365 Days Of Philosophy

Roy Sorensen’s Cabinet of Philosophical Curiosities A Collection of Puzzles, Oddities, Riddles and Dilemmas is a interesting take on philosophy, by investigating paradoxes and problems. Apparently the original inspiration was Ian Stewart’s Professor Stewart’s Cabinet of Mathematical Curiosities, and like many puzzle books, can be read as a series or worked on individually. This was a fun approach to philosophical conundrums and has an interesting historical aspect as well, with stories about Voltaire, Eck, Carroll and more. It features a number of essays as well as discussions along with the puzzles. While this is probably too advanced for younger readers, it’s one for anyone interested in the solving-aspects of philosophy.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Alain Stephen has taken an interesting approach with This Book Will Make You Think — because many of us would have heard philosophical quotes, probably out of context most of the time, and wondered about their significance, influence and meaning.  While it primarily focuses upon the most popular philosophers (which, as you might guess, are male), the introductory section and index are really useful and detailed, and it covers pretty much every major quote from “The unexamined life is not worth living” to “I think therefore I am” to “You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation”. It’s not a particularly heavy-going book in that regard, and is more of a dip-into than read at length text, but certainly one for the teens-and-over who are after a basic explanatory book.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

 “The construction and payoff of jokes and the construction and payoff of philosophical concepts are made out of the same stuff. They tease the mind in the same ways…philosophy and jokes proceed from the same impulse: to confound our sense of the way things are, to flip our worlds upside down, and to ferret out hidden, often uncomfortable, truths about life. What the philosopher calls an insight, the gagster calls a zinger.” Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar: Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes by Daniel Klein and Thomas Cathcart is a light and enjoyable read, taking an approach I never thought of before — explaining philosophical concepts through humour. There’s a lot of groan-worthy examples throughout, but the range of topics is pretty impressive and as a different kind of introduction, it’s one that I found a pleasant surprise. I’d recommend this one less as a study text, but certainly as a great present for anyone interested in getting a start on the subject, who also has a sense of humour.“My gra

Jeremy Stangroom’s Philosophy — Little Book of Big Ideas is useful summary text of a number of ideas and philosophers, with the selections made demonstrating a good range for a short book. As a part of a series, it’s following the trend of the others, with about one or two pages for each section, and while brief, has an interesting scope. The author launched The Philosophers’ Magazine with his colleague, Dr Julian Baggini in 1997 and now publishes the journal Think, on behalf of the Royal Institute of Philosophy. One particular feature of the book is the investigation of philosophical arguments, and while only a handful of these are unpacked, it doesn’t neglect the more recent thinkers Dewey, Piaget, Kohlberg and Chomsky. It’s a neat overview and certainly one I’d recommend as an introductory text. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

  Today’s episode is the revision on reviews from the past week — you can support the 365DaysOfPhilosophy podcast by visiting www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess and review previous episodes at www.365daysofphilosophy.com. If you can help the show continue, head to: https://www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess Music from Jukedeck — create your own at http://jukedeck.com. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Celebrated since 2002, World Philosophy Day emphasises the enduring value of philosophy for the development of human thought, throughout different cultures and individuals. UNESCO first established the date to encourage critical questioning, leading to international action and meaningful lives. The 2005 General Conference encouraged the idea that philosophy, particularly for young people “is a discipline that encourages critical and independent thought and is capable of working towards a better understanding of the world and promoting tolerance and peace”. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Primarily known for his work on philosophy of the mind, Daniel Dennet has investigated on a wide range of topics including free will, science and religion and evolution. In addition, he challenges the ideas of philosophical zombies as an unworkable notion, a hypothesis that still gains much debate today. In his book Consciousness Explained, he proposes a materialistic theory of the mind that challenges many previous ideas about what constitutes mind and brain. The notion of the Cartesian theatre is unpacked and he suggests as an alternative approach with “parallel, multitrack processes of interpretations and elaboration of of sensory inputs”, incorporating neuroscientific findings. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Albert Camus was a prolific writer, being a journalist, philosopher, essayist, playwright and novelist. Two of his non-fiction books investigated the works of other contemporary philosophers, Nietzsche, Sartre and Kierkegaard and investigated an ‘absurdist philosophy’ of life.  His best-known works include The Stranger and The Plague, and investigated the indifferent universe and the human need for meaning and hope. Like the Greek legend of Sisyphus, the struggles that humans face are tremendous, but there is meaning in the toil that is given as punishment by the gods. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature and his works continue to have an influence in both fiction and non-fiction. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

An influencer on not only philosophical thought but social sciences, Michel Foucault was a French historian. He’s primarily known for his work in post-structuralism, postmodernism and deconstructionism. Since the 1960s, his work investigated the ‘archaeology’ and ‘genealogy’ of knowledge, on whether objective knowledge or universal reason exists, and what if it doesn’t. Early in his career, Foucault studied Marxism and existentialism, but within his works like The History of Madness and The Archeology of Knowledge, he questioned whether there were standards of truth or falsity, outside of culturally created frameworks of language. To the end of his life he reflected on the relationship of power and knowledge and whether forces in history limited human freedom. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Analyse the following debate and identify how well the debate unfolds — are there any fallacies involved, and what are they? BORIS: Graffiti isn’t art; damaging property is a crime and it’s a blight on the city. Let’s face it, art belongs on a stage or a gallery, otherwise it isn’t art.  DORIS: If this kind of art was legal, then perhaps we would have less snobs like you and better art! Artists should be allowed to express their art without being censored by their choice of canvas and way of communicating their ideas.  BORIS: I don’t care what you think — you’re just want to make excuses for law-breakers and if we had your way, burglers would have free reign over our streets. If I see something like this, I’m going to paint it over and report the creator to the police. We already limit sales of spray cans and this is why!  DORIS: I don’t think I’d paint it over, because isn’t that doing vandalism on top of vandalism if it isn’t your wall in the first place? If someone did something good, then maybe the

For Patreon subscribers, there’s further revision questions by heading to www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess.1. How confident should one be in one’s atheism?2. There’s no such thing as agnosticism, it’s only delaying the inevitable between faith and atheism. Discuss.3. Is it possible to prove the existence of God? Discuss.4. “There probably is no god. Stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Discuss. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today’s episode is the revision on reviews from the past week — you can support the 365DaysOfPhilosophy podcast by visiting www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess and review previous episodes at www.365daysofphilosophy.com. If you can help the show continue, head to: https://www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess Music from Jukedeck — create your own at http://jukedeck.com. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The sequel to the film Blade Runner has been released this year and I’ve avoided seeing it, simply because I enjoyed this first film so much, I doubt that it’d live up to my expectations. I’ll probably see it eventually though; the novel that the story is based upon. “Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?” is rather short and different to the very film-noir movie.  Much like The Matrix, you can see a number of philosophical themes directly addressed and alluded to throughout; what makes us human? If we created artificial humans, should they be given the same rights and dignity? What does it mean to be human anyway — or as the concluding line puts it: It’s a shame she won’t live — but then again, who does?”  Other themes include he environment and globalisation, and the impact it has on society; there’s even been Nietzschean interpretations of the android character Roy Batty. For a movie that is pretty much a straightforward search and destroy the invaders, and falling in love with the enemy, it’s a stylish,

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I’ve used The Eyewitness Companion book Philosophy by Stephen Law and James Garvey as an introductory text for high school students, and it contains great summaries of not only the historical aspects of philosophy but also some important concepts such as reasoning, fallacies and key ideas such as problem of evil, falsification and defining knowledge.  What really makes it stand out is the beautiful design and scope; while one criticism is that it only has limited space to cover a broad range, the images and text is attractive and appealing. As a teaching text, it was a useful brief summary that would be the basis of a class discussion, and I would often set a particular subject, break it down terms that were in the pages and set them as report subjects. It’s difficult to cover terms like existentialism and postmodernism in a brief way (and I should know with this podcast!), and I don’t really expect a text that dedicates a little more than a page or so to a subject like “logical positivism” be the be-all-and

“You can and you must fix your own racism, transphobia, et cetera. You must not suppose that this individually noble act will be magically upscaled. It does not all start with you. It’s not all connected in the easy way some might suppose. To believe that your personal purity and great compassion serves anyone so well as you is mystification.” First, a confession: I’ve enjoyed all of Helen Razer’s books and still have copies of “Three Beers and a Chinese Meal”, “Gas Smells Awful” and her other recent book, “The Helen 100”. I also started reading the Big Issue after discovering her column in the pages, and continued getting copies even after she left the publication, because she said people should keep buying it. Since today marks 100 years since the communist revolution in Russia, it’s as good enough time as any to recommend her new book, Total Propaganda. This is one of the few books that I’ve found that starts with a straightforward and sensible-sounding take on ‘why Hilary isn’t the president of the Unit

There’s a number of recommended resources out there on the topic of agnosticism, some individual episodes and some full programs that you can check out: How to be agnostic — Philosopher’s Magazine — an ongoing publication, highly recommended Am I an Atheist or an Agnostic? A Plea for Tolerance in the Face of New Dogmas by Bertrand Russell — classic text Religious Ambiguity, Agnosticism, and Prudence by Randolph Feezell, Florida Philosophical Review Faith for atheists and agnostics by Wallace A. Murphree — Sophia Agnosticism, Skeptical Theism, and Moral Obligation by Stephen Maitzen Agnosticism by Prof. Thomas H. Huxley Religious Agnosticism by Gary Gutting, Midwest Studies In Philosophy See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The philosophy of Atheism represents a concept of life without any metaphysical Beyond or Divine Regulator. It is the concept of an actual, real world with its liberating, expanding and beautifying possibilities, as against an unreal world, which, with its spirits, oracles, and mean contentment has kept humanity in helpless degradation.” — Emma Goldman  Atheism, broadly defined, means the lack of belief in the existence of any gods. The definition is sometimes disagreed with; there’s theists and sometimes atheists who would more narrowly define atheism as the affirmation that gods do not exist. That particular forum of atheism is informally known as strong atheism while the lack or absence of belief in gods is sometimes called weak atheism or agnosticism. In his book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins proposes a ‘spectrum of possibilities’ for different poles of certainty about god, in a similar fashion, and suggests that there’s different approaches one can take in defining one’s faith (or lack of it) in th

Today’s episode is the revision on fallacies from the past week — you can support the 365DaysOfPhilosophy podcast by visiting www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess and review previous episodes at www.365daysofphilosophy.com. If you can help the show continue, head to: https://www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess Music from Jukedeck — create your own at http://jukedeck.com. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Here’s all the major fallacies covered this year on the 365DaysOfPhilosophy: weasel words, slippery slope, appeal to authority, straw man, argument from ignorance, shifting the goalposts, post hoc ergo propter hoc, appeal to popularity, ad hominem, tu quoque, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, anecdotal fallacy, red herring, no true Scotsman fallacy, begging the question, hasty generalisation, false dilemma, and reductio ad absurdum. See if you can identify nine of them in the examples below: Her low level of sophistication and engagement with the case leads me to think that she hasn’t got enough relevance to the importance of the job. On average, if your dog goes to the Jones training school, it behaves worse. Therefore, if you go to Jones training school, you’ll have a badly trained dog. After voting for Lewis, we know he’ll become president and then legalise all the illegal drugs and make the country worse than ever before because of your vote. Joe may say he has the best pizza but we all know he’s a horrible per