Debates
Debates are the beating heart of HowTheLightGetsIn Hay 2025.
Click the images below to explore our newest panels and ideas below.
Click the images below to explore our newest panels and ideas below.
For perception and free will to be possible, the self must be separate from the world. As Kant famously argued, we cannot perceive something unless we can differentiate ourselves from it and we cannot have free will unless we are distinct from the thing we are acting upon. And yet, are we not obviously part of the world? We come out of the world and live within it. The relationship between the self and the world is radically unknown. Materialists claim there is only the world, but they find no place for consciousness or the self anywhere in it. Idealists claim the self is all there is, but then it is the world that goes missing. While dualists claim both the self and the world exist, but how they link remains a mystery.
Should we see the self as part of the world, and therefore give up on the perception of reality and free will as illusory? Should we see the self as separate from the world, and accept that consciousness will never be explained by materialism? Or will the relationship between the self and the world forever remain a mystery?
Radical philosopher Slavoj Žižek, continental philosopher Alenka Zupančič and theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli debate the metaphysics of the self.
Donald Trump has said if the American dollar loses its global dominance this would be "equivalent to losing a war". And yet, the future of the dollar now appears uncertain; America might indeed be losing. Central bank data shows nations including China have been buying gold in record numbers and have decreased the amount of dollars they hold by 7%, signalling a possible move away from the dollar as the global reserve currency. While American sanctions on Russia, intended to weaken the Russian economy, have resulted in cementing Russia's move away from the dollar and into China's yuan as their main foreign currency. All the while, the Russian economy is doing fine, the IMF expecting it to grow 3.6% this year, and unemployment at record lows.
Is the reign of the dollar over, and if so, might this be a fatal blow to American economic dominance? Would it spell the end also of America's position as the leading global power, and increase military tensions across the world? Or is the dollar here to stay and reports of its decline exaggerated?
Former Finance Minister of Greece Yanis Varoufakis and former chief economist of the IMF debate the future of the US dollar and its dominance.
An individual "is responsible for everything he does" claimed Sartre. And from criminal justice to creative expression, free will and responsibility are central to our culture and our personal lives. Yet neuroscientists and materialist thinkers commonly maintain that freedom is an illusion. And it remains unknown how the core principles of freedom and responsibility can be reconciled with this outlook. Many attempts have been made to argue that the two seemingly contradictory frameworks can be made compatible. But critics argue these 'compatibilist' arguments are unconvincing and are driven merely by the attempt to make scientific materialism acceptable. Furthermore, whilst surveys suggest most materialist philosophers believe we can reconcile the two, the majority of us reject the idea that an action can be both determined and free.
Must we conclude the materialist scientific account of the world is flawed? Or do we need to give up free will, and, like Taoist culture, see action as arising from the interconnectedness of all things? Or is there a way to maintain both that doesn't leave us feeling that we have been bamboozled into accepting the contradictory and impossible?
Philosopher Lucy Allais, psychologist Paul Bloom and neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky debate free will.
Across the world women are voting significantly differently from men. Until the recent US election it seemed this was an increasing trend. But while the pattern was continued it was less evident and lower than predicted. It is unknown whether the male/female voting gap has peaked or whether the US election was an outlier in a long term upward trend. In all countries women are more left wing and men more right wing. In some cases the gap is large. In S.Korea 2022 elections there was a 30% vote difference. Surveys of opinion in Germany and across much of Europe have a similar gap in young women. But in the 2024 US election, more young female voters voted for Trump than in the last election, and the male/female voting gap for young women was just 2%.
Should we see the gender divide as an important, seismic and long term shift in politics? Is it the reason that traditionally left leaning young men are for the first time voting with the right? Or is the voting gender divide a temporary phenomenon that is already starting to close?
Co-Founder of the Women’s Equality Party Catherine Mayer, former First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon, chief data reporter at the FT John Burns-Murdoch and founder of Prospect Magazine David Goodhart debate the political polarisation between men and women.
The idea of uploading our minds to the digital cloud has not only been taken seriously by Silicon Valley but turned into a business plan. Elon Musk claims digitising consciousness will revolutionise humanity, and the industry is estimated to be worth $50 billion by 2030. But it's unknown whether in principle we can replicate minds with computer code, or whether we should seek to do so. Critics argue we have no idea how a machine could create consciousness and neuroscientists have yet to provide an explanation for how the brain does so. A survey of specialists by Nature found the majority thought it unlikely AI would achieve consciousness anytime soon.
Should we see talk of uploading our minds to the cloud as implausible tech marketing nonsense? Should we conclude that since thought and consciousness are unobservable, it is not going to be possible to replicate the mind with silicon chips? Or is digital immortality such a profound and important sea change in our lives and our potential that we should pursue at all costs?
Philosopher Massimo Pigliucci, computer scientist Roman Yampolskiy and neuroscientist Nadine Dijkstra debate uploading our minds to the cloud.
We see language as the primary means we have to convey our ideas. And hugely powerful it is. Often cited as the primary reason humans became the most dominant species on earth. But the relationship of language to thought is contentious and unknown. Once seen as a transparent medium for ideas, in the 20th century philosophers from Russell and Wittgenstein to Heidegger and Derrida overturned this everyday assumption arguing either that language was woven into the way that we think or more strongly that language was the structure of thought. But this view has been challenged by linguists and evolutionary biologists who maintain that thought is independent of language and that we, and other living beings, have other forms of communication.
Should we see language as independent of thought and if so what does thought consist of? Or does language make thoughts possible and provide the framework through which we see the world? Or is the opposition of thought and language itself a mistake?
Psychologist and psycholinguist Steven Pinker locks horns with post-postmodern philosopher Hilary Lawson as they debate the opposition between language and thought.
Of all the sciences, it is physics that has been seen as the key to understanding everything. As Feynman said "physics is the fundamental science." But might its dominance be over and could other sciences find themselves at the centre of our world view? Critics argue little advance has been made in core physics in the last fifty years. Numerous ideas have been proposed from supersymmetry to string theory, but few have been experimentally verified. A theory of everything once thought to be close is a distant mirage, and its original proponent Stephen Hawking abandoned the idea as impossible. Meanwhile from complex chemical and social systems, to computer science and information, other sciences have been proposed as the central core of our understanding.
Should we stop thinking that physics holds the central key to the universe? Should we give up on the notion of an underlying reality, and accept that we have only competing accounts of the world? Or is it too soon to consider abandoning what has arguably been humankind's most successful theory, transforming our ability to intervene and make sense of the world?
Philosopher and novelist Alex Rosenberg, philosopher of science John Dupré and professor of quantum physics Ivette Fuentes debate whether physics holds the answers to all our questions.
Flirting has been around since the dawn of time, and has played a key social and evolutionary role in helping us to test the compatibility of our partners. The very continuation of our species depends on how we flirt. But flirting has drastically changed since the digital revolution and dating apps - with unknown consequences. No longer do we lock eyes across a bar or meet people at work, instead we interact through a phone screen. With population growth set to halt by 2100, studies studies showing 74% of young women having less sex than ever before, and around 80% of people feeling “burnout” and “emotional fatigue” from dating online; the new era of flirting does not seem to be going well.
Should we be making a concerted effort to once again meet people in person, not only for the good of our own love lives but for the very continuation of the species? Is something irreplaceable lost when we use dating apps, such as the serendipity of a chance meeting or the energy exchange felt in the presence of a potential partner? Or must we embrace the new era of technology and accept thousands of years of flirting in person is over?
Author and journalist Rachel Thompson, futurist and transhumanist Anders Sandberg and professor of behavioural science Paul Dolan debate whether we’re losing the ability to flirt in person.
From the starting gun to the final whistle, time is central to our lives and experience. We shape our days with diaries and timetables, even if the trains do not always take note. Yet the nature of time itself is elusive and unknown. A new year begins, we get older, but however closely we look we cannot observe time but only its passing. Time is equally puzzling to science. Central to its laws, from Newton to Einstein, yet as with experience, science is unable to describe time itself. Strangely in the so-called 'block universe' of contemporary physics the direction of time disappears, yet time remains without our being able to say what it is.
Should we account for the mystery of time by seeing it as the structure of the universe and so not itself an object in the universe? Is time, as Kant argued, the way we have to think if we are able to experience anything at all? Or is the mystery of time a glimpse into the essential unknown and unknowable character of the human condition?
Philosopher of science Tim Maudlin, author Emily Herring, and professor of quantum physics Ivette Fuentes debate the nature of time.
"The age of the universe is one of the best-known numbers in all of cosmology” claim leading physicists. 13.7 billion years is the standard answer. And our most cherished theories: the Big Bang, Dark Matter and cosmic inflation all operate within this age and assume a finite beginning. But recent evidence from the James Webb Telescope has led some to question the age of the universe or even if it has an age at all. Moreover, critics argue Einstein’s core idea that time isn't ‘universal’ means assigning a single “age” to the universe is flawed.
Does the age of the universe represent a crisis in cosmology and would an ageless universe upend many of our current cosmological models? Or can we overcome these challenges and determine the age of the universe once and for all? More radically could we abandon the attempt to find a single answer and accept that different cosmological theories have different answers each of which might have value in their particular sphere?
From Taylor Swift to Donald Trump, we take it for granted that the image presented to the world hides a true self underneath. But it is unknown if there is such a thing as a true self at all. ""The world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players”, was Shakespeare's famous insight. And many argue his renowned phrase is more than a metaphor. We are constantly changing, with an array of masks and identities, who we choose to be and who we are.
Should we see the idea of a true self as an illusion and accept that there is only performance? Are we more like works of fiction than real-life people? Or is giving up on the true self a profound challenge to beliefs we hold dear, such as sincerity, responsibility, truth and lies?
From AI and computer science to physics and cosmology, we assume science is the product of objective principles and experimental evidence. Many physicists however regard scientific theories as models rather than final descriptions of reality. As a result, critics argue, it's unclear what distinguishes science from tribal belief. Studies show status and hierarchy play a key role in the acceptance of theories. From Newton to Einstein counterevidence is ignored to retain the established theory. Some philosophers of science, like Paul Feyerabend, argue that experiments never settle the matter and science in some respects behaves like a "dogmatic religious institution".
Should we conclude that science is the religion of our time, with its priests and archbishops who determine which theories are pursued and which models deemed true? Should we see the distinction between science and pseudoscience as a fashion of the moment? Or is there something essential and radically different about the method and the procedures of science that places it in a unique position?
From the freedom from tyranny, and poverty to the right to free speech, we assume that freedom is always desirable. But critics argue that 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 to be more prevalent, not less.
Should we recognise that far from being a universal good, freedom is a double edged sword? Is the goal or being ultimately free impossible since there are always constraints to our actions and our beliefs are constrained by experience, culture and language? Or is the pursuit of freedom essential, and should we see attacks on freedom as the first step toward tyranny?
From families to nations, communities to political parties, groups are central to society and our lives. In large part we see the group, community, club as a positive thing. But, every 'us' also creates a 'not us', a 'them'. To have a friend is also to identify those who are not friends. What is unknown is how to create groups without at the same time creating outsiders. Neuroscientific studies show we are hardwired to feel fear when encountering someone from outside our group. Moreover, Cambridge studies show hostility towards outsiders increases when our group is in decline. Perhaps the reason three quarters of Americans want tighter border control, and over half want immigration reduced. And that in an age of tribal identities division is deep and profound.
Can we form close bonds with a group, without creating aggrieved others who feel excluded? Should we be sceptical of all groups and see them as potential vehicles of privilege and conflict? Or should we see allying with others and feeling at one with them, love, as the most important human state, and seek to apply the principle to everyone?
We want to be able to identify political facts from political lies. But, it is becoming increasingly unknown how to tell the difference. Both sides in the last US election regarded the claims of the opposition as lies. According to Gallup research, 69% of Americans no longer trust mainstream media and 85% are worried about misinformation online. But the problem goes deeper. It is not clear what misinformation is and how it is substantiated, since one side's facts are the other side's lies. The very label 'misinformation' is sometimes itself uncovered as misinformation. Similarly fact-checkers can themselves be a vehicle for a predetermined point of view.
Should we stop seeing politicians as liars and accept that rhetoric and propaganda will always be a part of democracy? Alternatively should we double down on removing bias, and demand that truth be central to politics? Or should we conclude that objective truth is an impossible standard to reach, and accept that there are alternative, radically differing perspectives that are capable of being held as true?
We see dimensions as central to reality. The three dimensions of space, up and down, forward and backward, left and right, we take for granted, and some see time as a fourth. But critics argue that dimensions aren’t fundamental to the universe, and a way of viewing the world. From string theory, which proposes up to 26 dimensions, to the holographic principle — positing just 2, different theories of reality propose radically different numbers of dimensions. Many argue, furthermore, that making sense of the world through “dimensions” was a historical accident of Ancient Greece. And early Chinese models of space as fluid and interconnected, without reliance on straight lines and rigid dimensional boundaries embraced curved spaces, essential to modern understandings of how gravity warps spacetime.
Are dimensions merely part of the mathematical framework used to account for what we observe? And should we see them not only as sometimes misguided, but actively obstructive to progress? Or should we keep looking to establish the correct number of dimensions to describe our universe?
Every Western leader and government wants economic growth. But how to achieve it is seemingly unknown. Since the financial crisis of 2008, European economies have seen low growth, stagnant wages and in recent years high inflation. Germany has had growth close to zero, with Britain only a percent or so higher. Yet in the same period China and India have both risen 300%. Elsewhere, the IMF predicts the typical developed nation will only grow by 1.5% this year. Meanwhile global debt has been on an ever-rising curve, now well over double global GDP, with the US paying over $1 trillion on interest payments on its debt alone - a figure higher than its Defence Budget.
Can leading Western nations reverse their relative economic decline and find a means to return to higher rates of growth, and rising living standards? Is increased debt a break on growth or the means to instigate it? Or should we accept Europe's economic decline is unavoidable and see other goals and aims as more important?
“The laws of nature are written in the language of mathematics” claimed Galileo, and contemporary accounts of the universe like string theory rely almost solely on maths. But critics argue it's unknown what mathematics ultimately is and whether maths is necessarily central to science and reality. Surveys show that philosophers and physicists are undecided on whether, maths, vectors, numbers or fields exist, independent of human thought. And from Darwin’s theory of evolution to thermodynamics, some of our deepest scientific frameworks rely on non-mathematical reasoning. Some theorists go further claiming that all scientific concepts can be reformulated without an appeal to maths.
Do we need to give up the idea that maths is capable of uncovering an ultimate description of reality? Should we see observation and analogy as equally important to our characterisation of the universe? Or might mathematics not only be a description of reality but the ultimate foundation of all matter? ?
The Worst Prediction in the History of Science
New scientific accounts of the universe are expected to fit with observation and predicted results from established theories. But at the heart of modern physics there's reason to think this is not the case. Thirty years ago, we observed the universe was not only expanding but accelerating away from us. To stop this undermining the theory of the Big Bang we invented a force called 'dark energy,' seen as the energy of empty space or vacuum energy, pushing the universe apart. But there was a problem. The predicted value of this energy was 120 orders of magnitude out. That's worse than predicting an atom is the size of the universe. Unsurprisingly, it has been described as the 'worst prediction in the history of physics'. Yet the majority of physicists still accept dark energy as a credible theory.
Should we accept that scientific theories ignore observation and prediction if it is convenient? Is there something necessarily wrong with dark energy and our current cosmological story? Or can we fix the problem and find the right answer, or is science a model and not a description of reality at all?
Communist China from the outset claimed Taiwan to be part of the mainland and denied its right to exist. Despite its anti-communist government, Taiwan was safe with US support and a militarily weak China. But in recent years the statements from China have become increasingly threatening and the military build up relentless. In response, it is unclear what the US and the West should do. Twenty years ago the US navy was more than twice that of China. Today, China has surpassed the number of US naval vessels and is adding ships at an unprecedented rate. Raising the tension further, in late 2024, unannounced China carried out its largest naval exercise yet at the edge of Taiwan's waters. Shortly afterward Xi declared: "No one can stop the reunification" of China and Taiwan.
Should the US and the West avoid conflict with China at all costs, and if necessary accede to the invasion of Taiwan? Or would this be the first step to further expansion, and must the West respond to China's military build up? Or can a negotiated settlement be found that would avoid conflict and allow separate development?
From Karl Marx to Elon Musk many have claimed that in the right hands, technology is a liberating force for good. But there is increasing challenge to this notion, with figures from Obama to Tim Berners-Lee warning that Big Tech poses serious threats to autonomy and freedom. As a result, many now argue we need to escape from Big Tech and its addictive character. But it's unknown if this is achievable. Critics argue Big Tech, through algorithms and data, manipulates our actions and choices in every aspect of our lives, so that human autonomy has already been radically undermined. Opting out is almost impossible. And Cambridge studies show anti-tech platforms, claiming to combat Big Tech addiction, often only replicate it in another form.
Should we accept that technology has undermined our freedom and we are no longer in control of our decisions and behaviour? Do we need to evolve digital rights to resist manipulation and provide self-governance, and will this work? Or might breaking up or banning Big Tech be part of the solution, allowing us to claim back autonomy?
"The collapse of the wave function" has become a buzz-phrase of science journalism. Many pretend to understand what it means, but a century after it was first proposed its character remains entirely unknown. Central to quantum mechanics and our understanding of reality, the 'wave function' describes a quantum world where a given particle is in countless different locations at the same time. Only when observed do they have a specific location and momentum and form what we understand as reality. This is the so-called collapse of the wave function, but we still have no idea what it is. Some see the collapse as a mathematical law, others as a real object. But 75% of physicists won’t commit to the wave function being real and if it’s not real it’s unclear what is being described by its collapse.
Should we see "the collapse of the wave function" as an Emperor's New Clothes phrase that describes precisely nothing? Does the failure to explain the mystery mean quantum mechanics isn’t our best fundamental theory after all? Or should we accept the weirdness and see it as a limitation of our theories as a whole?
The 2024 Nobel Prizes for physics and chemistry were both won for AI related science, leading some to claim that AI will soon be making novel scientific discoveries on its own. Start-ups are already attempting to create 'The AI Scientist', which will one day 'fully automate scientific discovery'. And researchers at Imperial College argue AI will "usher in a new age of discovery to rival the golden age of the scientific method". But critics argue the scientific capability of AI remains unknown. Many argue that whilst it could speed up scientific discovery, it will never be able to identify scientific problems to focus on and initiate solutions.
Should we accept that AI will never be able to make novel scientific discoveries, and see the idea that it could as marketing hype and a misunderstanding of how computers work and what they are capable of doing? Or are we about to enter a new golden age and uncover the mysteries of reality with the help of AI?
When ill we want a name for our condition, an answer to what is the matter. And Western medicine makes it look as if with sufficient technology all can be solved. But the character of illness and disease is more puzzling and unknown than we suppose. The stark fact of the matter is that despite the successes of Western medicine, in 50% of cases there is no evidence for the effectiveness of treatment. Illnesses are experienced very differently by different individuals and some argue the name fails to identify an underlying cause, resulting in over-diagnosis. A 2010 study showed up to 60% of lung and prostate cancer diagnoses identify cases where no symptoms or death would appear if left untreated.
Should we discard the idea that diseases are well-defined entities and give up the demand for an illness to be given a name? Are there aspects of modern medicine that have strayed too far from the holistic understanding of the past? Or should we trust that, over time, medical progress will correctly name and solve all our conditions and ailments?
It is estimated that the top 1% hold about half of the world's wealth, or roughly the same as everyone else put together. And most of us think this profound inequality should be reduced. But some economists argue it is unknown whether striving for equality delivers better lives. In forty years China has lifted 770 million people out of poverty, while at the same time, according to the IMF becoming "one of the most unequal countries in the world". Reducing inequality it is claimed is the wrong goal and eradicating absolute poverty, increasing social mobility or raising happiness levels, are better alternatives. In addition, a University College London study suggested that a focus on inequality increases feelings of unhappiness, envy and even raises levels of social violence.
Should we conclude that focussing on reducing inequalities of wealth is a mistaken project? Should we focus instead on alternative goals such as social mobility? Or is a reduction in income and wealth inequality, beneficial to social cohesion and necessary if we wish to live in a just and fair society?
Most of us are pretty confident that we are not hallucinating. We take it for granted that imagination is quite different from our experience of reality through perception. But recent research in neuroscience has questioned this relationship and made it more puzzling. Brain activity in the visual and sensory cortex can be as strong during dreaming and imagined events as when we perceive reality. Furthermore, blood flow between the sensory and visual cortex can also show similar patterns of activity in imagination and perception. Some leading neuroscientists now go as far as to argue our perception of reality is a “controlled hallucination”, breaking the traditional perception/reality divide and echoing the influential German philosopher Kant who maintained “imagination is a necessary ingredient of perception itself."
Has neuroscience uncovered a deep philosophical truth that what we take to be reality is in part a function of our own imagination? Might neuroscientists find a brain process by which we distinguish imagination and reality? Or is it a mistake to think neuroscience capable of answering fundamental questions about the nature of perception and reality in the first place?
"In times of war, the law falls silent" declared Cicero. And 2000 years on, it remains unknown whether international law has any real power in war, or whether, in the end, military and economic power are the only truly effective forces. International law did not prevent Russia from invading Ukraine, the US from engaging in torture in Guantanamo Bay, Hamas' attacking Israel on Oct 7th, or Israel from destroying much of Gaza in response. At the same time, threats of nuclear retaliation have prevented the US from sending troops to Ukraine — to name just one example of military power. Chairman Mao, it seems, had a point when he said "power flows from the barrel of a gun."
We recognise war as an exceptional circumstance where acts like murder are permitted, should we give up trying to apply the law to it? With the US, Russia and others breaking international law, should we conclude that international law is unenforceable unless imposed by the victor? Or is international law both necessary and vital to contain the worst atrocities?
Universities, celebrated as sanctuaries of free thought and intellectual rigour, have for centuries been seen as the best way to educate and conduct research. But increasingly it is questioned if this is still true. A recent study found two-thirds of academics feel their freedom to teach and study challenging ideas is being reduced. In 2022 alone, over 1,000 instances of content warnings or text removals were documented across UK universities. While some academics now criticise PhDs as a scam to get "fees and cheap labour" from students and reports suggest most academic papers have an average of just 10 readers. More than half of people now say going to university is not worth it. Graduate student debt in the US averages over $71,000 and access to similar information is available online often for free.
Should we call time on the age of the university, and find new, innovative ways to educate people? Should we leave research and innovation to the business sector and free-market forces? Or are universities vital to our education and culture and can a radical overhaul return them to their original status?
"Transgression…harms the soul and affects all humanity" claimed C.S. Lewis. And indeed we typically see the transgressive — breaking rules, acting cruelly and 'being bad' — as unacceptable. But critics argue its status is unknown and transgression might be necessary and desirable. Many have argued that breaking rules and the capacity to transgress is essential if we are to challenge authoritarian systems of thought. In fact, recent research shows individuals express freedom and agency through breaking such norms. And whilst cruelty is universally condemned, studies have shown that people who cause harm and later reflect on their actions report an increased sense of moral awareness.
Should we accept that transgression is vital to a healthy culture central and necessary for humans to flourish? Or should we seek to remove transgressive behaviour from all public and private life? More radically is the mistake to embed talk of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, ‘bad’ or ‘wicked’ in the first place, and should we instead abandon moral terms altogether?
Some see history as the overall narrative we need to make sense of our lives and our culture. For others it is science. Then again there are those who endorse religion or philosophy as the most powerful grand narrative. There's little agreement on which is the best or even if there is a 'best' overall narrative. Richard Dawkins declared “Science is the only valid way to gain knowledge." Yet the founder of the philosophy of science, Auguste Comte, argued "to understand a science, it is necessary to know its history." Cicero went further claiming history “is the light of truth.” While Thucydides argued that behind all history is philosophy: "history is philosophy teaching by example." For Hegel philosophy and history were one. And of course for many religious belief is paramount.
Do we need to choose between these competing narratives? Is one dominant and the others merely incidental? Or can we hold all of them at once, even if in some respects they are incompatible?
The Unconscious Mind
The idea of the unconscious was first coined by the German philosopher Schelling in the early 19th century, and introduced to a British audience by Coleridge. It was though Freud who put the unconscious centre stage, declaring the unconscious mind 'true', with Jung going further arguing it contained “the whole spiritual heritage of mankind's evolution.” Modern psychology is though largely critical with the American Psychological Association describing the idea as 'unscientific'. But whether we can truly escape metaphysical ideas of the unconscious is unknown. Yale critic Harold Bloom argued that such metaphors "are impossible to evade,” for they permeate our understanding of internal conflict and primal impulses. Moreover, many claim neuroscience confirms the notion that unconscious processing is a key aspect of brain function.
Should we see the unconscious as a real phenomenon that is a central part of being human? Is the unconscious an essential element of psychology and philosophy? Or is it a dangerous and mythological notion that provides illusory explanations and thwarts effective treatment?
From Le Pen to Farage, Meloni to Trump, the rise of populism is changing the face of politics in Europe and America. But what is driving this change and where it is leading is unknown. It is not even clear where to place it on the political spectrum. Described by its critics as 'far right', some of the policies have seemingly socialist leanings. Le Pen for example is not in favour of the free market and wants to increase taxes on large corporations. All oppose immigration and favour protectionism while appealing to some who traditionally voted left. In the UK, Reform was second in 98 seats, 89 of them to the Labour party. The most fearful point to parallels with the 1930's, where 'national socialism' was the way the Nazis described themselves. While supporters claim this parallel a baseless smear.
Has populist nationalism redrawn the political categories of right and left? Is history relevant, and might populism lead to tyranny and racism? Or is it an attack on a liberal elite that has benefitted from free trade and open borders but has undermined the livelihoods of many working people?
"Without the hope that the future will be better than the past, we could not go on" said philosopher John Gray. And for much of recorded history we've had a clear idea of what that better future might be. Yet today, in the developed nations it is becoming increasingly unknown what a positive vision of the future looks like. A 2023 Ipsos study reported optimism that the future will be better than the past is at a 10-year low. Perhaps unsurprising with tales of AI dystopia, climate disaster and economic decline. More fundamentally, Enlightenment visions of knowledge, progress, and equality have foundered on stagnation, post-truth politics and global conflict. Even increased prosperity, the bedrock positive vision of the future for millenia, is questioned and challenged.
Should we give up on the notion that the future will be better than the past? Are we right to regard the pursuit of truth and progress as flawed? Or do we need new visions of the future to motivate, unite and direct us, and if so what are they?
The mirror is a powerful metaphor. In its original Greek form, art was an attempt to mimic or mirror reality. The metaphor of the mirror has also been used to describe the relationship between our perception and the world, as if they are one and the same. In computing a site that mirrors the original is deemed to be the same as the original. But we are not the same as our reflection in the mirror, we are many other things and our relationship to the reflection is more puzzling and unknown than it first appears. We look to art, literature, film to reflect reality. But Plato made the case at the outset that art could never mimic reality. And the philosopher Richard Rorty warns, the idea that our minds, art and language could mirror reality is a “construction” that “holds philosophy captive”.
Should we see mirrors, our minds, and our art as a copy of the world or as something entirely different? Is our reflection in the mirror our true self or a distortion? Should we seek to precisely mirror reality or should we see this not only as undesirable but as impossible?
From the inner-peace promoted by world religions to the Nobel Peace Prize, we typically see peace and serenity as essential virtues, both for ourselves and for the nation. But peace is not a universal panacea for all life's ills and some critics argue it's unknown whether in all respects peace is even desirable. Perhaps it is drama and adversity that gives life meaning. According to the Global Peace Index, Iceland is the most peaceful country on Earth. Yet it has the highest antidepressant use anywhere. War results in mutilation and death, yet suicide rates across Europe, America and Asia decline up to 30% during war. Enemies, adversity and conflict, can be used to instill social cohesion, provide purpose and increase output, a fact many leaders have exploited to maintain their power.
Should we conclude that we need enemies, be they nations, corporations, individuals or beliefs, to provide motivation, passion and change? Should we recognise that peace is not universally beneficial and insufficient for solving many of our ills? Or would this be to risk, and bring closer cataclysm and personal misery?
Philosophers have not traditionally given much thought to parenting. But with fewer and fewer people choosing to have children and birth rates dangerously in decline, it is perhaps time to look more radically at how we bring up children. Central to our lives and society it is something we have thought to be known and understood. But recent studies show 82% of parents show signs of burnout defined by things like anxiety, and depression. And almost half of all children experience the family splitting up during childhood. Some turn to anthropology for the answer, citing hunter-gatherer ancestors where children were looked after by many in the tribe. While some radical feminists call for the abolition of the nuclear family and a modern style of communal living where responsibility for children is shared.
Do we need to adopt radically different ways of raising children? Would they address gender inequalities, raise the birth rate, and improve the experience of childhood? Or are parents the only people we can rely on to care for children and is it essential that the family remains central?
Draining the Swamp
"As government expands, liberty contracts," said Ronald Reagan. And the right has for decades been associated with keeping government as small as possible. But it is unclear whether a small state is compatible with goals widely held by others on the Right. The famed 19th-century Tory Prime Minister, Disraeli laid the ground for a state that sought to provide education, alleviate poverty, and safeguard workers. Principles that most on the Right still endorse. And figures like Trump and Le Pen want the state to intervene to control immigration and revive local businesses. They certainly don't want all of the state to disappear. A far cry from the libertarian calls of Ayn Rand, or the anarcho-capitalist stance of Argentine premier Milei: 'the state is a criminal organization'.
Does the Right need a powerful state to deliver its goals? Or should the eradication of the state be its primary aim? Or is the deeper issue here that these conflicting approaches should not both be seen as right-wing and we need different categories to reflect radically different political outlooks?
From caffeine and alcohol, to cannabis, ketamine and ecstasy, psychoactive intoxicants are widely found in western culture. Although in some cases illegal, and potentially addictive, they are in large part seen as relatively unimportant additions to our lives. But the use of intoxicants is found across the globe and it seems cultures have always used them. Yet their real function and purpose is unknown. From the peyote of the Maya and Aztecs, to the amanita mushrooms of Russian shamans, across the world psychoactives are found in religious and spiritual ceremonies stretching back thousands of years. Moreover historians argue the dominant drug in a culture can have profound consequences. Some claim the arrival of caffeine replaced the haziness of alcohol with the clarity of coffee initiating the Enlightment through the coffee house debating culture and the formation of intellectual elites.
Should we see psychoactive intoxicants as central to culture and thought, and are some preferable to others? Are they vehicles of pleasure and hedonism, or do they provide deeper psychological and spiritual functions? Or are all intoxicants damaging to culture and potentially to our personal lives?
A Truly Unique Offering
The Independent
Press