Explore every episode of the podcast Reading Philosophy

John Searle considers three common philosophical claims about consciousness and finds them to be mistaken.

Subjective direct access does not give us certainty about our own conscious states.

There is no special faculty of introspection.

Consciousness does not always entail self-consciousness.

You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

John Searle introduces the notion of intentionality as a key link between consciousness and causation.

You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

John Searle asks what the function of consciousness is, taking an evolutionary perspective. How or why has it evolved? And what might that tell us about its causal power?

You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

John Searle considers how his view differs from epiphenomenalism, which is the view that minds have no causal power over the body. He argues that such a view is not logically impossible, but believing that it is likely relies on several mistakes.

You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

John Searle asks whether consciousness can be reduced to the underlying brain processes. Can we give a complete account of mental phenomena purely in terms biochemical activity? If not, why not?

You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

John Searle argues that we have to start with the facts we know and then we will be able to see how the mind fits in with science and metaphysics: consciousness is the higher level effect of lower level brain processes.

You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

John Searle considers the incompatibility of dualism and materialism and argues that we should reject both, because they are based on faulty concepts.

You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

John Searle lays out the three basic features that any theory of consciousness must account for. Conscious phenomena are inner, qualitative and ontologically subjective.

Searle also rejects the idea that consciousness cannot be studied by science.

You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

After considering, and dismissing, various arguments against External Realism, John Searle asks if there is a positive case for it.

He also considers how religion might factor into these questions of metaphysics and comes to surprising and interesting conclusion.

You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

John Searle analysis a typical argument for skepticism of the external world. We also discuss naive realism and some aspects of empiricism.

You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

John Searle looks at four arguments against realism (the mind-independent existence of the external world), from perspectivism to underdetermination. He concludes that they are all weak or based on fallacies.

You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

John Searle sets out the default positions of reality and truth, namely external realism (there is a mind-independent world) and the correspondence theory of truth.

He muses about why so many influential philosophers have been drawn to challenge these basic assumptions. Maybe it's the will to power, or maybe it is to put the humanities on the same footing as the natural sciences.

You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

John Searle tells us how philosophy fits into his project to defend the Enlightenment Vision.

He sets out a number of Default Positions that, according to him, most humans intuitively hold, like the mind-independent existence of the external world. These are the positions typically attacked by famous philosophers.

Searle believes the Default Positions are correct, so he will try to defend them, with one exception: Dualism.

You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

Start of a new book: Mind, Language and Society by John Searle.

Searle sets out his project, to defend the Enlightenment Vision against various 20th century anti-realist challenges like Freudian psychology, quantum mechanics, Russell's Paradox, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems and Kuhn's view of Science.

You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

Thomas Hobbes and Bernard Mandeville believe that we act morally mainly out of self-interest. The only reason I don't break the law is because I don't want to get punished.

Hume rejects this view in favour of an moral philosophy based on a mixture of natural and artificial virtues. He argues that humans are natural cooperators. But to be able to live peacefully together in larger societies we also need socially created virtues such as justice.

You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

David Hume takes on the moral debate of his day. He argues against moral rationalism that 'reason alone can never move us to action'. Instead, the passions are the source of our moral motivations.

Hume also rejects claims that the source of morality is god. Instead, he offers a naturalist account of the origin of morality grounded in our psychology.

You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

David Hume applies his skeptical method of definition to the ideas 'power' and 'necessary connection'. And he finds, again, that these ideas don't come from observation, but from the workings of our own mind.

He goes on to offer his own definition of causation, casting a long shadow over the modern debate.

You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

David Hume critiques the Aristotelian notion of causation. We cannot prove causal connections by a priori reasoning. So our causal thinking has to come from somewhere else, namely our nature given instincts.

This episode also looks at the difference between thought and belief, including Hume's idea that believing something is a kind of feeling.

You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

David Hume fashions a new theory of mind, modelled on Newtonian science.

This episode covers his basic views on feeling and thinking, simple and complex ideas, and the principles of association.

You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

This is the beginning of a mini series on David Hume, one of the most important philosophers writing in English. Hume was one of the British Empiricists who sought to remake philosophy in the same way that Newton remade science.

The present episode covers his life and works, as well as his philosophical project.

You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

"Is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it?"

This episode gives Betrand Russell's answer to the question, laying out his theory of knowledge, with a chapter-by-chapter brief summary and overview of The Problems of Philosophy (1912).

(Spoilers: Yes, there is. But most if what we believe doesn't qualify.)

You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

Russell believes we should study philosophy. But why?

Does philosophy make progress? Or is it practically useful?

Neither, instead it helps us to free our minds.

You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

Can we figure out the nature of the universe with a priori reasoning?

What is the relationship between logic and metaphysics?

And, is Hegel right?

You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

Before we can discuss what we can know, we first need a clear idea of what knowledge is.

True belief doesn't seem to be enough, but what kind of justification can definitely ground knowledge?

And what do we with cases where we can't be completely sure?

You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

Before we can talk about what kinds of truths we can know, we first need to get clear on what truth is.

Russell sets out his versions of the correspondence theory of truth, by contrast with the coherence theory of truth.

A belief is true if it corresponds to some mind-independent fact.

You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy⁠

Russell asks if we can always justify all our beliefs. What happens when we hit our most fundamental beliefs, which may be unjustifiable?

What is the nature of self-evident intuitive beliefs? How does it relate to perception, memory and logic? Can self-evident beliefs go wrong?

You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy

Russell delves deeper into how we can know abstract general principles, and how these universals are related to the rest of our knowledge.

Finally, he gives a brief overview of his entire epistemology.

You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy

We use talk and think about abstract general principles, like whiteness or justice, all the time.

Russell draws on Plato's Theory of Forms to investigate the metaphysical nature of these abstract called 'universals'.

You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy

We appear to know some general principles, like induction, logic and pure maths, without needing empirical evidence. But how is a priori knowledge possible?

Russell critically examines Kant's epistemology, including the synthetic a priori.

You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy

We all general principles of reasoning, like induction and the law of the excluded middle. But how should we think about those principles, and how do we justify their use?

You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy

We all believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. But what reason can we give?

How can scientists find general laws from the results of particular experiments?

This is the problem of induction.

You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy

How can we gain knowledge of things in the mind-external world?

Russell lays out his epistemology, distinguishing between knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description.

You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy

Idealism is the view that everything that exists is in some sense mental (mind, thought or ideas).

Russell argues against idealism, the prevailing metaphysics of his youth. He examines and rejects Berkeley's metaphysics and other arguments for idealism.

You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy

If we believe there is a mind-independent external world, what can we say about its nature?

How can we move from the private space of our immediate experiences to the public space of science?

And what are the limits of that public space?

Russell argues that science can help us study relations between things, not the underlying intrinsic natures.

You can join future live sessions at ⁠⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy

If we can only experience our own sensations, how can we be know that the world contains anything else?

In other words, is there matter which is independent of our minds? Or do we live in a dream world? Is our mind actually all alone?

Russell argues that philosophy can help us make sense of these questions and suggest a possible way out.

You can join future live sessions at ⁠https://discord.gg/philosophy

Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy: Appearance and Reality. Brief introduction to Russell's life and work, then chapter one.

Do we experience the world as it is? Or is there a difference between how the world appears to us and how it actually is?

And why might we think that there is no matter?

"The painter wants to know what things seem to be, the practical man and the philosopher want to know what they are; but the philosopher's wish to knowthis is stronger than the practical man's, and is more troubled by knowledge as to the difficulties of answering the question."

You can join future live sessions at https://discord.gg/philosophy

Introduction to Descartes' view on the nature of the passions (read: emotions), and their role on morality.

Why do we have the emotions we have?

How we should we live our lives?

You can join live sessions of this and other readings on Discord: https://discord.gg/philosophy

Introduction to Descartes' view on the nature of body (read: matter) and the physical sciences.

If there is an mind-external world, what it is like?

What do we know of the fundamental properties of matter?

How we should we pursue physical science?

You can join live sessions of these readings on Discord: https://discord.gg/philosophy

Introduction to Descartes' view on the real distinction between mind and body, and his answer to the Interaction Problem.

If mind and body are two distinct substances, with fundamentally different properties, how can they interact?

How can my will move my arm? How can an injury cause me pain?

You can join live sessions of these readings on Discord: https://discord.gg/philosophy

Overview of Descartes' conception of Mind, proofs of God and the epistemological foundations of his project.

How can we got from knowing we exist to knowing anything else? The Maker's Mark and the Causal Adequacy Principle.

How does the existence of God help is with knowledge?

How can we avoid making mistakes?

You can join live sessions of these readings on Discord: https://discord.gg/philosophy

Overview of Descartes' project and method, as well as his views on mind.

What is Descartes' overarching goal? The tree diagram.

How does he propose to get there? The Cogito as foundation.

What does Descartes think he is?

You can join live sessions of these readings on Discord: https://discord.gg/philosophy

René Descartes - Episode 1

Overview of Descartes' life, works and his criticism of scholasticism.

Why is it bad to get up before 10 am?

And why does it matter if stones can think?

You can join live sessions of these readings on Discord: https://discord.gg/philosophy

What Does It All Mean? - Episode 10

Do our lives have meaning? If so, what is it? And where does it come from? If not, is that a problem?

From Thomas Nagel's great introduction to philosophy that requires no prior knowledge, with commentary.

The ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠full text is available online⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

You can join future sessions live on Discord: https://discord.gg/philosophy

What Does It All Mean? - Episode 9

What is death and how should we think about death? Is it good, bad, or neutral? Does it depend on what happens afterwards, or on our current situation? Should we be scared?

From Thomas Nagel's great introduction to philosophy that requires no prior knowledge, with commentary.

The ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠full text is available online⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

You can join future sessions live on Discord: https://discord.gg/philosophy

What Does It All Mean? - Episode 8

What is justice? How does it relate to inequality? What kind of inequality is bad? And, what, if anything, should we do about it?

From Thomas Nagel's great introduction to philosophy that requires no prior knowledge, with commentary.

The ⁠⁠⁠⁠full text is available online⁠⁠⁠⁠.

You can join future sessions live on Discord: https://discord.gg/philosophy

What Does It All Mean? - Episode 7

What does it mean to say that some action is wrong or right? Who gets to decide what is right or wrong?

Or morals universal and/or objective? If so, why? If not, why not?

From Thomas Nagel's great introduction to philosophy that requires no prior knowledge, with commentary.

The ⁠⁠⁠full text is available online⁠⁠⁠.

You can join future live sessions on Discord: https://discord.gg/philosophy

What Does It All Mean? - Episode 6

What is Free Will, and do we have it? And what are the consequences if we have it or not?

From Thomas Nagel's great introduction to philosophy that requires no prior knowledge, with commentary.

The ⁠⁠full text is available online⁠⁠.

You can join future live sessions on Discord: https://discord.gg/philosophy

What Does It All Mean? - Episode 5

How can words, phrases or sentences mean something? Where do sounds or scribbles get their meaning from?

From Thomas Nagel's great introduction to philosophy that requires no prior knowledge, with commentary.

The ⁠⁠full text is available online⁠⁠.

You can join future live sessions on Discord: https://discord.gg/philosophy

What Does It All Mean? - Episode 4

How should we think of the relation between our bodies and our minds? Are they fundamentally the same, or different? And what does that mean for the kind of universe we live in?

From Thomas Nagel's great introduction to philosophy that requires no prior knowledge, with commentary.

The ⁠full text is available online⁠.

You can join future live sessions on Discord: https://discord.gg/philosophy

What Does It All Mean? - Episode 3

Thomas Nagel's great introduction to philosophy that requires no prior knowledge.

'Are There Other Minds?'

The book was originally published in 1987. The ⁠⁠full text is available online⁠⁠.

This recording contains commentary and discussion.

You can join future live sessions on Discord: https://discord.gg/philosophy