Show Notes
Einstein was called “slow” at school, J. K. Rowling collected a dozen rejections, and Walt Disney was once fired for “lacking imagination.” We love stories of perseverance—but what’s the cost of never letting go? In this conversation, psychoanalyst Adam Phillips argues that our obsession with endurance can have hidden, corrosive effects. He invites us to consider giving up not as failure, but as a creative act: a way to revise who we are, resist the tyranny of completion, and make room for lives that fit.
Adam Phillips is a leading British psychoanalyst and acclaimed essayist, celebrated for bringing psychoanalytic ideas into everyday life with clarity and wit. He is the author of more than twenty books, including On Kissing, Tickling, and Being Bored, Darwin’s Worms, Going Sane, On Balance, Attention Seeking, and On Wanting to Change. He has served as a child psychotherapist in the NHS and is the general editor of the new Penguin translations of Sigmund Freud. Health journalist Claudia Canavan hosts.
Don't give up on sending us an email at [email protected] with 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/ 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.