October 10, 2025 • 24 mins
Aims to provide accessible yet stimulating overviews of diverse subjects, written by experts and translated into numerous languages. The provided text offers a glimpse into the book's contents, introducing core philosophical concepts through discussions of Plato's Crito, Hume's Of Miracles, and various "isms" like materialism and idealism. It further explores prominent philosophers such as Mill, Nietzsche, Descartes, and Hegel, examining their contributions to ethical theories, political philosophy, and the understanding of human nature and society, including the roles of individuals, the working classes, women, and animals. Additionally, the excerpts highlight the practical motivations behind philosophical inquiry and offer suggestions for further reading within the field.
You can listen and download our episodes for free on more than 10 different platforms:
https://linktr.ee/book_shelter
Get the Book now from Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192854216?&linkCode=ll1&tag=cvthunderx-20&linkId=6dbfe9761a4954ee3dbe363666ce0f7a&language=en_US&ref_=as_li_ss_tl
You can listen and download our episodes for free on more than 10 different platforms:
https://linktr.ee/book_shelter
Get the Book now from Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192854216?&linkCode=ll1&tag=cvthunderx-20&linkId=6dbfe9761a4954ee3dbe363666ce0f7a&language=en_US&ref_=as_li_ss_tl
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the deep dive, where we transform complex information
into clear, engaging insights. Today we're embarking on, well, quite
an extraordinary journey. It's a deep dive into Edward Craig's philosophy.
A very short introduction, and this isn't just going to
be a book summary. Think of it more as a
story humanity's enduring quests to understand itself, understand the world.
(00:23):
Our mission really is to unpack Craig's masterful overview, guiding
you through these core philosophical questions and the revolutionary ideas
that have shaped civilizations, you know, from agent Greece right
up to modern thought.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Absolutely, and you are listener, you're already a philosopher. I
mean maybe you don't think of yourself that way, but
we all operate with underlying values, right, we all have
some picture of reality and fundamental questions about how we
know anything at all. So this deep dive, it'll explore
how history's great thinkers grappled with these exact questions. It's
kind of shortcut really to getting informed on a subject that,
(00:57):
let's face it, many find a bit intimidating.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
And we'll see why philosophy isn't just unavoidable, but actually
a thrilling adventure of the mind.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
It really is.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
So let's dive in, starting with the basics. Maybe, Craig argues,
philosophy is just inherently part of us.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
Yeah, the baked down.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
Whether we consciously realize it or not. We live by values,
We hold general views on existence. Maybe you believe in God.
Maybe it's all chance and natural selection for you. And
we constantly ask, don't we what should we do? What
is actually out there? And maybe the big one? How
do we know any of this stuff?
Speaker 2 (01:34):
Craig puts it nicely. Being a philosopher is simply being
rather more reflective about some of these questions. It's not
about having all the answers. In fact, even if you
just dismiss philosophy, you know, say philosophy is useless.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
Right, I've heard that that itself.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
Is a philosophical stance. It's a skeptical voice, and philosophy
has never been short of those. Craig mentions Nietzsche calling
philosophers terrible explosives. Nothing is safe from their questioning. Their
ideas can just reshape everything.
Speaker 1 (01:59):
Wow, So it's more than just collecting facts. It's about
embodying a what do you call it? A picture of
the world, an and or a set of values, something
that really stretches your imagination exactly.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
If a philosophical idea doesn't seem a little bit weird
at first, you probably haven't quite got it yet.
Speaker 1 (02:14):
Okay, okay, Well, what's the point. What's the purpose behind
all this thinking?
Speaker 2 (02:18):
Well, historically it's often been a means to salvation, seriously,
whether that's salvation from suffering like in Buddhism or Hinduism,
or maybe maximizing pleasure through you know, peace and quiet,
like Epicureans aimed for. But it's bigger than just individual
piece too. Philosophy has been this massive force to change
the course of civilization. Think about Hobbes, Dishartes, Kant, Marx,
(02:42):
feminist thinkers. They fundamentally shifted how societies work.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
And think that's a huge impact. But how did it
even start. Craig has this fascinating origin story he does.
Speaker 2 (02:52):
Yeah, he paints this picture of our ancestors once pretty
much like other animals, but then they developed this capacity
to ask why, to reflect on themselves, and he calls
this the biggest shock the species has ever encountered. Yeah,
it led us to investigate nature, but also often to
invent beliefs in the supernatural to explain things we couldn't
figure out. Philosophy, in Craig's view, is kind of the
(03:16):
sound of humanity trying to recover from this crisis. That's
a powerful image, and it shapes what philosophy is today.
The scope keeps changing, you know, Physics, psychology, they were
once part of philosophy, but they branched off when they
got their own clear methods. So philosophy is left grappling
with those really foundational questions, the ones we are not
sure how best to formulate. It's this vast, evolving landscape.
(03:38):
And well, this book is a fantastic guided.
Speaker 1 (03:40):
Tour, all right. Let's take our first specific deep dive.
Then back to ancient Greece maybe four hundred BC. Plato's
Credo perfect starting point. Socrates a giant of Western thought,
and he's in this terrible spot where he's in prison,
condemned to death for corrypting the youth of Athens.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
That was the charge anyway, and his loyal friend Credo
shows up with a plan. It's very practical bribe. The
guards escape to Thessaly friends are waiting Credo makes these arguments,
you know, appealing to socrates friend's reputation. They'll look bad
if they don't help him escape, and what about his
duty to his kids? This is a very human clee.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
But Socrates, his response is just incredibly calm, methodical. Even
He immediately pushes aside what people think. He says, no,
we listen to reasonable people with a clear view of
the facts. Wisdom is what matters. And then he drops
this bombshell principle doing someone or wrong is always wrong,
(04:38):
even when done in response to a wrong done to you.
No revenge.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
Ever, it's still pretty radical today, isn't it. And then
he does this brilliant thing. He personifies the laws in
the state, makes them characters in the conversation. Oh right,
And they argue that if he escapes, he's basically trying
to destroy them. He'd be undermining the courts, the whole system.
It's this appeal to a kind of universal principle, a
bit like Kant later. What if everybody did that? Where
would we be?
Speaker 1 (05:00):
The laws also bring up this idea of an agreement, right, yeah,
voluntary contract exactly.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
They say, look, Socrates, you lived here in Athens for
seventy years, you raised your kids here. You could have
left any time. You've been rejected exile at your trial.
So by staying, you tacitly agreed to obey our laws.
You benefited from the system. Now you want to break
the rules just because they don't suit you.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
It's a powerful argument.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
It is, And interestingly, even while arguing on these high principles,
Socrates also covers the practical stuff. He points out that
escaping would make him a laughing stock, it would endanger
his friend's, lead to a demeaning exile anyway, and wouldn't
actually help his kids much. The laws even use what
Craig calls the fire and brimstone maneuver, threatening a nasty
(05:45):
reception in the afterlife if he disobeys. Covering all the
bases pretty much so, Socrates concludes, let us then act
in this way, since this is the way the God
is leading. The whole dialogue just perfectly shows the complexity
of moral problems. You're jubbling consequence, integrity, duty, society, maybe
even faith. And for you listening, how do those things
(06:05):
play out when you face a really tough decision? What
weighs most toughly?
Speaker 1 (06:09):
That's a great question to ponder. Okay, so from what
should we do, let's shift gears, let's tackle how do
we know anything for sure? And this brings us to
David Hume. Craig calls him the greatest of all philosophers
who have written in English. High praise, huge praise.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
And Hume famously took on religious belief, especially belief based
on miracles.
Speaker 1 (06:31):
Right, he had this core belief, didn't he about humans being.
Speaker 2 (06:35):
Somewhat superior middle sized animals, that's the phrase, not these
godlike beings with perfect reason. He really wanted to dismantle
the idea that human reason could just soar up to
divine understanding. He thought that led to big mistakes.
Speaker 1 (06:49):
And miracles back then were often seen as proof right,
certificates of religious authority, God bending the rules of nature exactly.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
But Hume's argument was pretty subversive. He said, basically, you
can never have good reason to believe in a miracle
based on testimony, and testimony is almost always how we
hear about them.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
Okay, how does he argue that.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
Well, he starts with something we see every day. Human
testimony is unreliable. People lie, they make mistakes, they exaggerate,
They want to tell a good story. Think about it.
If someone told you the streets of London were completely
empty on a normal Tuesday afternoon, would you just believe them?
Speaker 1 (07:24):
Probably not. I'd need more than just their words, right.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
You'd weigh the evidence their testimony versus your vast experience
of London not being empty on a Tuesday. You proportion
your belief. So a miracle, by its very definition, is
contrary to a law of nature. It's incredibly improbable. Our
experience consistently, over and over confirms these laws of nature. Therefore,
Hume says, the evidence against the miracle, all our uniform experience,
(07:50):
is always going to be stronger than the evidence for it,
which is just some fallible human testimony that.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
Seems logical, almost inescapable. But doesn't it prove too much?
What about science? Science discovers new things, sometimes things it
seemed impossible before. Doesn't Hume's argument stop science?
Speaker 2 (08:05):
That's a really common objection, Craig suggests. Hume's implicit answer
is about replicability. Scientific results, however, surprising can usually be tested, observed,
and replicated by others. Lots of independent verification builds up
the evidence. Miracles, on the other hand, are typically one
off events reported by a few people. Hume uses an example.
(08:26):
Imagine an eight day darkness fell over the whole world,
report consistently everywhere. That would be extraordinary, but maybe not
a miracle in the sense of violating impossibility. More like
a bizarre, widespread natural event we don't understand yet. It's
the unique, non repeatable claim based on limited testimony that
Hume targets.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
Okay, that distinction makes sense. It really forces you to think,
doesn't it. How do you, the listener evaluate extraordinary claims
you hear? Do you proportion your belief to the evidence
like Hume suggests, or are you sometimes tempted to believe
things just because someone told.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
It's a good check on our critical thinking.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
Definitely. All right. Let's switch continents and centuries again to
ancient India and the Melinda Panya questions of King Melinda.
This one tackles a really fundamental, almost dizzy in question,
What am I? What is the self?
Speaker 2 (09:14):
Yeah, this one can really bend your mind. You have
this Buddhist monk Nagasina debating King Melinda, and Nagasina drops
this bombshell there is no person as such that is
found named Nagasina.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
Wait what he's saying?
Speaker 2 (09:27):
He doesn't exist, well, not in the way the king
and probably most of us thinks. King Melinda is puzzled naturally,
So we ask, okay, is Nagasina your body, your feelings,
your perceptions, mental formations, consciousness. These are the five aggregates
in Buddhism, the components of experience, and to each one.
Nagasina says no, okay. Then the king asks, well, is
(09:47):
Nagasina something else separate from all these parts, like a soul? Maybe?
And Agasina again says no.
Speaker 1 (09:53):
This feels impossible. If you're not your parts, and you're
not all the parts together, and you're not something separate,
can you be? It really challenges our assumptions, right, yeah,
that the self is this I don't know, pure permanent,
maybe non material thing like socrates soul or the Hindu
idea of an eternal.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
Hat man exactly. It challenges that core assumption. And Nagasena
uses this brilliant analogy, the chariot analogy. He asks, the
king is the chariot, the axle, the wheels, the pole,
the rains.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
Still know?
Speaker 2 (10:24):
Then Magasena asks, is the chariot all these parts put together,
and surprisingly, King Melinda still says.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
No, why why I know that?
Speaker 2 (10:32):
Because the King explains it is because of the pole,
the axel. That chariot exists as a mere designation. It's
just a name, a convenient label we use when the
parts are arranged in a certain functional way. Nagasana jumps
on this. Yes, just like that, Nagasena exists as a
mere designation because the five aggregates, body, feelings, perceptions, et cetera.
Are present and working together.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
I think I get it. The hole is less real
than the.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
Parts in a way. Yes. Craig puts it as holes
being less real, less objective, and more matter of convention
than their parts. The parts can't exist independently, but the whole,
the chariot, the self, only exists because of how the
parts are arranged, and because we find it useful to
give it a name for our purposes. And the Buddhist
purpose here is crucial. They believe suffering comes from clinging
(11:18):
to self, from thinking we have this fixed, permanent eye.
Realizing the self is just an unstable composite helps to
let go of that clinging and thus alleviate suffering.
Speaker 1 (11:28):
That's profound it really makes you question everything. So for
you listening, is yourself this solid, unchanging thing or is
it more like a convenient name for this constantly shifting
collection of experiences, thoughts, feelings, and body parts somebody to
chew on.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
Definitely?
Speaker 1 (11:42):
Okay, So we've seen these specific deep dive Socrates on Ethics, Humonology, Magazine,
on the Self. Craig uses these to draw out recurring themes, right,
these big philosophical concepts and isms.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
Absolutely from those examples you can see patterns emerging, like
the tension we already touched on between ethical consequentialism, judging
action by results.
Speaker 1 (12:01):
Like Epicurus seeking pleasure meaning freedom from pain or mills
utilitarianism greatest happiness for the greatest number.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
Right versus the idea of integrity sticking to your principles
no matter what, like Socrates did. These often pull in
different directions, And.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
Then there's political authority. How does states get the right
to rule?
Speaker 2 (12:21):
Yeah, contract theory. You have Hobbes painting that grim picture
of the state of nature, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.
His solution a social contract giving almost absolute power to
a sovereign to keep the peace.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
But then the lot comes along and says, hold on,
are we just trading chaos for tyranny? Escaping polecats only
to be devoured by lions. It's a fundamental debate about
security versus liberty.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
And Hume pops up again with evidence and rationality, proportioning
belief to evidence. But that raises deeper questions too. How
do we justify our most basic beliefs without getting stuck
in an infinite loop of asking why?
Speaker 1 (12:57):
The problem of infinite regress exactly.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
Lacassina's no self idea connects surprisingly well with Hume's later
bundle theory of the mind, the idea that the self
isn't a core entity, just a bundle or collection of perceptions.
Speaker 1 (13:10):
So these specific stories lead to these bigger jeerism.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
Precisely understanding these helps navigate philosophy. You've got dualism. Mind
and matter are two different kinds of stuff. Descartes materialism.
Only matter exists. Think ancient Indian locaiatas, Greek atomists like
Democritus and Epicurus, or Marx focusing on economic matter idealism.
Everything is fundamentally mental or spiritual like Berkeley or Hegel.
(13:36):
And how we get knowledge empiricism. Knowledge comes mainly from
perception from our senses hume versus rationalism. Knowledge comes primarily
from reason from thought Plato's forms maybe kant.
Speaker 1 (13:46):
Hegel plus skepticism, doubting claims to knowledge like Piro or
Descartes using doubt as a method, and relativism, the idea
that truth or values aren't absolute but depend on individuals, societies,
cultures good in this society.
Speaker 2 (14:00):
Yeah, Getting a handle on these basic isms helps you
see the recurring arguments and the subtle differences in how
thinkers approach these big questions. It gives you a map, essentially.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
A map to navigate this huge landscape. Okay, let's zoom
in again on a few more of those high spots.
Craig mentions philosophers who really shifted the ground beneath our feet.
Speaker 2 (14:21):
Okay, definitely renated cart We mentioned him. He was just
so frustrated with the uncertainty he saw in the education
of his time. He wanted to tear it all down
and rebuild knowledge on something absolutely certain, which.
Speaker 1 (14:31):
Led to his famous kujido ergosum I.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Think therefore I am. That was his bedrock. He couldn't
doubt his own existence as a thinking thing, and from
there he built up his system, including that famous Cartesian
dualism mind and body as separate substances. He actually relied on,
arguing for a perfect, non deceiving God to guarantee that
his clear and distinct perceptions of the external world were
(14:55):
actually true.
Speaker 1 (14:56):
Fascinating reliance on God. There, what about someone like Hegel?
He sounds timidating.
Speaker 2 (15:00):
Hegel is definitely heavy duty metaphysics. As Craig puts it,
his system is vast and complex. Essentially, he saw reality
as the idea, this abstract system of concepts unfolding itself,
first embodying itself in nature, and then leading to Geist's
spirit or consciousness, which gradually achieves self knowledge through human minds,
(15:22):
particularly through history.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
So history has a purpose.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
For Hegel, Yes, History is reason working out its rational purposes.
He talks about the cunning of reason, where individuals think
they're pursuing their own goals, but they're actually unknowingly serving
the grand plan of Reason's self realization. Progress happens through conflict,
the clash of opposing concepts, his famous dialectic, which deeply
influenced Marx later on Wow.
Speaker 1 (15:44):
Okay, Switching gears completely Charles Darwin a biologist, but huge
philosophical impact immense.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
The Origin of Species presented this incredibly carefully constructed case
for evolution by natural selection. It just fundamentally changed how
humanity saw itself, no longer a special divine creation, but
a product of slow and slight successive modifications over eons.
This directly challenged views like Descartes's idea of God guaranteeing
our reason. Importantly, though, Darwin himself didn't draw the harsh
(16:14):
social conclusions that later became known as social Darwinism. For him,
fittis just meant best suited to the current environment, not
morally superior or destined to dominate.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
That's a crucial distinction. And finally, Nietzsche, the terrible explosive.
Speaker 2 (16:28):
Yes, Friedrich Nietzsche, he launched this blistering attack on the
dominant Christian moral values of the nineteenth century. In his
Genealogy of Morals, he dug into the history of values.
He argued that things like charity, compassion, and love weren't
God given or naturally right. He saw them as a
kind of vengeful retaliatory device created by the weak masses
the herd morality to hold down the strong creative individuals.
(16:51):
He viewed it as life denying, fueled by resentment, often
channeled by what he called the ascetic priest.
Speaker 1 (16:57):
That's a challenging perspective.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
Deeply challenging. And these aren't just historical curiosities. The questions Descartes, Hegel,
Darwin nietzsure raised about certainty, history, human nature, morality, they're
still being debated. They force you, the listener, to examine
your own bedrock assumptions.
Speaker 1 (17:16):
Absolutely, which brings us nicely to one of the most enduring,
nagging philosophical problems, freedom of the will. Do we actually
have it?
Speaker 2 (17:25):
Ah, the perennial puzzle. It just keeps coming back. We
feel free most of the time, but pinning it down
philosophically is incredibly tricky.
Speaker 1 (17:32):
You mentioned Descardes earlier. He believed in it.
Speaker 2 (17:34):
He did. For him it felt obvious we feel ourselves
not to be determined by any external force. But it
was also tied to his theology. If God is perfect
and not a deceiver, then our errors in judgment must
stem from our misuse of free will, not from God
giving us faulty reason.
Speaker 1 (17:49):
What about Hegel's grand system did that have room for freedom?
Speaker 2 (17:52):
Hegel had this rather unique take. He argued, we achieve
freedom not by somehow escaping necessity or causality, but by
being the source of that necessity, by identifying our will
with the universal reason that is unfolding through history. It's
freedom through understanding and aligning with the rational structure of reality.
A very different concept.
Speaker 1 (18:13):
Okay, that's quite abstract. How does the debate usually play out? Now?
Often starts with determinism.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
Right, Often, yes. Determinism the idea that every single event,
including every human thought and action, is causally necessitated by
prior events and the laws of nature. If that's true,
if everything is determined like clockwork, then how can any
choice be genuinely free? Is the feeling of freedom just
an illusion?
Speaker 1 (18:34):
So some people reject determinism.
Speaker 2 (18:36):
Some do That leads to indeterminism. Maybe there's some randomness,
some slack and the causal chains Epicurus had his atoms
swerving randomly. Maybe we can initiate new causal chains ourselves.
But that raises its own problem. If our actions aren't
determined by our character and motives, if they just happen
randomly or causelessly, are they really our actions? Are they
(18:58):
controlled by us? Does that undermine responsibility just as much
as determinism seems to.
Speaker 1 (19:03):
But it's a catch twenty two. Damned if you're determined,
damned if you're random.
Speaker 2 (19:07):
Pretty much, which is why many philosophers land on compatibilism.
They argue that freedom and determinism can coexist. Freedom, on
this view, doesn't mean being uncaused. It means your actions
are caused by the right things, by your own wishes,
preferences and tensions, deliberations, decisions. You act freely when you
act because you choose to based on your own internal states,
(19:28):
even if those states themselves were ultimately caused by prior events.
Speaker 1 (19:31):
So freedom is about being the source of the action
in line with your own desires, even if those desires
are determined.
Speaker 2 (19:37):
That's the core idea. But as Quig points out, this
often leaves people feeling uneasy. Does it really capture our
deep sense of freedom? If someone's terrible actions were ultimately
causally necessitated by factors stretching back long before they were born,
can we truly hold them responsible in the way we
instinctively feel we should. Does it reduce human interaction to
(19:59):
just sort of modifying each other's behavior through cause and effect.
Speaker 1 (20:02):
It feels like it takes something away.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
It can feel that way. We often get stuck with
conflicting perspectives. As Craig says, the arguments for compatibilism might
be persuasive intellectually, but we can't quite shake the feeling
that something deeper is missing when we try to live
with that conclusion.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
It's a genuine puzzle. So for you listening, where do
you stand? Do you feel the poll of determinism the
intuition of freedom? Can they be reconciled? It's something philosophers
and probably all of us at some point wrestle with. Indeed,
all right, so we've explored ethics, knowledge, self, reality, freedom,
big questions, which leads to the final area Craig covers,
(20:40):
what's the payoff? Why do all this? Who actually benefits
from philosophy?
Speaker 2 (20:44):
That's a great practical question, and Craig argues philosophy isn't
just navel gazing. It consistently addresses some real concern and
claiming to offer some real improvement. It's usually motivated by
a desire to make things better somehow, for whom, well,
often for the individual. Think of Epicurus again offering a
recipe for living a happy life basically, minimize pain and anxiety,
(21:06):
cultivate tranquility or John Stuart mill In on liberty. His
harm principle champions individual freedom of thought and expression, arguing
that restricting it doesn't just harm the individual, it harms
society by potentially suppressing valuable new ideas and ways of living.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
Defense what about bigger groups the state?
Speaker 2 (21:25):
Yes, for the state. Hobbes's contract theory we saw aim
to provide justification for a strong sovereign to prevent chaos,
the war of every man against every man. It's about
security and order for the collective.
Speaker 1 (21:37):
Craig also mentions, maybe controversially, the priesthood.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
He does using the example of the Vedic Brahmins in
ancient India. He suggests they gained security and considerable power
partly by cultivating beliefs about their essential role in rituals
and their connection to the divine, thus ensuring their value
to society. It's an analysis of how philosophical or religious
ideas can serve group interests.
Speaker 1 (22:00):
And what about other groups like workers?
Speaker 2 (22:03):
Absolutely Karl Marx provided a powerful analysis for the working classes,
focusing on their alienation under industrial capitalism. He argued that work,
which should be a form of self expression, had become
external to the worker, just a means to survive, leaving
them disconnected from their labor product and ultimately themselves definitely.
Mill again in the Subjection of women, argued passionately for
(22:26):
perfect equality, viewing the legal subordination of women as not
just unjust, but a major hindrance to human improvement for everyone,
and later Simone de Beauvoir in the Second Sex, offered
a profound analysis of how women had been constructed as
man's other, urging women to recognize their own independent existence
and men to acknowledge their equality for the benefit of
(22:47):
both sexes self understanding.
Speaker 1 (22:49):
It also extends beyond humans, doesn't it?
Speaker 2 (22:51):
Increasingly so? Craig touches on animals. Buddhism's belief in rebirth
naturally included animals in the moral sphere. Utilitarians like Germany
Bentham famously asked not can they reason nor can they talk?
But can they suffer? That shifted the focus, and modern
animal rights and environmental movements build on these philosophical foundations,
often connecting with biological insights about animal consciousness and ecological interdependence.
Speaker 1 (23:16):
So even professional philosophers today, maybe sometimes focusing on what
seemed like small logical puzzles. They're still part of this
long tradition.
Speaker 2 (23:23):
They are. While some work might seem very specialized, Craig
believes the philosophies that truly endure, the ones that get
studied and shape thought for centuries, are usually those written
out of a real feeling that its message was needed
for the benefit of humanity. There's typically a driving concern
behind them.
Speaker 1 (23:41):
So we've taken quite a journey through this philosophical landscape.
We've looked at ethics, how we know things, what we are,
the nature of reality, freedom, and who benefits from it,
all guided by Edward Craig's brilliant.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
Distillation yeah his philosophy. A very short introduction really makes
it clear that these aren't just dusty old academic debates.
They represent humanity's ongoing, continuous story, our attempt to make
sense of life, to grapple with all its complexities, and
maybe just maybe find a slightly clearer path forward.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
So as we wrap up, here's a final provocative thought
for you, our listener, to take away from this deep dive.
Craig notes that how people think really does alter things.
And when lots of people change how they think, it
can alter things for almost everyone. So the question is
what fundamental belief, if people started to re examine it today,
(24:32):
could genuinely shift the course of civilization in your time.
Speaker 2 (24:35):
That's a powerful question to leave with. Keep asking those
big questions. As Craig emphasizes, your own ordinary native intelligence
absolutely has a place here. The thinking isn't just necessary,
it's actually part of the fun.
Welcome to the deep dive, where we transform complex information
into clear, engaging insights. Today we're embarking on, well, quite
an extraordinary journey. It's a deep dive into Edward Craig's philosophy.
A very short introduction, and this isn't just going to
be a book summary. Think of it more as a
story humanity's enduring quests to understand itself, understand the world.
(00:23):
Our mission really is to unpack Craig's masterful overview, guiding
you through these core philosophical questions and the revolutionary ideas
that have shaped civilizations, you know, from agent Greece right
up to modern thought.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Absolutely, and you are listener, you're already a philosopher. I
mean maybe you don't think of yourself that way, but
we all operate with underlying values, right, we all have
some picture of reality and fundamental questions about how we
know anything at all. So this deep dive, it'll explore
how history's great thinkers grappled with these exact questions. It's
kind of shortcut really to getting informed on a subject that,
(00:57):
let's face it, many find a bit intimidating.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
And we'll see why philosophy isn't just unavoidable, but actually
a thrilling adventure of the mind.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
It really is.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
So let's dive in, starting with the basics. Maybe, Craig argues,
philosophy is just inherently part of us.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
Yeah, the baked down.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
Whether we consciously realize it or not. We live by values,
We hold general views on existence. Maybe you believe in God.
Maybe it's all chance and natural selection for you. And
we constantly ask, don't we what should we do? What
is actually out there? And maybe the big one? How
do we know any of this stuff?
Speaker 2 (01:34):
Craig puts it nicely. Being a philosopher is simply being
rather more reflective about some of these questions. It's not
about having all the answers. In fact, even if you
just dismiss philosophy, you know, say philosophy is useless.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
Right, I've heard that that itself.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
Is a philosophical stance. It's a skeptical voice, and philosophy
has never been short of those. Craig mentions Nietzsche calling
philosophers terrible explosives. Nothing is safe from their questioning. Their
ideas can just reshape everything.
Speaker 1 (01:59):
Wow, So it's more than just collecting facts. It's about
embodying a what do you call it? A picture of
the world, an and or a set of values, something
that really stretches your imagination exactly.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
If a philosophical idea doesn't seem a little bit weird
at first, you probably haven't quite got it yet.
Speaker 1 (02:14):
Okay, okay, Well, what's the point. What's the purpose behind
all this thinking?
Speaker 2 (02:18):
Well, historically it's often been a means to salvation, seriously,
whether that's salvation from suffering like in Buddhism or Hinduism,
or maybe maximizing pleasure through you know, peace and quiet,
like Epicureans aimed for. But it's bigger than just individual
piece too. Philosophy has been this massive force to change
the course of civilization. Think about Hobbes, Dishartes, Kant, Marx,
(02:42):
feminist thinkers. They fundamentally shifted how societies work.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
And think that's a huge impact. But how did it
even start. Craig has this fascinating origin story he does.
Speaker 2 (02:52):
Yeah, he paints this picture of our ancestors once pretty
much like other animals, but then they developed this capacity
to ask why, to reflect on themselves, and he calls
this the biggest shock the species has ever encountered. Yeah,
it led us to investigate nature, but also often to
invent beliefs in the supernatural to explain things we couldn't
figure out. Philosophy, in Craig's view, is kind of the
(03:16):
sound of humanity trying to recover from this crisis. That's
a powerful image, and it shapes what philosophy is today.
The scope keeps changing, you know, Physics, psychology, they were
once part of philosophy, but they branched off when they
got their own clear methods. So philosophy is left grappling
with those really foundational questions, the ones we are not
sure how best to formulate. It's this vast, evolving landscape.
(03:38):
And well, this book is a fantastic guided.
Speaker 1 (03:40):
Tour, all right. Let's take our first specific deep dive.
Then back to ancient Greece maybe four hundred BC. Plato's
Credo perfect starting point. Socrates a giant of Western thought,
and he's in this terrible spot where he's in prison,
condemned to death for corrypting the youth of Athens.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
That was the charge anyway, and his loyal friend Credo
shows up with a plan. It's very practical bribe. The
guards escape to Thessaly friends are waiting Credo makes these arguments,
you know, appealing to socrates friend's reputation. They'll look bad
if they don't help him escape, and what about his
duty to his kids? This is a very human clee.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
But Socrates, his response is just incredibly calm, methodical. Even
He immediately pushes aside what people think. He says, no,
we listen to reasonable people with a clear view of
the facts. Wisdom is what matters. And then he drops
this bombshell principle doing someone or wrong is always wrong,
(04:38):
even when done in response to a wrong done to you.
No revenge.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
Ever, it's still pretty radical today, isn't it. And then
he does this brilliant thing. He personifies the laws in
the state, makes them characters in the conversation. Oh right,
And they argue that if he escapes, he's basically trying
to destroy them. He'd be undermining the courts, the whole system.
It's this appeal to a kind of universal principle, a
bit like Kant later. What if everybody did that? Where
would we be?
Speaker 1 (05:00):
The laws also bring up this idea of an agreement, right, yeah,
voluntary contract exactly.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
They say, look, Socrates, you lived here in Athens for
seventy years, you raised your kids here. You could have
left any time. You've been rejected exile at your trial.
So by staying, you tacitly agreed to obey our laws.
You benefited from the system. Now you want to break
the rules just because they don't suit you.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
It's a powerful argument.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
It is, And interestingly, even while arguing on these high principles,
Socrates also covers the practical stuff. He points out that
escaping would make him a laughing stock, it would endanger
his friend's, lead to a demeaning exile anyway, and wouldn't
actually help his kids much. The laws even use what
Craig calls the fire and brimstone maneuver, threatening a nasty
(05:45):
reception in the afterlife if he disobeys. Covering all the
bases pretty much so, Socrates concludes, let us then act
in this way, since this is the way the God
is leading. The whole dialogue just perfectly shows the complexity
of moral problems. You're jubbling consequence, integrity, duty, society, maybe
even faith. And for you listening, how do those things
(06:05):
play out when you face a really tough decision? What
weighs most toughly?
Speaker 1 (06:09):
That's a great question to ponder. Okay, so from what
should we do, let's shift gears, let's tackle how do
we know anything for sure? And this brings us to
David Hume. Craig calls him the greatest of all philosophers
who have written in English. High praise, huge praise.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
And Hume famously took on religious belief, especially belief based
on miracles.
Speaker 1 (06:31):
Right, he had this core belief, didn't he about humans being.
Speaker 2 (06:35):
Somewhat superior middle sized animals, that's the phrase, not these
godlike beings with perfect reason. He really wanted to dismantle
the idea that human reason could just soar up to
divine understanding. He thought that led to big mistakes.
Speaker 1 (06:49):
And miracles back then were often seen as proof right,
certificates of religious authority, God bending the rules of nature exactly.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
But Hume's argument was pretty subversive. He said, basically, you
can never have good reason to believe in a miracle
based on testimony, and testimony is almost always how we
hear about them.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
Okay, how does he argue that.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
Well, he starts with something we see every day. Human
testimony is unreliable. People lie, they make mistakes, they exaggerate,
They want to tell a good story. Think about it.
If someone told you the streets of London were completely
empty on a normal Tuesday afternoon, would you just believe them?
Speaker 1 (07:24):
Probably not. I'd need more than just their words, right.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
You'd weigh the evidence their testimony versus your vast experience
of London not being empty on a Tuesday. You proportion
your belief. So a miracle, by its very definition, is
contrary to a law of nature. It's incredibly improbable. Our
experience consistently, over and over confirms these laws of nature. Therefore,
Hume says, the evidence against the miracle, all our uniform experience,
(07:50):
is always going to be stronger than the evidence for it,
which is just some fallible human testimony that.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
Seems logical, almost inescapable. But doesn't it prove too much?
What about science? Science discovers new things, sometimes things it
seemed impossible before. Doesn't Hume's argument stop science?
Speaker 2 (08:05):
That's a really common objection, Craig suggests. Hume's implicit answer
is about replicability. Scientific results, however, surprising can usually be tested, observed,
and replicated by others. Lots of independent verification builds up
the evidence. Miracles, on the other hand, are typically one
off events reported by a few people. Hume uses an example.
(08:26):
Imagine an eight day darkness fell over the whole world,
report consistently everywhere. That would be extraordinary, but maybe not
a miracle in the sense of violating impossibility. More like
a bizarre, widespread natural event we don't understand yet. It's
the unique, non repeatable claim based on limited testimony that
Hume targets.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
Okay, that distinction makes sense. It really forces you to think,
doesn't it. How do you, the listener evaluate extraordinary claims
you hear? Do you proportion your belief to the evidence
like Hume suggests, or are you sometimes tempted to believe
things just because someone told.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
It's a good check on our critical thinking.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
Definitely. All right. Let's switch continents and centuries again to
ancient India and the Melinda Panya questions of King Melinda.
This one tackles a really fundamental, almost dizzy in question,
What am I? What is the self?
Speaker 2 (09:14):
Yeah, this one can really bend your mind. You have
this Buddhist monk Nagasina debating King Melinda, and Nagasina drops
this bombshell there is no person as such that is
found named Nagasina.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
Wait what he's saying?
Speaker 2 (09:27):
He doesn't exist, well, not in the way the king
and probably most of us thinks. King Melinda is puzzled naturally,
So we ask, okay, is Nagasina your body, your feelings,
your perceptions, mental formations, consciousness. These are the five aggregates
in Buddhism, the components of experience, and to each one.
Nagasina says no, okay. Then the king asks, well, is
(09:47):
Nagasina something else separate from all these parts, like a soul? Maybe?
And Agasina again says no.
Speaker 1 (09:53):
This feels impossible. If you're not your parts, and you're
not all the parts together, and you're not something separate,
can you be? It really challenges our assumptions, right, yeah,
that the self is this I don't know, pure permanent,
maybe non material thing like socrates soul or the Hindu
idea of an eternal.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
Hat man exactly. It challenges that core assumption. And Nagasena
uses this brilliant analogy, the chariot analogy. He asks, the
king is the chariot, the axle, the wheels, the pole,
the rains.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
Still know?
Speaker 2 (10:24):
Then Magasena asks, is the chariot all these parts put together,
and surprisingly, King Melinda still says.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
No, why why I know that?
Speaker 2 (10:32):
Because the King explains it is because of the pole,
the axel. That chariot exists as a mere designation. It's
just a name, a convenient label we use when the
parts are arranged in a certain functional way. Nagasana jumps
on this. Yes, just like that, Nagasena exists as a
mere designation because the five aggregates, body, feelings, perceptions, et cetera.
Are present and working together.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
I think I get it. The hole is less real
than the.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
Parts in a way. Yes. Craig puts it as holes
being less real, less objective, and more matter of convention
than their parts. The parts can't exist independently, but the whole,
the chariot, the self, only exists because of how the
parts are arranged, and because we find it useful to
give it a name for our purposes. And the Buddhist
purpose here is crucial. They believe suffering comes from clinging
(11:18):
to self, from thinking we have this fixed, permanent eye.
Realizing the self is just an unstable composite helps to
let go of that clinging and thus alleviate suffering.
Speaker 1 (11:28):
That's profound it really makes you question everything. So for
you listening, is yourself this solid, unchanging thing or is
it more like a convenient name for this constantly shifting
collection of experiences, thoughts, feelings, and body parts somebody to
chew on.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
Definitely?
Speaker 1 (11:42):
Okay, So we've seen these specific deep dive Socrates on Ethics, Humonology, Magazine,
on the Self. Craig uses these to draw out recurring themes, right,
these big philosophical concepts and isms.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
Absolutely from those examples you can see patterns emerging, like
the tension we already touched on between ethical consequentialism, judging
action by results.
Speaker 1 (12:01):
Like Epicurus seeking pleasure meaning freedom from pain or mills
utilitarianism greatest happiness for the greatest number.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
Right versus the idea of integrity sticking to your principles
no matter what, like Socrates did. These often pull in
different directions, And.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
Then there's political authority. How does states get the right
to rule?
Speaker 2 (12:21):
Yeah, contract theory. You have Hobbes painting that grim picture
of the state of nature, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.
His solution a social contract giving almost absolute power to
a sovereign to keep the peace.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
But then the lot comes along and says, hold on,
are we just trading chaos for tyranny? Escaping polecats only
to be devoured by lions. It's a fundamental debate about
security versus liberty.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
And Hume pops up again with evidence and rationality, proportioning
belief to evidence. But that raises deeper questions too. How
do we justify our most basic beliefs without getting stuck
in an infinite loop of asking why?
Speaker 1 (12:57):
The problem of infinite regress exactly.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
Lacassina's no self idea connects surprisingly well with Hume's later
bundle theory of the mind, the idea that the self
isn't a core entity, just a bundle or collection of perceptions.
Speaker 1 (13:10):
So these specific stories lead to these bigger jeerism.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
Precisely understanding these helps navigate philosophy. You've got dualism. Mind
and matter are two different kinds of stuff. Descartes materialism.
Only matter exists. Think ancient Indian locaiatas, Greek atomists like
Democritus and Epicurus, or Marx focusing on economic matter idealism.
Everything is fundamentally mental or spiritual like Berkeley or Hegel.
(13:36):
And how we get knowledge empiricism. Knowledge comes mainly from
perception from our senses hume versus rationalism. Knowledge comes primarily
from reason from thought Plato's forms maybe kant.
Speaker 1 (13:46):
Hegel plus skepticism, doubting claims to knowledge like Piro or
Descartes using doubt as a method, and relativism, the idea
that truth or values aren't absolute but depend on individuals, societies,
cultures good in this society.
Speaker 2 (14:00):
Yeah, Getting a handle on these basic isms helps you
see the recurring arguments and the subtle differences in how
thinkers approach these big questions. It gives you a map, essentially.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
A map to navigate this huge landscape. Okay, let's zoom
in again on a few more of those high spots.
Craig mentions philosophers who really shifted the ground beneath our feet.
Speaker 2 (14:21):
Okay, definitely renated cart We mentioned him. He was just
so frustrated with the uncertainty he saw in the education
of his time. He wanted to tear it all down
and rebuild knowledge on something absolutely certain, which.
Speaker 1 (14:31):
Led to his famous kujido ergosum I.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Think therefore I am. That was his bedrock. He couldn't
doubt his own existence as a thinking thing, and from
there he built up his system, including that famous Cartesian
dualism mind and body as separate substances. He actually relied on,
arguing for a perfect, non deceiving God to guarantee that
his clear and distinct perceptions of the external world were
(14:55):
actually true.
Speaker 1 (14:56):
Fascinating reliance on God. There, what about someone like Hegel?
He sounds timidating.
Speaker 2 (15:00):
Hegel is definitely heavy duty metaphysics. As Craig puts it,
his system is vast and complex. Essentially, he saw reality
as the idea, this abstract system of concepts unfolding itself,
first embodying itself in nature, and then leading to Geist's
spirit or consciousness, which gradually achieves self knowledge through human minds,
(15:22):
particularly through history.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
So history has a purpose.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
For Hegel, Yes, History is reason working out its rational purposes.
He talks about the cunning of reason, where individuals think
they're pursuing their own goals, but they're actually unknowingly serving
the grand plan of Reason's self realization. Progress happens through conflict,
the clash of opposing concepts, his famous dialectic, which deeply
influenced Marx later on Wow.
Speaker 1 (15:44):
Okay, Switching gears completely Charles Darwin a biologist, but huge
philosophical impact immense.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
The Origin of Species presented this incredibly carefully constructed case
for evolution by natural selection. It just fundamentally changed how
humanity saw itself, no longer a special divine creation, but
a product of slow and slight successive modifications over eons.
This directly challenged views like Descartes's idea of God guaranteeing
our reason. Importantly, though, Darwin himself didn't draw the harsh
(16:14):
social conclusions that later became known as social Darwinism. For him,
fittis just meant best suited to the current environment, not
morally superior or destined to dominate.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
That's a crucial distinction. And finally, Nietzsche, the terrible explosive.
Speaker 2 (16:28):
Yes, Friedrich Nietzsche, he launched this blistering attack on the
dominant Christian moral values of the nineteenth century. In his
Genealogy of Morals, he dug into the history of values.
He argued that things like charity, compassion, and love weren't
God given or naturally right. He saw them as a
kind of vengeful retaliatory device created by the weak masses
the herd morality to hold down the strong creative individuals.
(16:51):
He viewed it as life denying, fueled by resentment, often
channeled by what he called the ascetic priest.
Speaker 1 (16:57):
That's a challenging perspective.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
Deeply challenging. And these aren't just historical curiosities. The questions Descartes, Hegel,
Darwin nietzsure raised about certainty, history, human nature, morality, they're
still being debated. They force you, the listener, to examine
your own bedrock assumptions.
Speaker 1 (17:16):
Absolutely, which brings us nicely to one of the most enduring,
nagging philosophical problems, freedom of the will. Do we actually
have it?
Speaker 2 (17:25):
Ah, the perennial puzzle. It just keeps coming back. We
feel free most of the time, but pinning it down
philosophically is incredibly tricky.
Speaker 1 (17:32):
You mentioned Descardes earlier. He believed in it.
Speaker 2 (17:34):
He did. For him it felt obvious we feel ourselves
not to be determined by any external force. But it
was also tied to his theology. If God is perfect
and not a deceiver, then our errors in judgment must
stem from our misuse of free will, not from God
giving us faulty reason.
Speaker 1 (17:49):
What about Hegel's grand system did that have room for freedom?
Speaker 2 (17:52):
Hegel had this rather unique take. He argued, we achieve
freedom not by somehow escaping necessity or causality, but by
being the source of that necessity, by identifying our will
with the universal reason that is unfolding through history. It's
freedom through understanding and aligning with the rational structure of reality.
A very different concept.
Speaker 1 (18:13):
Okay, that's quite abstract. How does the debate usually play out? Now?
Often starts with determinism.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
Right, Often, yes. Determinism the idea that every single event,
including every human thought and action, is causally necessitated by
prior events and the laws of nature. If that's true,
if everything is determined like clockwork, then how can any
choice be genuinely free? Is the feeling of freedom just
an illusion?
Speaker 1 (18:34):
So some people reject determinism.
Speaker 2 (18:36):
Some do That leads to indeterminism. Maybe there's some randomness,
some slack and the causal chains Epicurus had his atoms
swerving randomly. Maybe we can initiate new causal chains ourselves.
But that raises its own problem. If our actions aren't
determined by our character and motives, if they just happen
randomly or causelessly, are they really our actions? Are they
(18:58):
controlled by us? Does that undermine responsibility just as much
as determinism seems to.
Speaker 1 (19:03):
But it's a catch twenty two. Damned if you're determined,
damned if you're random.
Speaker 2 (19:07):
Pretty much, which is why many philosophers land on compatibilism.
They argue that freedom and determinism can coexist. Freedom, on
this view, doesn't mean being uncaused. It means your actions
are caused by the right things, by your own wishes,
preferences and tensions, deliberations, decisions. You act freely when you
act because you choose to based on your own internal states,
(19:28):
even if those states themselves were ultimately caused by prior events.
Speaker 1 (19:31):
So freedom is about being the source of the action
in line with your own desires, even if those desires
are determined.
Speaker 2 (19:37):
That's the core idea. But as Quig points out, this
often leaves people feeling uneasy. Does it really capture our
deep sense of freedom? If someone's terrible actions were ultimately
causally necessitated by factors stretching back long before they were born,
can we truly hold them responsible in the way we
instinctively feel we should. Does it reduce human interaction to
(19:59):
just sort of modifying each other's behavior through cause and effect.
Speaker 1 (20:02):
It feels like it takes something away.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
It can feel that way. We often get stuck with
conflicting perspectives. As Craig says, the arguments for compatibilism might
be persuasive intellectually, but we can't quite shake the feeling
that something deeper is missing when we try to live
with that conclusion.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
It's a genuine puzzle. So for you listening, where do
you stand? Do you feel the poll of determinism the
intuition of freedom? Can they be reconciled? It's something philosophers
and probably all of us at some point wrestle with. Indeed,
all right, so we've explored ethics, knowledge, self, reality, freedom,
big questions, which leads to the final area Craig covers,
(20:40):
what's the payoff? Why do all this? Who actually benefits
from philosophy?
Speaker 2 (20:44):
That's a great practical question, and Craig argues philosophy isn't
just navel gazing. It consistently addresses some real concern and
claiming to offer some real improvement. It's usually motivated by
a desire to make things better somehow, for whom, well,
often for the individual. Think of Epicurus again offering a
recipe for living a happy life basically, minimize pain and anxiety,
(21:06):
cultivate tranquility or John Stuart mill In on liberty. His
harm principle champions individual freedom of thought and expression, arguing
that restricting it doesn't just harm the individual, it harms
society by potentially suppressing valuable new ideas and ways of living.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
Defense what about bigger groups the state?
Speaker 2 (21:25):
Yes, for the state. Hobbes's contract theory we saw aim
to provide justification for a strong sovereign to prevent chaos,
the war of every man against every man. It's about
security and order for the collective.
Speaker 1 (21:37):
Craig also mentions, maybe controversially, the priesthood.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
He does using the example of the Vedic Brahmins in
ancient India. He suggests they gained security and considerable power
partly by cultivating beliefs about their essential role in rituals
and their connection to the divine, thus ensuring their value
to society. It's an analysis of how philosophical or religious
ideas can serve group interests.
Speaker 1 (22:00):
And what about other groups like workers?
Speaker 2 (22:03):
Absolutely Karl Marx provided a powerful analysis for the working classes,
focusing on their alienation under industrial capitalism. He argued that work,
which should be a form of self expression, had become
external to the worker, just a means to survive, leaving
them disconnected from their labor product and ultimately themselves definitely.
Mill again in the Subjection of women, argued passionately for
(22:26):
perfect equality, viewing the legal subordination of women as not
just unjust, but a major hindrance to human improvement for everyone,
and later Simone de Beauvoir in the Second Sex, offered
a profound analysis of how women had been constructed as
man's other, urging women to recognize their own independent existence
and men to acknowledge their equality for the benefit of
(22:47):
both sexes self understanding.
Speaker 1 (22:49):
It also extends beyond humans, doesn't it?
Speaker 2 (22:51):
Increasingly so? Craig touches on animals. Buddhism's belief in rebirth
naturally included animals in the moral sphere. Utilitarians like Germany
Bentham famously asked not can they reason nor can they talk?
But can they suffer? That shifted the focus, and modern
animal rights and environmental movements build on these philosophical foundations,
often connecting with biological insights about animal consciousness and ecological interdependence.
Speaker 1 (23:16):
So even professional philosophers today, maybe sometimes focusing on what
seemed like small logical puzzles. They're still part of this
long tradition.
Speaker 2 (23:23):
They are. While some work might seem very specialized, Craig
believes the philosophies that truly endure, the ones that get
studied and shape thought for centuries, are usually those written
out of a real feeling that its message was needed
for the benefit of humanity. There's typically a driving concern
behind them.
Speaker 1 (23:41):
So we've taken quite a journey through this philosophical landscape.
We've looked at ethics, how we know things, what we are,
the nature of reality, freedom, and who benefits from it,
all guided by Edward Craig's brilliant.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
Distillation yeah his philosophy. A very short introduction really makes
it clear that these aren't just dusty old academic debates.
They represent humanity's ongoing, continuous story, our attempt to make
sense of life, to grapple with all its complexities, and
maybe just maybe find a slightly clearer path forward.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
So as we wrap up, here's a final provocative thought
for you, our listener, to take away from this deep dive.
Craig notes that how people think really does alter things.
And when lots of people change how they think, it
can alter things for almost everyone. So the question is
what fundamental belief, if people started to re examine it today,
(24:32):
could genuinely shift the course of civilization in your time.
Speaker 2 (24:35):
That's a powerful question to leave with. Keep asking those
big questions. As Craig emphasizes, your own ordinary native intelligence
absolutely has a place here. The thinking isn't just necessary,
it's actually part of the fun.
Popular Podcasts
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com