The limits and potential of transgressiveness | Catherine Liu, Rowan Williams, Josh Cohen
Philosophy For Our TimesShow Notes
The good, the bad, and the transgressive Is the transgression of norms and rules what brings history forward and allows for creativity and change? OR is the fetishization of transgression an ever-present danger that breaks down all structures of meaning and becomes totalizing in of itself? The limits and potentials of transgressiveness have been long debated, especially in rule-breaking Modernity. Listen to this lively conversation between three unlikely and profound thinkers - provocative cultural theorist Catherine Liu, former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, and psychoanalyst Josh Cohen - to hear what role transgression should, and should not, play in our societies. Hosted by philosopher Barry C. Smith Please do email us at [email protected] with any of your thoughts or questions on the episode! To witness such debates live buy tickets for our upcoming festival: https://howthelightgetsin.org/festivals/ And visit our website for many more articles, videos, and podcasts like this one: https://iai.tv/the-failures-of-liberalism You can find everything we referenced here: https://linktr.ee/philosophyforourtimes See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
More from Philosophy For Our Times
Description Does the left really need to be more conservative? What is the difference between capital C and lowercase c conservatism? Is the Blue Labour movement the best tool against the MAGA agenda and right wing nationalism?
Should we give up seeing evidence as the truth and instead see it as a persuasive argument? Does evidence settle the matter or is a counter-narrative always possible? And if evidence is not the truth, how are we to choose between competing perspectives and models of the world? We turn to evidence to settle the matter. And we imagine it is evidence that confirms a scientific theory, or the guilt of an accused. But perspective can result in evidence being interpreted radically differently. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. More broadly some argue all so-called 'facts' are context or theory dependent. And if evidence depends on perspective, it is no longer clear what counts as evidence in the first place. Unlike the French legal system, that assumes evidence determines truth, the English system embeds opposing narratives, each employing their own 'evidence' to support a case. The same is true when physicists operate with different models of reality, recognising that alternative frameworks can be used.
Are homo sapiens the only organisms capable of creating and experiencing beauty? Can we find beauty in God? Why do we see the hand of an Artist in the Natural, if God does not exist?
What does it mean for rationality to be ‘permissive’? Is rationality more limited than we would like to admit? Does the idea that ‘truth is the aim of belief’ still stand?
What makes humans different from nature? What do Confucianism and Daoism have to do with physics? Is science too realist? In part 2 of our interview with Carlo Rovelli, we help unpick the history of the philosophy of science. From uncovering how millennia old Chinese philosophers were debating Enlightenment philosophical principles, to finding whether the self and consciousness are functionally identical, Rovelli's argument finds a home in a single statement: we must rehumanise science.