Book Earlybird Tickets Now
Debates are the beating heart of HowTheLightGetsIn and Hay 2024 was no different. We saw Nobel prize winners lock horns with philosophers and leading campaigners and go head to head with poltical theorists over a weeked of vibrant debate.
Join us this September for another weekend of fiery discussion tackling the most pressing issues and open questios of our time.
Slavoj Zizek, Peter Singer, Nancy Sherman
From the time of Socrates we have seen morality as driven by human desires and goals. But many now argue that this human focus is misguided and leaves the natural world in peril. By prioritising human well-being they contend, we have ransacked the earth, eradicated and misused other species, and taken insufficient care of our home, the Earth. We are even planning to do the same to other nearby planets. It is not sufficient for us to protect nature for our benefit, instead they argue nature needs to be preserved for its own sake.
Do we need to re-think morality to find a new framework that no longer places humans at the centre? If so, how are we to assess the well-being of nature independently of our human perspective? Or is the notion that we can escape human goals and desires itself deluded, risking a return to an age where humans are sacrificed to the gods of the natural world?
Firebrand philosopher Slavoj Žižek, renowned ethicist Peter Singer, and Georgetown professor of philosophy Nancy Sherman, question human centred morality.
'Most of us take it for granted that there are three dimensions, perhaps four if we count time. But for over 200 years, mathematicians and scientists have proposed further dimensions. In some standard versions of contemporary physics eleven dimensions are now proposed. But might the notion of additional dimensions be an empty idea that derails physics? Richard Feynman argued that proponents of extra dimensions "cook up explanations" for what we can't observe. And CERN researchers admit that no empirical evidence for extra dimensions has ever been, and more importantly perhaps could ever be, discovered.
Should we reject talk of higher dimensions as fantasy, good for sci-fi movies but not for theories of the universe? Would we be better to see extra dimensions as a mathematical tool rather than a description of reality? Or might multiple dimensions in fact describe the essential character of the world?
Nobel prize-winner Roger Penrose, philosopher of quantum mechanics Avshalom Elitzur, and theoretical physicist Marika Taylor, debate the possibility of multiple dimensions.
As with the animal kingdom, we see human behaviour as the product of elemental drives to survive and reproduce. Evolutionary psychology has taken this a stage further with claims that 'killing is fundamentally in our nature' and sees violence, social hierarchy, and sexual promiscuity as a product of evolutionary drives. But might this be a misleading and dangerous approach? Murder rates have fallen seventy-fold since the Middle Ages, while across the globe birth rates are a fraction of what they were a hundred years ago. Fathers are actively involved in child care and we've radically changed our outlook on social issues like gender identity, suggesting ideas and culture drive behaviour rather than evolution.
Should we conclude that evolutionary psychology is a blind alley with no predictive power? Are we capable of overcoming behavioural traits and therefore wholly responsible for our actions? Or is evolution an inescapable force and behavioural change a result of altered circumstances while our core nature remains identical?
Renowned philosopher Daniel Dennett, critic of evolutionary psychology Subrena E. Smith, and clinical psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen, debate the signifcance of evolutionary psychology.
Book Now
Ilan Pappe, Bronwen Maddox, Peter Singer
From Robin Hood to Che Guevara, the oppressed hold the moral high ground. The exploited worker, the dominated minority, the enslaved people, are seen as rightly acting to better their circumstances. Some even maintain the oppressed can never act immorally. But there is a risk this undermines the central moral notion that principles should apply to everyone independent of their circumstances. It also encourages portraying oneself as a victim. Moreover, critics argue that oppressed vs oppressor morality hinders our ability to solve problems that defy simple categorisation into good and bad.
Should we conclude that morality has nothing to do with oppression? Are violence and vengeance no more acceptable on the part of the victim than the aggressor? Or is morality inextricably linked to the circumstances of the actors whether in Gaza, apartheid South Africa, or the Twin Towers attack, or the events of everyday life and relationships?
Influential philosopher of ethics Peter Singer, Chatham House Director Bronwen Maddox, and radical Israeli historian Ilan Pappé debate morality, the oppressors and the oppressed.
Book Now
Most of us assume reality is made up of physical matter. In line with this scientists have built ever larger machines to identify the ultimate particles. Instead of getting closer to the most elementary bits in the universe, the particle zoo has got ever more complex and seemingly less like material stuff at all. Is there a danger that the very idea of an ultimate foundation to reality is a profound mistake? Some have proposed that instead of material the ultimate foundation is to be found in consciousness, information, or even mathematics. But such proposals are no closer to identifying ultimate elements than particle physicists.
Should we give up the attempt to uncover an ultimate foundation to the universe? Is our inability to find an ultimate foundation a limitation of language, or of our capacity to make sense of the world, or is it to do with the nature of reality itself? Or is it just possible that if we hold in there, one day we will crack the ultimate puzzle?
Cognitive psychologist Donald Hoffman, longstanding critic of realism Hilary Lawson, and leading physicist Priya Natarajan, lock horns over the foundations of reality.
There can be little doubt, judging from wall-to-wall media coverage, that we assume elections profoundly affect our lives. But there's a risk they have far less impact than we imagine. A recent wide-ranging study of Western governments over the last thirty years remarkably showed no relation between the ideological outlook of citizens and actual social policy. Moreover critics from right and left argue that it is unelected officials and corporations that primarily determine policy. Meanwhile, long-standing political challenges like social care and wealth inequality remain unaddressed for decades despite changing governments.
Should we conclude that leaders and governments rarely make a significant difference to core policy? Are elections largely about a show of democracy rather than the actuality? Could and should we change this state of affairs and if so how? Or is the belief that elections are important essential to democratic nation-states?
Anarchist philosopher Sophie Scott-Brown, former Indian election commissioner S.Y. Quraishi and author Amy Chua, lock horns over the effectiveness of elections.
'Ever since Einstein's special theory in 1905, it has been a central pillar of science that the speed of light is an absolute fixed limit and the same in all circumstances. But critics argue this is a mistaken assumption that prevents physics from making progress. They maintain the period of cosmic inflation that in the standard picture of cosmology followed the Big Bang has to take place at many orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light. Moreover, researchers argue that Einstein's general theory never prohibited faster-than-light travel in the first place.
Should we abandon the sacrosanct idea nothing can exceed the speed of light as a flawed assumption that derails physics? Should we be less attached to Einstein and more open to new and alternative theories? Or are these dangerous proposals that threaten to undermine the remarkable successes of science over the last century?
Portuguese cosmologist João Magueijo, philosopher of physics Tim Mauldin, and award-winning physicist Claudia de Rham, debate the speed of light.
Defenders of the free market argue that competition drives down prices and benefits all. China is the poster child for this case with nearly a billion lifted out of poverty since 1990. But competition and free markets can also lead to dangerous monopolies, and higher prices. Entrepreneurial gurus like Peter Thiel advise 'if you're starting a company, aim for monopoly'. Critics argue that unconstrained capitalism allows companies to cement initial advantage by buying competitors, and using scale to dominate the market. They claim the world's largest companies have gained success not by competition but by acting like feudal overlords.
Should we conclude that free market capitalism inexorably leads to monopoly if it is not constrained? Do we urgently need to break up or rest control from the corporate giants that dominate the markets? Or can we relax, confident that in time capitalism and market forces will replace the current overlords with new ones?
Former Deputy Finance Minister for Iraq Ali Allawi, and co-founder of the new Institute for Journalism and Social Change Claire Provost, debate free markets and feudal overlords.
In the closing decades of the last century, many were critical of American global dominance. But twenty years on America's relative decline has ushered in a new multipolar era that many contend is profoundly more dangerous. We have an unpredictable conflict in Europe larger than anything since World War II and international tension greater than at any point since the height of the Cold War. Meanwhile from the Middle East to the South China Sea, a host of regional conflicts have the potential to spiral out of control, and the new world order looks increasingly precarious.
Can we navigate to safety through international cooperation and treaties? Do we need to align in power blocks to provide overall defence, or is it safer to remain independent providing less of a threat to others? Or is the only solution for one nation or alliance to once again become globally dominant?
Former President of Armenia Armen Sarkissian, Chief Executive of Chatham House Bronwen Maddox, and leading war correspondent Christina Lamb, debate whether the global dominance of one geo-political bloc is safer for world order.
For centuries we imagined that language was transparent. The 20th century changed all that. Philosophy, with the so-called linguistic turn, came to see language as central to our understanding of reality and set out to make it precise. But a hundred years on, the project is widely seen to have run aground. Critics argue that the danger now is that, because the problems of language and the world are so intractable we have imagined they can be ignored. For how can we make sense of widely held metaphysical claims, such as the existence of parallel universes, or that we are all living in a simulation, or everything is consciousness, if we don't understand what our words mean and how, or whether, they describe reality?
Should we return to the positivist notion that all general claims about the nature of reality are empty theorising and should be abandoned? Can we find an alternative account of language that will enable us to make sense of such theories? Or was the linguistic turn an error and is it now time to return to the common sense notion that language is transparent and all can be said?
Philosopher and longstanding critic of realism Hilary Lawson, and leading philosopher of physics Tim Maudlin debate the nature of language and reality.
Many identify themselves with their inner voice - the silent voice in our heads we can use to think, plan and ponder. But from Lacan to Nietzsche many have warned this inner voice is not ourselves, nor is it innocent or harmless. Studies from Durham University and Trinity College Dublin link the inner voice with increased anxiety. While others show those that take their own lives are often tortured by a subliminal voice. Furthermore, research at Imperial, and the University of Michigan found evidence that when our inner voice is reduced mental health improves.
Should we conclude the inner voice is not the "real me", and its voice should be treated with caution? Should we seek to quieten the inner voice using techniques like psychotherapy, and meditation, and would doing so help combat the mental health crisis? Or did we evolve an inner voice for a reason, and should we see it as our conscience, a problem solving tool and as a guide in our lives?
Psychologist and author Steve Taylor, award-winning author and psychologist Frank Tallis, Durham philosopher Jack Symes, and Anneli Jefferson, debate whether the inner voice is the self.
'If you want to change the world, pick up your pen and write' declared Martin Luther King. For writing is central to our culture and seen as the vehicle of precision and accuracy. Theories, contracts, treaties all need to be written to be taken seriously. But there is a hidden danger in our reliance on writing, for it can give the illusion of precision and truth. From Wittgenstein to Derrida, philosophers have argued that precise meaning is elusive, as legal disputes over contracts testify. In an internet age, we increasingly use text to communicate, but as many discover it can frequently derail rather than enhance understanding.
Have we mistaken written text for the truth when it is often a reach for control, an attempt to impose your story on others? Are we undermining meaning and diminishing our reality by spending time framing emails and texts when we should be using the fluid potential of speech instead? Or are we right to be dazzled by the timeless quality of writing and its capacity to change the world?
Best selling author John Ralston Saul, poet and novelist Ruth Padel, and award-winning author Joanna Kavenna, debate whether the written word has been mistaken for truth.
The classic picture of success for much of the last century has been a detached suburban house, 2.4 kids, and a shiny car. But is there a danger this dream of domestic bliss is out of touch with the realities of human psychology, economics and our evolutionary roots? For much of human history, we lived in extended groups of 20 or more. In a family of four, if one relationship fails, the whole unit is at risk. Unsurprising perhaps that 1 in 5 adults now say they always or often feel lonely. With challenges in child and elderly care and a global housing crisis projected to affect 1.6 billion people by 2025, critics argue the isolated nuclear household has to go.
Is it time to abandon the ‘picket fence dream’ as an unnatural, and unsustainable way of living? Should we seek to adopt a radical new model of the home which embraces co-living and shared domestic labour? Or is this an elitist pipedream that ignores the realities of everyday life and the pleasure individuals and families get from living in their own home?
Best-selling author Des Fitzgerald, anarchist Sophie Scott-Brown, and historian and activist Hannah Rich, ask if it is time to abandon the suburban dream.
'Rewards are the means of all government' proclaimed US President John Adams. A principle we have adopted in many areas of our lives, from children's gold stars and prizes to incentives at work, and religious tales of paradise to come. But evidence now suggests there are risks to this approach. Studies show rewards can damage wellbeing fostering dependence and undermining our own sense of control. And neuroscientists have shown those more prone to seeking reward have a 70% higher risk of addiction, with addictive behaviour now present in almost half of the U.S. population.
Should we seek to wean ourselves off reward and instead learn to experience the present for its own sake? Should we adopt a Stoic framework where action and virtue are seen as their own ends? Or is the current culture of reward in personal and professional life not only hugely beneficial but a much more effective means of social intervention than the punishment regimes of the past?
Best-selling psychologist Paul Bloom, world-leading behavioural economist Dan Ariely, and Stoic expert Nancy Sherman debate the risks of rewards.
We see Darwin's theory of evolution as central to our understanding of the animate world. At the same time as Descartes identified, we can doubt almost everything but we can't doubt the fact of experience. Yet there is a danger these two central beliefs are irreconcilable. From the point of view of evolution, everything biological has a function in sustaining the species, but researchers claim no function can be found for conscious experience. And if there is no survival benefit to experience why has it evolved?
Should we accept that the theory of evolution and the reality of consciousness are incompatible? Do we need to radically alter our understanding of one, or the other, or both? Or is the core issue that we have no credible theory of consciousness and without it we are not going to be able to make experience compatible with science at all?
Oxford biologist Denis Noble, consciousness theorist Stuart Hameroff, and philosopher of cognition Antonella Tramacere, ask if evolution and consciousness are incompatible.
It was a profound shift to our understanding of the cosmos when 25 years ago astronomers identified that the universe is not only expanding but accelerating away from us. A new force was needed to account for this and dark energy was the solution. But critics claim there is a risk that dark energy is nothing more than an empty hypothesis, since two decades on we still have no explanation for it and no independent confirmation of its existence. Yet it supposedly makes up 68% of the universe.
Do we need to get rid of dark energy in favour of an alternative, such as changing Einstein's theory of relativity, or modifying gravity? Is the standard cosmological model of the Big Bang and cosmic inflation itself at stake and might the universe be very different than we currently suppose? Or is the dark energy hypothesis the best hope we have for making sense of the deep mysteries of cosmology?
Leading physicist Claudia de Rham, award-winning astronomer Priya Natarajan, and renowned Oxford astrophysicist Chris Lintott, lock horns over dark energy.
Ever since the French Revolution, equality has been the battle cry of those who think themselves progressive. Today on matters of gender and income most want a more equal world and think more should be done to deliver it. But there is a risk that no one really knows what kind of equal world they want, and some critics argue focusing on equality is self-defeating. We don't for example want equality with the lives of others we see as undesirable. And since the 1970's while there have been significant advances in women's rights studies show women's happiness to have decreased. While in the workforce despite the widespread introduction of diversity initiatives, 62% of workers said the programs aren't effective and half say the programs failed them personally.
Does the demand for equality risk forcing everyone to adopt the same life goals as those driven by money and power? Instead of equality should we focus on the rights and wellbeing of all individuals? Or is the call for equality a key and essential political goal that we cannot afford to abandon or water down?
Former Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow, philosopher of race Tommy Curry, economist Vicky Pryce, and Conservative MP Lisa Cameron, debate what we want from equality.
Creativity is often seen as a uniquely human quality. But with generative AI competing with and rivalling human skills, is this core facet of humanity under threat? As machines demonstrate an increasingly sophisticated ability to generate art, music, and literature, the once-sacred notion of human exclusivity in creativity is being questioned. 75% incorrectly identify AI artworks as man-made, while creatives globally are fearful of cuts to earnings and jobs as they face off with the new technology.
Do we have to accept that there is nothing special about the originality of humans, and creativity once so prized is a skill machines can also master? Do we need to reassess what it means to be human and with it the future of innovation, and invention? Or are the skills and qualities of generative AI overhyped and in fact no more than the dumb and repetitive combination of insights initiated by humans?
Film director Martha Fiennes, computer scientist Judith Donath, and award-winning essayist John Ralston Saul, explore how AI affects what it means to be human.
Big Tech was once the envy of the world, transforming the way we live, work and think. But critics claim attempts to monitor Big Tech have failed and point to the serious threat that regulators don't understand what they are regulating. A recent high-profile member of the US Congress argued lawmakers don't even understand what AI is, let alone how to oversee it. As evidence of the failure, 41 US States are suing Meta for deliberately designing features to addict children, while Big Tech's vast financial clout, funding university research and government salaries vitiates oversight.
Do Western governments need to follow the Chinese example and build their own expertise and tech platforms to effectively regulate Big Tech? Should we seek to regain control by breaking up the Big tech giants? Or is the value of innovation sufficient to overcome fears of the growing political and cultural power of the technology behemoths?
Economist journalist and editor Kenneth Cukier, AI researcher Joscha Bach, Alexander Evens, and data ethicist Shannon Vallor, ask if big tech can be controlled.
The mystery of how the universe began, and why there is something rather than nothing, is a puzzle that has perplexed scientists, philosophers, and theologians from the outset of thought. Even Hawking declared science 'cannot answer why there should be a universe'. But is there a risk that we have failed to recognise the wider significance of this deep puzzle? The hugely influential philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that the ideas that the universe has a beginning or has no beginning, are equally incoherent. He concluded that human thought is not capable of describing what he called 'transcendent reality'.
Should we see our failure to provide an answer to the beginning of the universe as evidence of a fundamental limitation of thought? As a result, are our accounts of the world and science itself, mere versions of a reality that in the end lies beyond our comprehension? Or was Kant wrong, and a solution to the mystery conceivable even if it has not yet been framed?
MIT complexity theorist Scott Aaronson, theoretical physicist Marika Taylor, mathematician John Lennox, and AI researcher Joscha Bach debate the puzzling mystery of the origin of the universe.
Once a West Coast phenomenon, self-improvement is big. Advocates of self-improvement strategies with journals, ice-baths, cold showers, and meditation have millions of followers. And it's a huge business too: the global personal development industry is estimated at $44 billion last year. But recent evidence indicates self-improvement can be a risk to our health. Studies show self-criticism contributes to depression, anxiety, and substance abuse. This can even turn fatal: 56% of those who committed suicide exhibited a 'perceived external pressure to be perfect'. It is not even clear that self-improvement is really possible, after all who is the self carrying out the improvement?
Should we conclude that the self-optimisation industry is peddling an illusion? Is a focus on pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps not only misguided but a means to squeeze joy out of our lives? Or is self-improvement a way to provide meaning and direction and find a profoundly better way of living?
Guardian columnist Jessica DeFino, Cambridge film and literature critic James Riley, and professor of philosophy Nancy Sherman, ask if self-optimisation is achievable.
Since Magna Carta, we assume individuals have a right to the property or land that they own. If nations, like Ukraine, are invaded we champion their right to retrieve their land. But there is a risk these principles which we think universal are only applied to the strong. 95% of the native population in North America was wiped out by European invasion. Just two hundred years ago the first removal of Native Americans took place and since then 99% of their land has been taken and is now deemed to be 'owned' by others. The small number of Native Americans remaining suffer severe inequalities in health, wealth and education. Little has been done to redress the situation and almost no one is proposing returning the land.
Should we accept that principles of rights to ownership apply only to the strong? Is the widely held belief in inalienable rights in fact hypocritical and only applied when convenient or desirable? Or is our attachment to universal rights genuine and should we be returning a major part of the land in North America to its original inhabitants?
Renowned philosopher Peter Singer, professor of indigenous political thought Dale Turner, author Janne Teller, and professor of race Tommy Curry, debate land and ownership.
Once values such as justice and equality were agreed upon by all. Now they are identified by some as vehicles to entrench or overturn power. On the left, 'justice' as a means to sustain and impose privilege, 'truth' as an attempt to claim enduring authority. On the right, 'diversity' and 'equality' as means to undermine the status quo in favour of a new elite. The danger is apparent to many. Without agreed values, society is increasingly divided. Debate is limited by tribal associations that make discussion hard if not impossible.
Do we need to re-engage with those whose values and beliefs we reject, while accepting that our own values are not universal? Should we seek to construct a new enlightenment to provide an agreed basis for progress that could apply to all? Or do we just need to reinforce the liberal democratic values of our past?
Leading philosopher of race Tommy Curry, metamodernist Robin Van Akker, and sociologist Eva Illouz, go in search of values that we can all endorse.
'We have the impression that science unravels the mysteries of the universe. But with every mystery solved, a new mystery emerges. The Big Bang gave us an explanation for the expanding universe but left the mystery of how it came about. Quantum mechanics accounted for the strange behaviour of subatomic particles, but led to the puzzle of its conflict with relativity. Dark energy made sense of an accelerating universe but led to the mystery of why we have no evidence for it. Is there a danger that we are making a fundamental mistake in imagining science can eradicate mystery, and do we need to think of science differently as a consequence?
Do we need to abandon the idea that science has the potential to provide a complete explanation? Should we not expect science to eradicate mystery and instead simply require that its theories work well enough for our current aims and purposes? Or is the ability to overcome mystery essential to the effective operation of science and a core idea responsible for its success?
Philosopher of science and writer Bjørn Ekeberg, theoretical physicist Claudia de Rham, and CERN physicist Harry Cliff, debate the mysteries of the universe.
'The world of reality has its limits; the world of imagination is boundless' proclaimed Rousseau. We are inclined to agree, but doing so risks making the world appear more understandable and knowable than perhaps it is. Imagination operates within the ideas and concepts available to us. Once we thought it unimaginable that a thing was in two places at once, yet this is just such a reality described by quantum mechanics. While some make the case that imagination is not even sufficient to fully empathise with another, instead we need to have had similar experiences.
Do we need to accept that imagination is limited and so also is our understanding of the world and the lives of others? Are scientists and novelists profoundly constrained in their ability to uncover reality or describe the world of those with radically different experiences? Or is this to severely hobble our capacity to make sense of the world and was Rousseau right that the power of the imagination is unlimited?
Film-maker and Director Martha Fiennes, professor of developmental psychopathology Simon Baron-Cohen, and award-winning novelist Joanna Kavenna, debate whether the imagination is limited.
The world's largest democracy, India, is seen as the West's obvious ally against the growing might of China. But might there be a risk that India is not the stalwart ally the West has assumed? Question marks have been raised about India's attachment to freedom and democracy. In the last 20 years they fell from 27th to 108th in democracy rankings and to 161st out of 180 in press freedom. In foreign policy India is at best ambiguous. Ignoring sanctions on Russia, India is the third largest buyer of Russian oil. And in 2017 joined Russia and China in the economic and defence group, SCO.
Is it time to recognise that Modi's India, with the largest population in the world and the fastest growth, has its own agenda independent of the West? Will India be central to a future world where the West and its values are a sideshow? Or will history and culture bind India to Western values in the long term?
Economist and life peer Meghnad Desai, former Chief Election Commissioner of India S.Y. Quraishi, and Oxford Director of Contemporary South Asian Studies Kate Sullivan de Estrada, debate India's role in the future of the world.
From cats to caterpillars, hedgehogs to humans, we divide the world of living things into distinct and separate organisms. But while central to our perception of the world and evolution, these distinctions now look dangerously simplistic. Studies show that the boundaries between one creature and the next are not clear. Forests of 'distinct' trees are often connected by networks of fungi which, like a great nervous system, are essential to their survival. And almost all large creatures co-exist with great swarms of bacteria that are essential to their very life function.
Should we move away from an organism centred biology, and recognise the interconnected character of life? Should we reject the idea that a living thing constitutes a distinct and stable entity? Or are discrete units of life essential to our understanding of the world?
Oxford biologist Denis Noble, pioneering researcher and geneticist Frances Ashcroft, and multidisciplinary scientist Johnjoe McFadden, debate life and its environment.
We think women can have it all: a career and contributing to the economy along with children and the rewards of raising a family. But critics argue there is a danger that this is impossible in the current social framework. Lifetime earnings for graduate women are still only slightly more than half that of men in both the US and UK. While globally women carry out 75% of domestic labour and over a quarter of women are unable to have a career due to family commitments.
To address these issues do we need to make it possible for women to have equivalent lifetime earnings to men while also having and rearing families? Do we need a mechanism to enable payment for all currently unpaid work? Or is this a fanciful pipedream and 'having it all' an illusion, and we all must make a choice in the way we balance the satisfactions and rewards of career and personal life?
Radical journalist Aaron Bastani, and chief economic advisor Vicky Pryce, debate having it all.
Most see romantic love as the essential basis for marriage and long-term partnerships. Yet this is a relatively new phenomenon originating in the mid to late 18th century. There is a danger this romantic ideal hides the reality that love is often not enough to sustain long-term commitment and carries with it risks to our own well-being. A 2014 psychiatric study found those in love were more likely to experience depression and anxiety. While a recent BBC study found those who emphasised love were more likely to have shorter relationships and exit them cruelly.
Should we give up the idea that romance is the key to long-term relationships and instead see it, as it was once seen, as a threat to those relationships? Would we be better to focus on compatability, economics and children? Or should we see romantic love not only as the most vivid and exciting experience in our lives but also the most important?
Philosopher of emotion Simon May, journalist and broadcaster Jenny Kleeman, and filmmaker and activist Myriam François, debate our attachment to romantic love.
We take it for granted that thinking helps us to understand the world and make good decisions. And to think is to reason. But there is a risk this is not the whole story. Studies into flow states where individuals are single mindedly focussed on a single task, without self reflection or reasoning, have identified that less deliberation rather than more leads to better performance. A McKinsey study of top executives found them to be five times more productive and better decision makers when in such states. While researchers have also shown that scientists rely as much on 'tacit skills' and experience as on logical thought.
Should we abandon our focus on reasoning as the best means to determine action? Should we give priority to practical experience over theory, and body over mind? Or at a time when public debate is ever more divisive, is it essential we double down on rational thought to rule out mistaken and dangerous proposals?
Quantum consciousness theorist Stuart Hameroff, evolutionary psychology critic Subrena E. Smith, and best-selling author and psychologist Paul Bloom, explore the nature of thought.
'Unexpressed emotions never die... but are buried alive and come forth later in uglier ways' claimed Sigmund Freud. Today we've gone a step further with the assumption that expressing feelings is important for mental well-being. We praise the sharing of mental health struggles, encourage men to express their emotional troubles, and uphold journaling as a valuable daily routine. But there's a problem. A recent study by Cambridge scientists showed that people trained to suppress negative thoughts, rather than unpack them, felt better and improved their wellbeing. Those with mental health issues benefitted the most. Meanwhile with millions seeking therapy, over half say they receive little or no benefit.
Might we all, and therapists in particular, be making a fundamental mistake in thinking the expression of emotions is always beneficial? Can we improve wellbeing and address the mental health crisis with the suppression of negative thoughts and feelings? Or would this re-embed the stigma surrounding mental health and reverse hard-won progress?
Cultural critic Theodore Dalrymple, psychiatrist Simon Wessely, and positive psychology specialist Vanessa King debate whether Freud was dangerously wrong.
From the origins of the universe to the functioning of the brain, we see science as a quest for the underlying truth of things. The worldviews and personal opinions of the scientists are thought to be irrelevant. But might this be a dangerous mistake? Critics argue the personal experience and outlook of the scientist is a key element that cannot be eradicated. Einstein's criticism of quantum mechanics for example was ultimately based on his personal view that 'God does not play dice with the world'. While accounts of the brain reflect the historical time and perspectives of the scientists involved – once the brain was seen as a telephone exchange, now it is commonly described as a computer.
Should we conclude that all scientific theories are influenced by the personal outlook of the scientist, and the particular worldview they hold? As a result, do we need to ensure that scientists hold a wide range of different outlooks and have varied personal backgrounds? Or is such an approach fundamentally misguided, and instead science should always seek to eradicate the personal and focus on the brilliance of the theory alone?
Philosopher of extinction Ben Ware, mathematics and climate physicist Tim Palmer, and professor of theoretical physics Marika Taylor, debate science and objectivity.
Religion has been on a decline in the West for the last fifty years, with recent numbers falling rapidly in the US. For decades the youngest generation was the least likely to believe in God. But in a 2020 YouGov survey Generation Z was shown to be 25% more likely to believe in God than millennials. Meanwhile the so-called New Theists argue for the adoption of Christian beliefs not on the grounds that they are true but they are the means to create a stable and successful culture. While secular critics argue the return of belief risks a new age of superstition, bigotry and intolerance.
Is the rise in new age and traditional religious belief in the young a dangerous return of unsupported fantasy? Should we double down on the need for rationalism and a careful scientific assessment of evidence? Or is it a welcome sign of a desire for an agreed moral framework in response to the chaos of a post-truth world?
Trail-blazing psychologist Paul Bloom, Mumford & Sons guitarist and Spectator columnist Winston Marshall, professor of ethics and theology Fellipe do Vale, and philosopher and former Green MEP Catherine Rowett, debate the new era of belief.
Hugely influential in the latter decades of the 20th century, postmodernism transformed many academic disciplines and culture at large. Associated with an attack on objective truth and the uniqueness of meaning, it called into question the whole edifice of knowledge which Western culture had previously glorified. But it left many lost, and in the wake of a polarising post-truth world there is a widespread recognition that we need to move on. Feminist and post-colonial critics though claim there is a danger that instead we risk retreating to the questionable certainties of the past. Alongside defenders of objective truth like Richard Dawkins and Noam Chomsky, figures like Jordan Peterson argue for a return to moral certainties and belief in the existence of God.
Are there viable alternatives to postmodernism that are not simply a return to belief in universal truth? Are metamodernism or model theoretic realism possible ways forward? Or is the chaos initiated by postmodernism so profound that the only credible approach is to return to the Enlightenment notion that we can arrive at the objective truth?
Philosopher and author of Closure Hilary Lawson, metamodernist Robin Van den Akker, and LSE political economist Abby Innes, debate what lies beyond postmodernism.
Our narratives enable us to make sense of the world. From setting the scene and providing a means to understand what is happening, to placing ourselves at the centre of our own life's story, narratives help structure our goals and our lives. But there is a risk that rather than helping us understand the world, narratives can hide reality from us providing delusional states of mind in its place. From witch hunts to cults, from war propaganda to religious honour killings, people are prepared to kill and die for stories they believe in, that others see as wildly false illusions.
Should we see ourselves as trapped by our narratives as much as we are dependent on them to make sense of the world? Can we avoid becoming absorbed in narratives that are dangerous to ourselves and others? Or is it possible to escape the limitation of our own narratives to see the world as it is, and if so how?
Join culltural critic Theodore Dalrymple, award-winning author Matthew Beaumont, and renowned poet Ruth Padel, debate how narratives affect our minds.
Human understanding has enabled us to achieve many things once thought impossible, and we assume our theories are successful because they uncover the true character of reality. But critics argue there is a danger this is an illusion. Theories they contend are effective because they provide a framework to make sense of the world but they do not describe reality, nor do we have a credible account of how any theory could in principle describe reality. The theories of science are all open to revision because they are models rather than descriptions of an ultimate reality.
Should we give up the notion that our theories are true descriptions of the world? Should we assume that there are an indefinite number of alternative accounts that might prove more effective? Or is truth a necessary goal of our accounts of the world without which we would be impossibly lost in a welter of competing narratives?
Cutting-edge philosopher of physics Tim Maudlin, leading theoretical physicist Lisa Randall, insightful interdisciplinary thinker Abby Innes, and dark-matter physicist Bernard Carr, lock horns over whether theories are true or just our best guesses.
'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder' is the way Margaret Hungerford reframed an old saying about beauty in the mid-19th century. And most of us endorse her phrase. But critics point to the danger that the idea that beauty is subjective has the potential to validate prejudice and immunises our taste and choices from criticism. Not only does subjectivity mean there is no reason to prefer Tolstoy to Tiktok, Picasso to Pornhub, but it also means cultural stereotypes are made acceptable, for example, that certain body types and nationalities are desirable.
Do we need to abandon the idea that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and see it instead as linked to justice and human flourishing? Should we be more self-critical of certain aesthetic judgements? Or is it essential to retain beauty as subjective to avoid the tyranny of an 'objectively' correct aesthetics?
Guardian columnist Jessica DeFino, philosopher Simon May, award-winning novelist Janne Teller, and author of The Beautiful Soul Justine Kolata, ask if beauty is subjective.
'Until a decade or so ago it was widely assumed there were two sexes and two genders. Now it is held by many that the sexes are not two but a spectrum and there are an indefinite number of genders. Hot and sometimes vicious debate has ensued. But there is a danger that we are confusing a debate about language with reality. Language provides the framework through which we make sense of the world rather than how it is in itself. The number of sexes is not therefore going to be definitively identified as a matter of fact in a lab, but is a product of how we define and use the word 'sex'.
Should we recognise that there is no right answer to the number of sexes or genders? Should we see the number of sexes and genders as a political and practical choice about the outcome we desire rather than a factual description of the world? Or is this to obscure the everyday evidence that there is a fact of the matter?
Gender theorist Fellipe do Vale, award-winning molecular biologist Güneş Taylor, and journalist author and podcaster Aline Laurent-Mayard debate sex and gender.
In an ever more complex world, we think data is crucial to helping us make sense of things. Some even claim data as information is the basis of the universe. But critics claim there is a danger our trust in data is misplaced. From economic statistics to climate change data, from COVID data to political polling, we have access to more data than ever before, yet we rarely agree on what the data tells us, our predictions based on it are often wrong and we are more polarised than ever. Moreover, philosophers of science point out that data is always dependent on the theory and system used to frame and collect it.
Should we conclude that data is not objective and never free of the prejudices of those instigating and interpreting it? Does data help us to make sense of the world, or has it made us even more confused, lost, and divided? Or should we double down on data, and appreciate that most of our problems are caused by not looking at the data closely enough?
Join FT data correspondent John Burn-Murdoch, political economist Abby Innes, and technology journalist at The Economist Kenneth Cukier, as they deconstruct the world of data hosted by Juliet Riddell of the FT.
A Truly Unique Offering
The Independent
Press
