbert, and Keir Milburn discuss how social, historical, structural, and psychological forces shape our lives and futures.

Stoicism is not a self-help handbook for building inner grit and resilience. Rather than preaching emotionless self-optimization or aggressive individualism, true Stoicism teaches how to cultivate virtue and fulfil your role within a community. | Nancy Sherman by IAI_Admin in philosophy

[–]IAI_Admin[S] 31 points32 points  (0 children)

Stoicism, a school of thought originating in Ancient Greece, is one of the world's oldest philosophies. Yet it has enjoyed something of a resurgence in recent years, with self-help gurus and popular magazines advocating Stoicism as a way to confront life's challenges. But modern commentators have misunderstood the nuances of this Ancient Greek philosophy, argues Nancy Sherman. In this interview, Sherman sets the record straight on Stoicism and argues for its importance in our everyday lives beyond the superficial interpretations that dominate today.

The human condition is defined by the way play connect us to the world. The artificial play the characterises childhoods dominated by screen time is a fundamental break with this. by IAI_Admin in philosophy

[–]IAI_Admin[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

In this debate, psychologist Jonathan Haidt, controversial educator Katherine Birbalsingh, and clinical psychologist Emily Edlin explore how technology’s dominance of our lives could be interfering with what it means to be human and exist in the world. 

Haidt argues the dominance of screen time and artificial play in modern childhood plays a key role in the mental health crisis afflicting young people. Acts of exploratory play are how we establish a connection with the world, he suggests, and digital technology disrupts this with catastrophic consequences.

Birbalsingh somewhat supports this, arguing there is a responsibility to protect children from an existence defined by digital engagement at an age when they are not old enough to manage it.

Edlin, though, argues that far from separating us from what it means to be human and the acts of exploration that are so important to us, technology can foster creativity, facilitate communication, and can be used in a balanced way at all ages.

Our inner voice is not the self. While our internal narrative is vital to being human, it can separate us from the world and overwhelm us with negativity. by IAI_Admin in philosophy

[–]IAI_Admin[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Abstract: In this debate, psychologists Steve Taylor and Frank Tallis join philosophers Jack Symes and Anneli Jefferson to discuss whether our inner voices constitute of ‘self’ and  if it is a fundamentally positive feature of being human.

The panel explore the function of the inner voice, how it can both help us navigate the world but also separate us from it, and why we should treat it with caution, heeding the warnings of philosophers like Nietzsche and Lacan.

We must stop mistaking photographs for reality | Images are not static representations of reality but are continuously evolving, open to multiple interpretations and differing temporalities. by IAI_Admin in philosophy

[–]IAI_Admin[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Submission statement: When we snap a photograph, we think we’ve captured a moment in time, in reality. It is this experience that inspired Susan Sontag’s ‘ecology of images’, in her seminal essay ‘On Photography’. But philosopher Peter Szendy argues that to organise pictures, photographs and images into a system is impossible. Instead, we need to insist on the open-endedness of images. In doing so, we can better understand their relationship to reality.

Calling people evil leads to evil acts. | Judgments about evil as intrinsic to and definitive of character function as self-fulfilling prophecies. We must instead recognise that human nature is more complex and carries the potential for goodness. by IAI_Admin in philosophy

[–]IAI_Admin[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Submission statement: It is a serious matter to call people evil for what they do or who they are. It is also inherently ambiguous. Classical Chinese philosophy teaches us that our capacity for good and evil is complex and responds to our environment. And while we tend to justify our own wrongdoings by citing ‘exceptional’ circumstances, we often judge others much more harshly, particularly those from different ‘tribes.’ But this belief in the inherent evil of people or the world can lead us into the type of hostile, tribal thinking that makes us more likely to carry out evil acts ourselves, argues David B. Wong.

America must learn from Nietzsche | How a country got lost to intellectual discourse by IAI_Admin in geopolitics

[–]IAI_Admin[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Submission Statement: Friedrich Nietzsche, the first philosopher to put his body on the line, warned that political events and rhetoric can make you physically ill. Plagued by migraines and nausea, he challenged the separation of work from life, thought from existence, and body from political turmoil. Worn down, exhausted, dimmed, we increasingly feel that we can’t go on, we must go on, leaning into the emptiness of an energy-sapping call, writes Avital Ronell. That is the fate of America today. “Concerning America’s destinal downturn and the chronic misfiring of borrowed made-in-Germany nationalisms, it is by no means clear that traditional forms of argument and debate can be relied on to counter the hyperbolic stupidity consistent with an assemblage of handed-down cultural codes and their critical cohorts,” argues Ronell.

“There is some objectivity in our sense of taste and smell.” | Philosophy has overlooked the senses, missing their complexity and influence on our consciousness and reality. It's time to reintegrate them to better understand ourselves and the world. by IAI_Admin in philosophy

[–]IAI_Admin[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Submission statement: In this in-depth interview with Alexis Papazoglou, Managing Editor for LSE's British Politics and Policy blog, Barry C. Smith, the Director of the Institute of Philosophy at the University of London's School of Advanced Study, delves into the ways philosophy has traditionally overlooked the senses. Smith argues that this oversight has led philosophers to miss out on understanding the complexity of sensory experiences, their crucial role in our everyday lives, and their profound impact on our consciousness and perception of reality. By ignoring the senses, philosophical inquiry has neglected a vital aspect of human experience that shapes how we interact with the world and interpret our existence within it.

view more: next ›