Show Notes
Is freedom always an absolute good? For freedom to be beneficial and practical, does it need constraining? Are attacks on freedom really the first step to tyranny? From freedom from tyranny and poverty to the right to free speech, we assume freedom is always desirable. But critics argue the consequences of freedom are less obviously desirable than we imagine and frequently unknown. Kafka wrote, "It is often better to be in chains than to be free," and Sartre that, "we're condemned to be free" since we are responsible for everything we do. And in wealthier countries where citizens are freer from the hunt for basic necessities like food, water, and housing, studies show depression and anxiety are more prevalent, not less. Daniel Markovits is Professor of Law at Yale Law School and the Founding Director of the Center for the Study of Private Law. He is the author of the bestselling book The Meritocracy Trap Elizabeth Anderson is Professor of Public Philosophy, Politics and Economics at the University of Michigan. She specialises in moral, social and political philosophy, as well as feminist theory and the philosophy of economics and the social sciences. Yaron Brook is an entrepreneur, writer, activist, and political scientist. He is currently chairman of the board of the Ayn Rand Institute and host of the Yaron Brook Show. Isabel Hilton hosts. Don't hesitate to email us at [email protected] with your thoughts or questions on the episode! To witness such talks 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/ 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.